Archive/File: people/r/rauff.walter/Rauff-deposition-translation
Last-Modified: 2002/03/22
[Nizkor's thanks to Roberto Muehlenkamp for this translation.]
SS Obersturmfuehrer Walter Rauff, head of division II D at
the [I]Reichssicherheitshauptamt[/I], the Reich Main
Security Office, became a celebrity due to a number of very
detailed and telling letters that were written by or
addressed to him. The most notable of these were the
following:
1. Letter to the Criminal Technical Institute dated 26
March 1942. A facsimile, transcription of the original
text and translation can be viewed under the following link:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/19420326-rauff-sonderwagen/
2. Letter by Dr. August Becker to Rauff dated 16 May 1942.
A transcription of the original German text can be found
under the following link:
http://www.nsarchiv.de/einsatzgruppen/gaswagen/becker/an_rauff.shtml
A partial translation of that letter can be found
under the following link:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/becker.august/becker-to-rauff.051642
3. Letter by Willy Just to Rauff dated 5 June 1942. A
facsimile, transcription of the original text and
translation can be viewed under the following link:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/19420605-rauffspezialwagen/
After the war, Rauff managed to escape from American
captivity in Italy and found save haven in Chile, from where
he could not be extradited to Germany or any other country
under the Chilean statute of limitations.
In 1972, however, he voluntarily made a deposition in a
criminal procedure against another SS officer, Bruno
Streckenbach, before the embassy of the Federal Republic of
Germany in Santiago de Chile. A transcription of the
protocol of this deposition can be found under the following
link:
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rauff.walter/WalterRauff.1972.txt
What follows is my translation of this transcription.
[quote][From: ZSL, II 415 AR-Z 1310/63-E32, Bl.534-549,
StA Hamburg Az. 147 Js 31/67.
Copy kindly made available by ZSL.
(Blackening due to data confidentiality reasons were
rendered with XXXXXXXXX)]
[Reference 45 from: Sonderdruck: M.Beer, _Die Entwicklung der
Gaswagen beim Mord an den Juden_, Miszelle, VfZ 37(3), pp.403-417 (1987)]
[p.1]-------------------------------------------------------------------
Embassy
Of the
Federal Republic of Germany
Santiago
Santiago, 28 June 1972
RK Sk 1600
Interrogation Protocol
------------------------
Present LR I Dr. XXXXXXXXX, authorized to carry out
all consular tasks, XXXXXXXXXX as protocol writer
in the preliminary judicial investigation against
Bruno Streckenbach
Suspect of murder (NSG)
There appeared
at the request of the Hamburg County Court, examining magistrate 4
- Az.: (54) 3/70 - of 1 March 1972
1.) County Court Counselor XXXXX, examining
magistrate 4 at the
Hamburg County Court
2.) Public Prosecutor XXXXXXXXX, public prosecution
at the Hamburg County Court
3.) Attorney at Law Dr. XXXXXXXXX, as defender of the suspect
4.) the witness Walter Rauff.
The witness was admonished to tell the truth,
informed of the consequences of an untrue deposition
and interrogated as follows:
1. Personal Data:
My name is Walther Rauff, 66 years old, living
in XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, widower,
industrialist, German national. No relative or
in-law of the suspect. Informed about his right
to refuse a deposition according to paragraph
55 StPO [German law of criminal procedure],
he is willing to make a deposition.
- 2 -
[p.2]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 2 -
2. On the Subject Matter:
Between 1924 and the end of 1937 I was at the
Reich Navy. I left the Navy at my own request and
was discharged with all honors. "With all honors"
means that I had the right to wear a uniform and
was entitled to a pension.
I now searched for a new employment
corresponding to my training. During my time at
the Reich Navy, I had me SAObergruppenfhrer von
Jagow, who had been a reserve officer with me. He
called me one day and told me that he had talked
about a job for me with Heydrich. I was to present
myself at the office of the [I]Geheime Staatspolizei[/I]
to Dr. Best. At this presentation Dr. Best told me that I
was supposed to begin my work at the SD main
office on 7.1.1938. It was foreseen that during
six months I should go through all departments of
the security police, the SD and the crime police on
an information basis. I began my rounds with
Schellenberg at the SD main office. After a few
weeks, however, the original plan was dropped. I was
now put in charge of the personal and material
mobilization preparations for the SD and the security
police. This means that I was to check which
members of the SD and the security police would in
case of mobilization have to stay at their posts
under all circumstances.
In this area I remained until the merger of SD
and security police to constitute the
[I]Reichssicherheitshauptamt[/I]. As far as I
remember, that must have occurred at about the time
of the beginning of the war with Poland.
During the Polish campaign I was in Berlin.
During the Norwegian campaign I was in Oslo to organize
the news communications with Germany from there. Heydrich had
told me that thereafter I could for some time go
back to the navy. From the beginning of 1940 onward
I thus was with the navy for at least a year,
clearing mines in the Channel. In the first months of
1941 I was called back to Berlin. As they told me,
Heydrich himself had requested me from Raeder.
- 3 -
[p.3]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 3 -
I now became head of division II D at the
RSHA. In this division all technical matters were
regulated. The division II D (technology) consisted
of 6 or 7 sections. I was head of division until
several months after the death of Heydrich.
Thereafter I was sent to an assignment in Africa
with Rommel.
When Heydrich went to Prague as a Protector I
accompanied him there to organize the local news
network. During this time I often traveled between
Berlin and Prague. When the attempt occurred I
was in Berlin and about to leave for Rome. When
Heydrich's aides told me that his life was not
in danger I traveled to Rome. As far as I
remember I stayed at the RSHA another 3 -
4 months after Heydrich's death. I think
Kaltenbrunner had already been nominated
Heydrich's successor when I went to Africa. If I'm
now being told that Kaltenbrunner took charge only
at the beginning of 1943 and that Heydrich died on 4
June 1942, however, I would like to say that I had
already gone to Africa at the time Kaltenbrunner took
charge.
If I'm asked for the head of department II, I
remember a small public servant whose name I don 't
recall at the Moment. If the name Dr. Siegert is
mentioned, I can only say that I was referring to
him. The first dead of department II, however, was
Dr. Best. At any rate I remember that Dr. Best had
been head of department II since the constitution of
the RSHA, although I can no longer say today when it
was that he left the RSHA.
The head of department I (personnel) since the
merger of security police and SD to the RSHA was
Streckenbach, as far as I remember. If I am asked
whether after the constitution of the RSHA the former
department I was split into the new departments I
and II, I have no memory of such a process.
If further confronted with the name Dr.
Nockemann, I can say that he also was, as far as I
remember, head of department II.
- 4 -
[p.4]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 4 -
About Dr. Nockemann I remember that he had a
car accident at which his wife and his driver lost
their lives. Dr.Nockemann then left the department
II and was later killed in action in Russia. I
cannot say, however, when the accident was and when
he left the department II. I would now say that Dr.
Siegert was Dr. Nockemann's successor, but I cannot
state this with certainty.
How long Streckenbach was head of department
I, I don't know either. I cannot even say if he
ever left the RSHA. Neither can I say with certainty
if he was still head of department when I left the
RSHA and went to Africa. A successor of Streckenbach
I do not know. Even if confronted with the
names Schulz and Ehrlinger I cannot remember them
as successors of Streckenbach, although I well know
Ehrlinger as a person.
I would still like to clarify that I was with
Rommel only for a short time and already returned to
Berlin before the battle of El Alamein. My stay in
Berlin, however, was also a short one and
thereafter I went to Tunis with my people. Already
since I first left for Africa I had no longer
taken any care of procedures in Berlin, especially
at the RSHA.
I know that the relationship between Best and
Heydrich was a very tense one. I know that Best
wanted to leave the RSHA because he didn't get
along with Heydrich.
If asked for the relationship between
Heydrich and Streckenbach, I think that Streckenbach
was very reserved towards Heydrich and by no means
approved to all of Heydrich's measures. As far as I
can judge, however, the relation between Best and
Heydrich was tenser than the one between
Streckenbach and Heydrich. I would like to add,
however, that I had much more to do with Best
than with Streckenbach. In response to the
corresponding question I would further like to stress
that I got to know nothing from Heydrich about his
relation to Best and Streckenbach.
- 5 -
[p.5]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 5 -
This because, although Heydrich had also been
a member of the navy, I had no personal contact
with him. My first personal encounter with
occurred only after I had been at the SD main
office for more than on year.
Gradually I became aware that there were
many intrigues inside the RSHA. I don't know what professions
Streckenbach had had before, in my opinion
he made his way straightly and correctly at the
RSHA, which was bound to shock a man like
Heydrich. As the main source of my experience in
this respect I can name Dr. Pltz, who was a good
friend of mine. I also learned something through
Kluckhon. I cannot say to what areas the
measures of Heydrich to which Streckenbach did
not approve referred, but I can state with
certainty that there were differences between him
and Heydrich.
About the relationship between Streckenbach
and Himmler I know nothing.
I don't know if Streckenbach was in any way
involved in the administration of department II, but
I don't think he was. As far as I can remember Dr.
Siegert was full head of department and not just in
charge of heading department II on behalf of
someone else.
Also after having been shown Heydrich's letter
of 20.6.1941 (sheet 6802) I can only say that I
cannot remember ever having seen this letter.
Even after having taken knowledge of the contents
of this letter I cannot remember that Dr. Siegert
should have headed department II only in someone
else's representation.
Of the Russian campaign I was informed
officially only on the night before the
commencement of this campaign. On that evening I
learned from Heydrich at the RSHA or at some other
place I don't remember that the campaign against
Russia was to begin the next morning. Up to this
communication I had
- 6 -
[p.6]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 6 -
no concrete indications whatsoever that a
campaign against Russia was imminent and when such a
campaign would begin.
I can neither remember today that for this
Russian campaign special detachments
[[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I]]and units should have been
constituted in Pretzsch,Dbe and Bad Schmiedeberg.
Only the place Bad Schmiedeberg is in some way in
my memory today in connection with the formation
of special detachments, because I was responsible
for their equipment I would not have known,
however, where the coming assignment would take
place. In this context I would like to point out
that the special detachments were not equipped
with winter clothing as would have been
necessary for an assignment in Russia.
For the provision of the motor vehicles of
the security police my subordinate Pradel was
responsible. Pradel, who had come from the order
police, didn't like me and was in a certain conflict
with me. As to whether I had differences with
him regarding the provision of motor vehicles
for an upcoming assignment after my return from
the navy, I consider that possible, but cannot
remember it exactly. I can neither remember having
had a meeting with Streckenbach in this respect.
I have been shown the respective statements
of Pradel in his interrogation on 30.3 1971 (Sheet
6965 f, 6969). I can only say the following about
this: The major Puschke that Pradel mentions is
not known to me; I always dealt on a higher level,
i.e. with General Fellgiebel in matters of communication
material. In matters of motor vehicles I dealt at a
similar level with the OKW, without however being
still able to provide a name. It is not correct
that, as Pradel states, I only returned to the
department from the navy after the commencement of
the Russian campaign. I neither remember to have
spoken about the motor vehicles with
Streckenbach. I cannot say whether in preparation of
the coming assignment Streckenbach
- 7 -
[p.7]-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 7 -
beyond mere matters of personnel, but I don't
think he was either. At any rate I don't remember
that he in any way became active on the area of the
material equipment, for which the
competence resided with department II. I can neither
remember to have taken part in a meeting headed
by Streckenbach in which issues of the coming
assignment were discussed.
When asked how the representation of
Heydrich was regulated, I remember that at the beginning
Heydrich was represented by Dr. Best. I cannot say,
however, if this regulation was kept until Dr.
Best lets the RSHA. In this context I would like
to point out that Heydrich was an extremely
suspicious man who don't liked it if another sat on
his chair and ruled on his behalf.
How the issue of Heydrich's representation
was regulated when I returned to the RSHA at the
beginning of 1941 I don't know. I can only
assume that someone represented him in his
absence, without however being able to say who that
could have been. Also for the time of his activity
in Prague and for the time after his death I
don't know what the representation regulation was.
I can only assume that during this time the heads of
department were directly subordinated to Himmler.
Furthermore a man like for instance Mueller would never
have subordinated himself to Strechenbach or another
head of department at the same level.
As far as I know there very several
candidates for the succession of Heydrich, but I am
not able to give names in this respect. Whether
Streckenbach was being considered as a successor I
don't know, but I consider it possible as he had a
good name at the security police and the SD, this
not for having played the wild man but for his
being calm and objective. The fact of
Kaltenbrunner having then become Heydrich's
successor surprised at least me.
I neither now anything about whether there was
a regulation regarding the representation of one
head of department by another. I would
personally say that in case of impediment
affecting one head of department the respective
- 8 -
[p.8]------------------------------------------------------------------
- 8 -
head of division became active under his own
responsibility or turned directly to the head of the
main office.
Of the measures against the Jews in Russia I
knew right from the start. I never got to know
officially, however, on what order the killing of
the Jews was based. While I got to know
after the war that there was a so called Fhrer
order, the content of which was the liquidation
of the Jews for racial reasons, I cannot remember
that during the war it had ever been said that
there was such an order. Of the existence of such
an order I should have been informed for my
activity in Tunis, because there were many Jews
there who even worked for us voluntarily without
anything happening to them.
Already during the Polish campaign I
had heard of liquidation measures against the Jews,
without being still able today to say whether I
got to know that officially in the course of meetings
or from any conversations.
I have been shown the protocols of the
meetings of the heads of department in the
autumn of 1949. Although I am mentioned as a
participant in most of these meetings and although
the initial under the protocols is without doubt my
own, I have no memory at this time of having taken
part in these meetings. Herewith I by no means
intend to question the accuracy of these protocols.
If I think about this issue, I consider it possible
that in my above mentioned capacity as mobilization
organizer I took part in these meetings and,
being the youngest of those present, was put in
charge of writing the protocol.
Upon questions by the public prosecutor.
----------------------------------------
It was not part of my tasks as mobilization
organizer to take care of the setting up of the
special unit [[I]Einsatzkommandos[/I]]. That was not
even being discussed at the time.
The occupation of the CSR was a sort of acid
test for my activity as mobilization organizer,
because at that time it turned out that a part of
the men who went on assignment should
have remained behind. That's why a new listing of
those men who under any circumstances
- 9 -
[p.9]------------------------------------------------------------------
- 9 -
had to stay on their post was made.
Due to the experiences in the CSR the
setting up of [I]Einsatzgruppen[/I] was organized
prior to the Polish campaign. I was involved in this in
regard to the technical equipment of
these detachments. The instructions for this I
received on the one hand from Oberfuehrer Albert,
the head of department I of the SD main office, and
from Dr. Best on the other.
Regarding the equipment of the
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I] in the Russian campaign I must
have received my instructions from the then in
charge head of department, without being able to say
if at the time it was Dr. Nockemann or Dr. Siegert.
I thing that I returned from the navy in March or
April of 1941. Whether the preparations for the
Russian campaign in regard to the equipment of the
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I] had already commenced at this
time I don't know.
I know nothing of an organization order for the
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I] in the Russian campaign that
was signed by all participants.
The fuel required by the [I]Einsatzgruppen[/I]
was provided by the Wehrmacht. That had been agreed
upon at the highest level. The required ammunition
was supplied directly to us by the Wehrmacht
pursuant to negotiations with the Wehrmacht, and
we then sent it to the [I]Einsatzgruppen[/I]. There
was thus no direct delivery of ammunition by
the Wehrmacht to the [I]Einsatzgruppen[/I], as
far as I know. The mentioned negotiations
were even conducted by Heydrich himself whenever I
was not getting any further. I personally can thus
not imagine that Streckenbach should have told
something about "Barbarossa" to a subordinate like
Pradel for negotiations with the Wehrmacht. The
required drivers were taken from the existing
ranks of drivers or from slightly wounded who
returned from the front and were still
operational. I don't know anything about the NSKK
[[I]Nationalsozialistisches Kraftfahrerkorps[/I],
National Socialist Truck Drivers' Association]
having been turned to. I consider it doubtful that
Streckenbach should have told Pradel to get in touch
with the NSKK in this respect.
- 10 -
[p.10]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 10 -
It may be that I talked with Streckenbach
about personnel matters in regard to the
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I], but I have no concrete
recollection of such a meeting. I actually know of
no single positive case in which I went to
Streckenbach in service matters. I last saw
Streckenbach in 1960 or 1962 when I was in Germany.
I was sitting in a cafe in Munich back then and
casually saw Streckenbach passing by. We talked then,
but not about common matters of service.
I cannot remember Streckenbach having been
leader of an [I]Einsatzgruppe[/I] during the Polish
campaign and later head of the security police in
Cracow.
Of the liquidation measures in Poland I must
have got to know through meetings of the heads of
department. A memory of my own in regard to these
matters I no longer have today. I know that in one
of these protocols liquidation measures towards the
Polish intelligentsia were mentioned. Whether the
liquidation of Jews was mentioned in other
protocols I don't know. I neither recall if at
the lime there was a separation between a "short
term goal" and a "final goal". Whether I
concluded from the meetings of the heads of
department already at that time that the Jews were
to be generally annihilated or whether that was
even expressly mentioned at the meetings of the heads
of department I no longer know. I would say,
however, that such would have been recorded in the
protocols if it had been expressly discussed.
If in the protocol about the meeting on 21.9.
1939 it is said that Jewry was to be concentrated
in the cities in ghettoes to make possible a better
control and their being pushed away at a later
stage, I cannot say today what was meant by pushing
away at that time (sheet 1713). As becomes apparent
from the protocols of the heads of department there
is no mention yet of a final solution therein,
which means that I must revise my deposition
insofar as I stated above that I knew of the general
liquidations already in September 1939.
- 11 -
[p.11]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 11 -
If in the protocol about the meeting of 27.9.
1939 it is further stated (sheet 1714) that
shootings were now only to be carried out in case
of self defense and escape attempt while all order
procedures must be handed over to military
tribunals to give them so much work that they could
no longer cope with it, I cannot say with certainty
what is behind that. I presume that at the time
the Wehrmacht had complained about some
shootings, because the Wehrmacht was the highest
judge in the front line area and didn't like
anyone else to carry out shootings or other judicial
measures in their area. If it is further stated in
the mentioned protocol that of the political
leadership only 3 % were still left (sheet 1713),
I cannot say what happened to the remaining 97
%. Probably a great part of them fled to the East.
At any rate I consider it impossible that the 97 %
were shot beforehand, because for that there
were to many partisans afterwards who were led by
members of the intelligentsia.
If in the protocol of 16.10.1939 (sheet 1723)
it is further stated that C addressed the
liquidation of leading Poles and mentioned lists
to be presented by the leaders of the
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I], I no longer have any memory
thereof today.
The old problem of SD-police and Wehrmacht
mentioned in the remark of 5.10. 1939 (sheet 1720 )
was the one that the Wehrmacht hat absolute
priority in the front line area but the security
police and SD carried out tasks that were up to the
Wehrmacht to carry out but could not be carried
out by it. Thus there were always quarrels. It may
be, but it is not necessarily so, that such
differences also related to shootings. How this
problem came up again, however, after Heydrich had
declared at the meeting of 19.9 1939 (sheet 1705)
that his meeting with Colonel Wagner could be called
a very favorable result in the co-operation with
the Wehrmacht, I don't know.
- 12 -
[p.12]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 12 -
Whether I asked to take part in the meetings
of the heads of department I don't know. It is
possible that I should have done that in regard to
the equipment problems.
The file notes were meant for our own files, not for
Heydrich.
All these assessments of the protocols don't
bring me any memory of my own about the
occurrences at the time, although I have thought
about them several times after such a protocol was
first sent to me.
Regarding the annihilation of Jews in Russia I
know that gas vans were used for this purpose. I
cannot say, however, from when on and to what
extent this happened. I used to think that the thing
with the gas vans started at the time when I was at
the navy. Today I have doubts about this and
consider it possible that this matter only got
going after I had returned from the navy. At any
rate I now that at some time after my return I saw
two of these gas vans standing in the yard, which
Pradel showed to me. Somehow I then also learned
that the gas vans were used for the execution of
sentences and for the killing of Jews.
I consider it impossible that Pradel should
have carried out the development of the gas vans
on his own initiative. He must have received an
order for this either from me or from another
superior standing above me.
Whether at that time I had doubts against the
use of gas vans I cannot say. The main issue for me
at the time was that the shootings were a
considerable burden for the man who were in charge
thereof and that this burden was taken off them
through the use of the gas vans.
I don't think that Dr. Siegert was
involved in these matters at the time, although he
probably knew about them.
It is correct that I received something from
Becker about the used of gas vans. I myself had
told Becker to send me a corresponding report.
- 13 -
[p.13]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 13 -
I cannot explain why in the letter from section
II A 2 of 19.11.1942 (sheet 3698 and following)
shown to me Dr. Siegert is mentioned as "head of
department in representation" and why this letter is
also signed by Streckenbach "in representation".
I can remember no process from department
II that I submitted to Streckenbach.
It is not correct that I belonged to the
same training course as Heydrich at the navy. He had
entered the navy in 1922, whereas I came in only in
1924. He was a radioman, I was a mine seeker, and
he was on shore while I was on board. Due to all
these reasons there was no personal contact between
us during my time at the navy. For this reason I did
not turn to Heydrich when I left the navy, my
connection was the already mentioned von Jagow.
Later however there were closer personal contacts
at a familiar level, without that having had any
consequences in terms of service let alone brought me
advantages.
Heydrich was an insanely ambitious man, a
fox who was extremely suspicious and tolerated no
one next to let alone above him. He was also a person
who could not lose. Not even in a game. Accordingly
the relation between him and all other persons at a
very high level, such as for example
Streckenbach, was very difficult due to
Heydrich's personality. I can thus repeat my
statement mentioned above that an honest and straight
person like Streckenbach had a shocking effect on
Heydrich.
I cannot positively remember having witnessed
Streckenbach and Heydrich together, but it is
probable that I did. At least I would heard one
of them talk about the other and heard about their
relation from Heydrich's adjutants. From all this I
can draw the conclusion that the relation among
them was very reserved.
- 14 -
[p.14]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 14 -
A concrete example for differences between Heydrich
and Streckenbach I cannot name.
Dr.Ploetz got along well with everyone,
including Streckenbach. Whether he was a friend of
Streckenbach's I don't know. Dr. Ploetz was
everything other than a soldier, how he got his job
as an adjutant I do not know. Like everyone else he
Dr. Ploetz was also to carry out an assignment
with the fighting troops at Heydrich's wish. It is
correct, however, that Ploetz got to the front only
after Heydrich's death. The front line
assignment desired by Heydrich, at least for the
leaders, was to take place at the Waffen SS or
the Wehrmacht. I know nothing about Heydrich
having opposed a transfer to there. He however
reserved himself the right to decide himself on the
time when that was to happen. Assignments with the
security police in the occupied territories he did
not consider as front line duty.
Upon questions by the defender
------------------------------
Do you assume that the contents of the meetings
of heads of department and of
[I]Einsatzgruppen[/I] leaders and respective
protocols, especially the protocol of 27.9. 1939
(sheet 1710 and following) was communicated to other
persons than those mentioned in the file note?
I am of the opinion that the contents of the
protocols were not even communicated to the persons
listed at the beginning of the protocol, because
these protocols carry no distribution plan. I think
that these protocols were made mainly as memory
helpers for myself.
When confronted with the statement in the
protocol of 27.9.1939 that deportations of Jews into
the foreign language [I]Au[/I] and pushing them over
the demarcation line had been authorized by the
Fuehrer, I say that this meant the pushing away of the
Jews from the German territories as far as possible
to the east. If in this context a killing of the Jews
had also been mentioned, I would certainly have taken
that into the protocol.
- 15 -
[p.15]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 15 -
If in this protocol it is further mentioned
that shootings are from now on to be carried out
in case of self-defense or escape attempts while all
other procedures are to be handed over to military
tribunals, this means that all previous shootings had
bee based on procedures, i.e. judicial procedures
or judicial verdicts, insofar as they were not
related to cases of flight or self-defense.
If in this protocol it is further mentioned
that of the political leadership in the occupied
territories a maximum of 3 % were still lift, then
this number was certainly mentioned at the time. I
don't consider it to be correct, however, and think
that a much higher percentage was still left. I
also consider the
numbers mentioned by Becker in his report to have
been highly exaggerated in order to make an
impression.
When confronted with the following
characterization of Heydrich: "Vindictive person,
exceptionally fast on the uptake, always exactly
informed. Arguing with him was useless - he stuck to
decisions that were often against any reason - during
such arguments he made tough and unjust statements to
the point of being insulting, leaving no room for
opposition", I would as a complement to what I above
said about Heydrich myself underwrite this statement
word by word as being accurate.
Upon question by the public prosecutor:
I myself never tried to fight through an argument
with
Heydrich because that was useless. If not even a man
like Dr. Best could measure up to him, how am I
supposed to have done that. I never experienced a
confrontation between Dr. Best and Heydrich myself,
however, and I cannot give another concrete example
either of Heydrich having been inaccessible to other
points of view and having stuck to a position once
taken even against better knowledge. I can only say
on the basis of my personal contact with him that the
stated characterization is accurate, and I can for
example point out that in Prague during visits of the
state president he declared that he would only
approach him
- 16 -
[p.16]-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 16 -
to a certain extent and stuck to this position
even after a young man from the diplomatic service
who was in charge of the protocol had told him that
he should approach him further. In this context I
would like to repeat that Heydrich could not bear to
lose in a game and that therefore my comrades and I
in Prague had agreed to let him win at "Doppelkopf"
[a card game].
On the other hand it is certainly correct that
Heydrich could be a very charming and attentive host.
Schellenberg was a man just as pathetically
ambitious as Heydrich.
Approved after dictation and signed.
Walter Rauff
[signature]
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Walter Rauff
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Protocol writer
Dr. KXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[Seal: Embassy
of the Federal Republic
Counsel 1st Class of Germany
Santiago][/quote]
Home ·
Funding ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009
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.