The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-107.04

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-107.04
Last-Modified: 2000/01/13

Q. One little moment. But why did Kruger act through you?

A. And further, this document does not indicate in any way
in what capacity I was there; not once does he mention that
I was there as his police superior. He knows only that
naturally as Chief of the Intelligence Service I had to
report very often to Himmler. He asked me also on this
occasion to make these reports. But Kruger was - as probably
appears from the document - Secretary of State for the
security system in the Government General. He was Secretary
of State there, and

                                                  [Page 339]

as Secretary of State he was subordinate to the Governor
General and as Secretary of State -

THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast and you are making far
too much of a speech.

A. - and as Secretary of State for police matters in the
Government General, he of course was immediately subordinate
to Himmler. That must be -

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I beg you to answer briefly, did Kruger ask
you to report to Himmler on this subject or not? That is the
only thing I am asking you.

A. As far as I know this meeting was a large meeting of
administrative officials and everyone asked all those, who
were closest to the Fuehrer or Himmler

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Tell me yes or no. Did he ask you to report
or not?

A. I do not know that.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Then I will ask you a second question.

A. From the wording I can only take


A. You are not allowing me to finish.

THE PRESIDENT: What did you say to the last question? Wasn't
the question "Did you go there?" Colonel Smirnov?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I had another question to put, Mr.

THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you what your last question was.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I asked the following question, Mr.
President: Did Kruger report to Himmler through
Kaltenbrunner? I was asking the defendant to answer this
question and to abstain from making speeches.

THE PRESIDENT: What was your last question?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Did Kruger ask Kaltenbrunner to report to
Himmler on this subject. My second question - Mr. President,
are you asking about my second question?

THE PRESIDENT: I wanted him to answer your question. Will
you tell him what question you want him to answer. Don't ask
him two; ask him one question. Can't you hear what I said?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Ask him one question and see whether you can
try and get him to answer it.


Q. Did Kruger ask for this to be reported to Himmler, and
what did he say?

A. It is possible that he did ask me but not as a superior.
You must realise what type of an assembly it was; that must
also become apparent from the diary. I did not go there as
the Chief of the Security Police or as Kruger's superior,
but Kruger, like dozens of other people, reported on the
food situation, the administrative system.

Q. I would ask you to refrain from further explanations. You
answered my question and it is not worth continuing on the

THE PRESIDENT: What is the matter, Dr. Seidl?

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, a quotation from Frank's diary has
been read to the defendant, Kaltenbrunner. Frank's diary
consists of forty-two volumes and I should like to suggest
that the prosecutor gives the place and the volume and the
date of the entry, so that one can determine in what
connection that occurred.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, yes.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Here we have a precise indication: this is
a conference of the 31st May, 1943. There it is headed
"Labour Congress The document is registered as Exhibit USA

THE PRESIDENT: This diary has, presumably, got a date.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: That is correct. This conference took place
on 31st May, 1943, there is the date.

THE PRESIDENT: That is what Dr. Seidl wants to know.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have a second question to put to the

                                                  [Page 340]


COLONEL SMIRNOV: If, as the defendant says, he was
exclusively employed on Intelligence work and had no work
outside Intelligence activities, then did he consider the
buying over of the Iran elections, and the receipt from
Ribbentrop of 1,000,000 Tumans for sending to agents as
entering purely within the scope of Intelligence work?

A. I definitely had nothing to do with the buying of votes
in Iran; but I admit that, of course, agents of my
Intelligence Service did work in Iran.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: You did not ask Ribbentrop for 1,000,000
Tumans for bribery?

A. No, I had sufficient means to pay my agents myself.

Q. This letter bearing Kaltenbrunner's signature has already
been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR 178, during
Ribbentrop's cross-examination. Mention is made in this
letter of the allocation of 1,000,000 Tumans. Does the
defendant deny this evidence which Ribbentrop himself has

A. I believe that I did not demand any money from Ribbentrop
because I had enough money. Show me this letter. It is
perfectly possible. I had sufficient funds at my disposal
for the Intelligence Service.

Q. The original of this letter has already been submitted to
the Tribunal during Ribbentrop's interrogatory. We only have
the copy but the original, of course, can be brought
immediately from the Document Room. It is said here that in
order to exert a decisive influence on the elections,
400,000 Tumans would be needed for bribes in Teheran and at
least 600,000 Tumans for the rest of Iran. The letter ends
as follows: "I request you to tell me briefly if it would be
possible to obtain 1,000,000 Tumans from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. It would be possible to transfer this money
by people whom we are sending there by aeroplane. Heil
Hitler. Your devoted Kaltenbrunner, ObergruppenFuehrer." The
contents of this letter are quite definite. Ribbentrop
acknowledged the letter. Are you denying Ribbentrop's

A. Not in the least, but I would like to add the following
as far as this document is concerned: I cannot remember it
easily because it was written in Office VI. I do not know
the contents, did not know them until now. It bears my
signature which was necessary because it is a letter to a
Minister of the Reich which, of course, for reasons of tact,
I had to sign personally. As to the subject itself, I am
grateful that the last question in this cross-examination is
a question which actually refers to my sphere of activities
proper. You are the first prosecutor to whom I must be
grateful on that account and who at least can no longer
conceal that my agents and my activities extended as far as

Q. Is that your signature?

A. Yes.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this
defendant, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: What document is that you put to him then?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: This is Exhibit USSR 178, Mr. President.


COLONEL SMIRNOV: That is Kaltenbrunner's letter addressed to
Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 27th June,

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Now, the Tribunal will
deal with Dr. Thoma's documents for Rosenberg. Is the
prosecution ready? Are you ready, Mr. Dodd?

MR. DODD: Yes, your Honour.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient for Mr. Dodd to tell
us how the position stands? Would it be agreeable to you,
Dr. Thoma, if Mr. Dodd tells us how the position stands?


MR. DODD: Dr. Thoma has prepared three Document Books and
there are two

                                                  [Page 341]

volumes to the first book, two parts, two volumes, and I
should like to take up first, Volumes I and II of the first
Document Book. In the first Volume I -

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already looked at these

MR. DODD: Well, there is contained in the book that has been
submitted to us a number of authorities, starting with that
first document by Falckenberg, "The History of Modem
Philosophy," and running down to the "Introduction into the
Psychology of the Nations," by Hellpach, and really, as we
understand the ruling of the Tribunal, on 8th March, it
stated that these books could be used, so far as appropriate
for the purpose of argument and to this end, they should be
produced and made available to defence counsel; and the
Tribunal went on to say that any particular passage which
counsel for the defence wish to quote should be incorporated
in the document book for translation.

We object to all of these excerpts and mostly for the same
reasons, and I think I can discuss them as a group rather
than individually.

THE PRESIDENT: We have all read them and we only wish to
hear any arguments which Dr. Thoma desires to put forward.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I would like to stress that only
the legal points of view prompt me to offer writings of
contemporary historians as evidence in this trial. The
Tribunal has to decide whether there is a connection between
Rosenberg's ideology and the war crimes and crimes against
Jews. I assert that in addition to that ideology, other
factors, so-called preliminary conditions, that is the
entire contemporary situation, the philosophical and
spiritual outlook, contributed their part, but the main
question is this: Did Rosenberg culpably anticipate the
dangerous possibilities of his ideas and nevertheless
propagate them? In what manner can he be considered guilty
if Rosenberg was convinced that his ideas were right and if
he was unaware of their dangerous potentialities. I shall
therefore indicate facts about the spiritual outlook of the
time which prove that his ideas were perceived and even
championed by scientists. I will show that other countries
introduced certain National Socialist measures such as
limiting births of children unfit for life, even before
Rosenberg's books were written. Further I shall allude to
the results of the biological investigations of scientists
on the natural pre-requisites for the existence of man and
the ensuing limitation of man's freedom. I shall point to
the effects and consequences of a technical age, and I want
to refer to the fact that irrational ideas and conceptions
have been taken seriously even by rational empirical
science, and I want to show how laws govern the development
of philosophical concepts and political movements which are
often inevitable. On the basis of these scientific
conclusions it is possible that Rosenberg underestimated or
overlooked the dangerous side of his ideology, to wit, that
all ideas and conceptions degenerate according to the laws
governing the human mind. The question of guilt must,
therefore, be regarded in a new light and, in my opinion,
also the question of carelessness should be examined. These
theses will be extracted from works on natural science by
Eichstedt, Muhlmann, Scheidt, Reiter, and from the
philosophical works of Hellpach, Messer, Tillich, Buber,

Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the belief that a philosophy of
the irrational might be applied to politics may sound
ridiculous, but I would mention that, even fifteen years ago
in Germany, it was preached that a policy based on Christian
ethics was nonsensical because Christian ethics could not be
applied in the political sphere.

Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the question of the connection
between Rosenberg's ideology and the war crimes must not, or
rather should not, be confused with the charges against
Rosenberg of actual participation in the murder of the Jews
and the crimes in the East. This has another connection. I
will have to refute separately the actual participation of
Rosenberg in these matters.

I would like to draw your attention to one more important
point. Organisations are also indicted, some of the members
of which had formerly been under the

                                                  [Page 342]

influence of Christianity and the so-called youth movement
and were won over to National Socialism because they
believed that National Socialism would advance their
Christian and idealistic aspirations. They are now left
helpless in their camps, disappointed in this world. They
too have the right to ask that the Tribunal be told what
they believed in and what they had been taught. I believe
that I have made it clear that I am not trying to deliver a
lecture on ideological philosophies, but to point out that
there are very important legal problems raised.

Gentlemen of the Tribunal, if any of the authors are
unsuitable then I shall forgo quoting them. Perhaps Lapouge
may not be suitable at all. I withdraw his work, although it
is precisely Lapouge who points out that certain biological
laws have also been applied in the legislation of other
States. But Mr. Justice Jackson objected to a passage from
Lapouge and I withdraw it herewith. There are also one or
two works of Martin Buber which I am willing to withdraw.
But I particularly wanted to use Martin Buber to prove that
we are concerned here with principles which have nothing
whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism but merely represent a
philosophy which is as justified as the philosophy of
nationalism during the last centuries; But I ask this
Tribunal that, while presenting my evidence, cognisance be
taken of the philosophical-cultural background, primarily
through actual proofs and facts: Gentlemen of the Tribunal,
if I presented these facts in my address I would run the
risk of presenting only my own views. That is why I need
these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, we understand that you object to
all up to that book of Hellpach. Then, with reference to the
other volumes, the others are all Rosenberg's own documents,
aren't they?

MR. DODD: Except the two last.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the two last are in the same category, I
suppose, as
the ones down to Hellpach, aren't they?

MR. DODD: Yes, there are also some quotations from
newspapers contained in the Document Book on Pages 182 to
185. We also make objection to them.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they in Volume II?

MR. DODD: Yes, they are in Volume II of Book 1.

THE PRESIDENT: I was dealing, at the moment, with Volume I
of Document Book 1.

MR. DODD: That was the objection in Volume 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, you are not objecting to his other

MR. DODD: No, your Honour, we are not.

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.