The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08//tgmwc-08-73.03

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-73.03
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly. With regard to Eigruber,
No.8, he is no longer in Nuremberg, and he is being held as
a probable defendant in the case concerning Mauthausen Camp,
which will be dealt with by a military court, and therefore
the prosecution suggests that in these circumstances, as he
is one of this group dealing with concentration camps in
general and Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt
with by interrogatories.

Then with regard to Hoettl, No. 9, he deals with two aspects
of one point, that is, that Kaltenbrunner on his own
initiative ordered the surrender of the concentration camp
of Mauthausen, and that he took steps to induce Himmler to
release people from concentration camps. These seem to be
general points that again might be conveniently dealt with
by interrogatories.

And the same applies to the witness von Eberstein, who deals
with the point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have
given an order to destroy the concentration camp at Dachau
and that he did not give an order to evacuate Dachau. The
prosecution suggest that these ought also to be

With regard to the next witness, Hoellriegel, the
prosecution make no objection to further cross-examination,
and respectfully suggest to the Tribunal that he will be
able to deal with the question of Mauthausen, which is one
of the main questions that this whole group of witnesses is
called to deal with.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Maybe I can say something to that . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with No. 12, in the same

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No. 12 is not in the same group,
because he deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner's
relations with Eichmann and with reports he received
regarding the action against the Jews. We have no objection
to this witness being called for cross-examination, as Dr.
Kauffmann did not cross-examine him.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, No. 8, may I
point out that this witness is here in Nuremberg. However, I
agree that interrogatories be sent. The subject of the
evidence itself seems to me decidedly relevant, for what
Eigruber is supposed to testify is neither more or less than
the fact that the concentration camp at Mauthausen was
directly supervised by Himmler through Pohl and the
commander of the camp. Kaltenbrunner denies the possession
of exact knowledge regarding Mauthausen. The witness Hoettl
. . .

THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here in
Nuremberg. Sir David said he has been removed from Nuremberg
for the purpose of trial by a military court. So perhaps you
will not object to interrogatories in that case.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. The witness Hoettl is, in my opinion, an
important witness. As we know, Kaltenbrunner is also accused
of having participated in the conspiracy against the peace.
Here I intend to prove that Kaltenbrunner

                                                  [Page 137]

conducted an active peace campaign ever since 1943. An
important name in this connection is Mr. Dulles. He is,
according to Kaltenbrunner, the late President Roosevelt's
confidential agent. Mr. Dulles was in Switzerland. According
to Kaltenbrunner, meetings between them constantly took
place with this object. I believe that this subject of
evidence is relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Hoettl in person,
not by way of interrogatories?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.

DR, KAUFFMANN: Witness No. 10, General of the Police
Eberstein, is called to prove that the statement of another
witness of the name of Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will
perhaps remember that the prosecution submitted an affidavit
by a man named Gerdes who was an important figure in Munich.
He was the confidential agent of the former Gauleiter of
Munich. In his affidavit, Gerdes accuses Kaltenbrunner of
ordering the destruction of Dachau by bombing. Kaltenbrunner
emphatically denies that.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly dealt
with by interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did
give an order to destroy a concentration camp, or an order
to evacuate Dachau. Surely those are matters which admit of
proof by interrogatories.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree. The same problem arises in
connection with the next witness, No. 11 the witness
Hoellriegel, who has already been heard. Am I to have the
opportunity of speaking to this witness before he is cross-
examined? Kaltenbrunner denies that he ever saw gas
chambers, etc.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, is not No. 11 really
cumulative to No. 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.

THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the
question whether you ought to be given the right merely to
cross-examine or to recall as your own witness, with
reference to 11 and 12.


Just a word about witness No. 12. Eichmann, as is well
known, was the man who carried out the whole extermination
operation against the Jews; and Kaltenbrunner's name has
been mentioned in connection with this operation.
Kaltenbrunner denies it. For that reason I consider
Wisliceny a relevant witness.

THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the
other ones, Sir David? Are they in the same category?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFF: Not quite, but I think it might be
convenient if I deal with them.

Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner
did not authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders
for protective custody or internment, and I should submit
that in view of the previous evidence of Scheidler and No.
4, Neubacher, Dr. Mildner's evidence is cumulative and that
interrogatories would suffice.

As to Schellenberg, No. 14, I have already said that the
prosecution make no objection to his recall for cross-

Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because
the object of his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended
to the Gauleiter of Austria not to oppose the advancing
troops of the Western Powers and not to organize Werewolf
movements, is in our submission irrelevant to the issues
before this Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann?

                                                  [Page 138]

DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is here in
Nuremberg, in custody. I have asked to call this witness
because he has submitted an affidavit containing certain
accusations against Kaltenbrunner which Kaltenbrunner

I do not think that an interrogatory can clear up these

Now, No. 14 . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner has submitted an affidavit?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir. There is a reference in the
Indictment to an affidavit made by Dr. Mildner. I believe it
was on 3rd January. The witness's name was mentioned in
connection with the charges against Kaltenbrunner. There are
one or two affidavits . . .

THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit has not been produced to
the Tribunal, what have we got to do with it? We have not
seen it, at least in my recollection.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You know about it, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have not been able to trace this
affidavit of Dr. Mildner's. I do not remember it, but I will
willingly check the reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the prosecution has used the
affidavit, then you would have no objection to the witness
being called for cross-examination?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason why
I am rather surprised is that usually that point has been
taken when it is sought to use the affidavit. The defence
counsel involved has asked for the production of the
witness, but I will have it looked into, this particular
point; but in general the Tribunal may take it that unless
we put forward a special point, where an affidavit has been
given and where we have not argued to the Tribunal
previously, it is a very good case for the witness being
brought here, if it is convenient.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that Dr. Kauffmann was
saying that the affidavit had actually been put in by the
prosecution, but there was some reference made to it. Is
that right, Dr. Kauffmann?

DR. KAUFFMANN : It won't take me long to look it up. I have
the files for 3rd January here.

(Here Dr. Kauffmann looked through a file of papers.)

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, we will give you an
opportunity for looking that up. We will adjourn now for ten

(A recess was taken.)

DR. KAUFFMANN: The name of Mildner appears in the transcript
of 2nd January, not in the form of an affidavit but in the
form of a letter written by a third person and this letter
is only mentioned in connection with Mildner's name , it is
not an affidavit. I should like to request that Mildner be
interrogated in writing.

Now turning to witness No. 15.


DR. KAUFFMANN: We have already dealt with No. 14.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very
well, then, Fifteen.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness No. 15 is Rainer, who was a former
Gauleiter I should like to request that this witness be
heard as well. He is in Nuremberg. The subject of the
evidence seems important to me. In the case against
Kaltenbrunner, though he is not expressly charged with
matters relative to peace and violations of peace, yet an
effort on the part of the defendant to prove that he has
done everything in his power to prevent further bloodshed
seems to me relevant.

                                                  [Page 139]

THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, my Lord.


DR. KAUFFMANN: I have not yet submitted any documents, Mr.
President. Later on, I may present some affidavits, but as I
have not yet received them I cannot present them at the

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, that
you wish to reserve for yourself the right to apply to put
in documents at a later stage.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you
know when they make the order.

Yes, Dr. Thoma?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal with
the document list.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: On the first six documents, which
are quotations from various books on philosophy, the
prosecution submit that they are irrelevant to the question
of the ideology propounded by the defendant Rosenberg, on
which the prosecution base part of the case against him.

Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would
quote from such books in making his speech and if he would
let us know the passages he wants to quote so they can be
dealt with mechanically, we do not make any anticipatory

I think that takes us up to No. 6, which are purely general
books on philosophy. The prosecution view with some dismay
all these books being put in evidence and the prosecutors
having to read them.

I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr.
Thoma wishes to use them to illustrate the argument, and if
he lets us know the passages, we make no general objection,
but we object to their being put in as evidence, as not
being relevant to the matters before the Tribunal.

DR. THOMA (counsel for the defendant Rosenberg) : I do not
think that it is possible without a consideration of world
philosophy before Rosenberg's time to understand the morbid
psychological state of the German people after their defeat
in the first world war. Unless this psychological condition
is appreciated, it is impossible to understand why Rosenberg
believed that his ideas could help him. I am extremely
anxious to show that Rosenberg's theories were
representative of a phase of contemporary philosophy taught
in similar form by many other philosophers both at home and
abroad. I am extremely anxious to refute the charges made
against Rosenberg's ideology as degenerate and - I must
quote the expression - a "smutty ideology". I have to bear
in mind that the members of the prosecution, especially M.
de Menthon, who has made a special study of the National
Socialist ideology, made the very natural mistake of
confusing the extravagances and abuses of this ideology,
usually dubbed "Nazi-ism," with its real philosophic
content. The French Revolution of 1789 was in the same way,
I believe, represented by neighbouring peoples as a disaster
of the first magnitude; and all the rulers in Europe were
called upon to fight against it.

I believe that the Tribunal was especially impressed by M.
de Menthon's statements, which represented he Nazi ideology
as having no spiritual value and described it as a dangerous
doctrine. I think we must allow the possibility of its being
taught in other countries as well at that time. I should
like, therefore, to ask permission to present the
philosophical systems of the time in question, by which I
mean the views expressed by other philosophers on
Rosenberg's main concepts, especially the question of blood
or race; the soil as a fact of nature and as political and

                                                  [Page 140]

living-space. Science declares that these ideas are based on
the irrational presentation of natural and historical facts.
They cannot be dismissed for that reason as anti-scientific,
although they may be disturbing to rationalism and humanism.

I should like in particular to prove that these ideas have
been respected and developed by rational and empirical
science on account of their significance; and that they have
been put into practice by other countries in their policy -
a fact which I think is important. I need only remind you of
the USA Immigration Laws, which also give preference to
particular races.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he wants
to use the teachings of other philosophers as illustrations
and arguments. If he is going to quote from them, then all
that the prosecution ask is that he tell us which passages
he is going to quote, but we suggest that it is not relevant
for us to go into an examination of, say, M. Bergson's book
as a matter of evidence.

It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr.
Thoma will be well able to develop the point which he has
just put with the limitation which I have just suggested.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know
what it is that you actually propose. Are you proposing to
put in evidence certain passages from certain books and that
the Tribunal should read them or are you simply asking for
the production of books so that you may consult them, read
them and then incorporate in your argument certain ideas
which you may gather from the books?

DR. THOMA: I ask the Tribunal to note - officially, at least
- the contents of the books which I shall submit. I shall
not read all these quotations from the books, but I shall
ask the Tribunal to note the outlines. I think it is
important for the Tribunal to have the passages quoted from
these books actually before them, so that they may have a
clear picture of the philosophical - and particularly of the
ethical situation - of the German people after their defeat
in the World 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.