53. On Paragraph 131
The Accused was demonstrably not connected with the Reinhard
54. On Paragraph 132 – Fate of the Jews from Stettin and the
territory of the Reich
On the Accused’s participation in the deportation from
Stettin an explanation has already been given which shows
that the deportation was not initiated by the Accused. Nor
was it the Accused who ordered the deportation of the Jews
from the Reich. The evacuation was the result of the general
Jewish policy of the top levels of the leadership. The
Accused had no influence on this policy.
55. On Paragraph 133 – Warthe District
1. The Accused does not deny that in the Warthegau [Warthe
District] the State Police offices were under the control of
the RSHA and thus in Jewish matters also belonged to his
Section. But the difference was that Gauleiter Greiser,
Governor of the Warthegau, also had his own right to issue
instructions to his State Police offices. This is indicated
by the available documents.
The Accused had no centralized plenary powers.
2. Nor did the Accused as a Specialist Officer have any
power of control over the Loedze Ghetto. From the documents
submitted it can be seen that here as a representative of
Heydrich with special authority he was ordered to attend a
discussion with the OSTI concerning economic matters.
56. On Paragraph 134 – Other areas annexed to the Reich in
1. It should be noted that the Accused limited his Section’s
responsibility for Bialystok to carrying out the “work that
was ordered on the deportation” with which he was
“entrusted.” This was primarily the evacuation.
Thus his permanent deputy Guenther also only carried out the
2(a) The Judgment mentioned a cable dated 16 December 1942
about the deportation of 30,000 Jews from Bialystok which
contains an order from Office Chief Mueller. The cable went
out via the Accused’s Section. This provides good support
for the Accused’s claim that in such matters he was simply a
transmitter of orders.
(b) The same applies to Himmler’s order to execute seven
Jews in a camp. It was for organizational reasons that the
implementation reports then also went back to Himmler via
the Accused’s Section.
57. On Paragraph 136 – Generalgouvernement
1. The documents and the Accused’s Statement do not indicate
any responsibility on the part of the Accused for the
Generalgouvernement. The Generalgouvernement’s independence
was not limited by the absence of unlimited freedom, but by
the fact that of necessity a central authority existed to
clarify cases of doubt or questions which might impinge on
overall government policy and were of importance to the
2. The fact that the Accused dealt with the question of the
foreign Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto is no proof of the
Accused’s authority. An examination of the context shows
that in the matter which had been taken up by the Foreign
Ministry the Accused was sent with a special mission to
clarify the situation on the spot. The Accused is not here
acting on the basis of any general authority as a Specialist
3. The document referred to in the Judgment concerning
foreign nationals in the Generalgouvernement and other
Eastern Occupied Territories is signed by Kaltenbrunner.
This is an indication that the Accused himself had no
general authority. His Section was restricted to preparing a
draft in accordance with instructions issued.
The same is also shown by the letter referred to of 23
September 1943, which is signed by Mueller.
4. The Court’s assumption that the Accused undoubtedly knew
that the report of the natural death of the foreigner in
question here was incorrect is not corroborated by any of
5. The affairs of foreign Jews in the Generalgouvernement
were a matter which exceeded the framework of the
Generalgouvernement. Consequently the fact that the
Accused’s Section handled such a matter also in no way
proves his having comprehensive powers in the
6. The instruction concerning the Jews employed by the
Beskides Oil Company was given by Mueller. This is an
indication that the Accused was unable to take any
In practical terms this was a matter of labour mobilization,
and it appears to be a case in which the Chief of Staff was
58. On Paragraph 136 – Participation in the
Generalgouvernement 1. The exchange of letters between State
Secretary Ganzenmueller and Wolff, the head of Himmler’s
personal staff, shows clearly that the transports to the
Generalgouvernement as mentioned could definitely be carried
out without involving the Accused’s Section.
2. For the evacuation of 600,000 Jews the same must be
No supporting evidence is available for the assumption that
the Accused must have been involved in this.
The Accused’s reflections during his police examination are
of no significance. This was an attempt to help shed light
on matters; there is no contradiction.
Witness Novak also states that he had no connections with
the Generalgouvernement authorities. This does not exclude
the possibility that on occasion Novak had dealings with the
railway administration concerning questions of waggons, etc.
3. The evacuation of Jews from Bialystok does not concern
the Generalgouvernement. Bialystok did not belong to this
4. The carrying out of transports within the
Generalgouvernement itself from Cracow to Auschwitz must be
called into question, given the circumstances that have been
59. On Paragraph 138 – Directives on the Jewish Question
1. The text of the directives was drafted by Bilfinger in
Group IIA (Organization and Law).
The Accused’s claim that he was not the official in charge
but simply centralized matters on a bureaucratic technical
level appears not to be unfounded.
The Court’s assumption that lawyers simply had to draft the
instructions issued to them in suitable legal form but had
no influence on the content contradicts the practical
arrangements which have been verified in another case.
3. Wetzel’s draft letter about the Accused’s consent to the
introduction of an apparatus for killing by gas is, as
evidence, to be subjected to special investigation. In the
interim, Wetzel is said to have been arrested in the Federal
Republic of Germany, and he should be questioned in order to
clarify this important point.
After further ascertainment of Wetzel’s whereabouts a
suitable application for his examination will be submitted.
Application for evidence is reserved
3. The Accused’s dealing with matters of foreign Jews in the
Generalgouvernement does not prove his general powers in all
questions in the Generalgouvernement. Matters involving
foreigners exceed the limited powers for the territory of
the Generalgouvernement. In matters concerning foreigners
Mueller’s decision would clearly be required.
60. On Paragraph 139 – Operations Commandos
1. The Accused did not hand any Jews over to Nebe and Rasch,
but it was Heydrich who ordered the deportation to Minsk and
Riga. 2. The Accused’s presence when the commanders of the
Operations Commandos were designated does not indicate that
there he learned about the Operations Commandos’ killing
Schellenberg’s description of this meeting is hardly
credible, since his statement that the Accused personally
led and supervised the Operations Commandos is clearly
3. Nor is the sending of the Operations Commandos’ reports
from the Operations Units Commando Office in Berlin to the
Accused’s Section any proof of his participation. These
reports were duplicated and went to some 50 to 70 offices.
Receiving these notices does not prove contact with the
61. On Paragraph 142 – Visits to extermination camps
The description of bringing Globocnik retrospective
authorizations for killings rings true because no reason can
be adduced as to why the Accused would have reported this
strange occurrence in this form.
No active support of the killings can be found in the
document drawn up following orders and its delivery. It was
not the Accused’s intention to advance the extermination;
rather, he found the entire process strange and
62. On Paragraphs 143/144 – Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp
In the Judgment Hoess’ statement has not been recognized as
evidence against the Accused.
63. On Paragraph 145
A general decree by the Accused for the killing of the Jews
who reached the Auschwitz camp has not been proved.
The Accused had neither the authority nor the power to issue
such a decree.
64. On Paragraph 146
1. According to the exhibit submitted, releases from
concentration camps fell within the competence of the RSHA.
But that does not mean that the Accused’s Section or the
Accused himself became responsible.
2. The notifications about the executions carried out, which
had been ordered by Himmler, came to the Accused’s Section
only for bureaucratic technical forwarding. This provides a
specific confirmation of the role of secretariat on which
the Accused relies.
65. On Paragraph 148 – Blobel’s covering up of the traces
The evidence submitted for the Accused’s participation was
inadequate to prove to the Court that the Accused took part
in covering up the traces.
But what becomes clear here is that Hoess and Wisliceny
obviously told untruths in incriminating the Accused and are
66. On Paragraph 149 – Bergen-Belsen Camp, Theresienstadt
It has already been indicated that the Accused had no
control over this camp.
The person who drew up the International Red Cross report
misjudged the command structure.
67. On Paragraph 150 – Theresienstadt
The Prague Central Office was in all respects under the
control of the BdS Prague.
The latter himself designated Theresienstadt as his office
and also gave technical orders.
For particulars, the Accused’s examination should be
68. On Paragraph 152 – Theresienstadt (continued)
The statement by Witness Diamant must be reviewed. It makes
no sense that the Accused, who was charged with fulfulling
general duties, and who at the time in question was in
Hungary, should have personally dealt with the minor duty of
a selection of inmates to be deported.
The Witness’s recollection of the Accused’s participation
cannot be correct.
69. On Paragraph 153 – Bergen-Belsen
1. The Jews of Argentinian nationality were not arbitrarily
rounded up and taken to Bergen-Belsen by the Accused, but
this happened on the basis of orders from the highest
echelons in view of Argentina’s entry into the War.
From these transfers it does not follow that the Accused was
responsible for administering the camp.
2. Nor does the negative response to the application by the
International Red Cross to visit the camp prove the
Accused’s responsibility. This involved a matter of
maintaining secrecy, which had been ordered from above as
part of the Reich’s overall Jewish policy.
The various aspects show that the Accused had no power to
decide on the fate of the inmates.
70. On Paragraph 154 – Transportation conditions
1. In 1943 the conditions for transportation were primarily
determined by rolling stock losses.
The circumstances of transportation were not arbitrarily
made worse by the Accused.
2. In Hungary the Hungarian authorities were responsible.
71. On Paragraph 155 – Emigration to Palestine
1. Preventing emigration to Palestine was a principle of the
Reich policy of the time.
Veesenmayer’s cable dated 25 July 1944 confirms that the
Accused referred specifically to Reich policy, and
Veesenmayer does not oppose this policy, but also supports
the evacuations. As Reich Plenipotentiary he does not
intervene in favour of the emigration, although he would
have had the authority to do so.
It may be assumed that in view of the tension between the
Foreign Ministry and Himmler and Kaltenbrunner, Veesenmayer
wanted to stir up opinion against the RSHA, but refrained
from mentioning the principals, instead shifting to the
forefront the Accused who had presumably relied on the RSHA.
2. The Accused had good reasons for not wishing to
acknowledge the reference to the Fuehrer’s orders, according
to which emigration was allegedly authorized in the case in
question. The Accused was aware of the existing differences
between the top echelons, and the break with the basic
attitude in respect of Palestine was extremely striking. It
was unlikely that an order by Hitler had been issued. The
Accused could therefore rightly attempt to obtain
clarification first, in order not to come to harm in the
quarrel between his superiors.
3. Veesenmayer’s document can scarcely be considered to be
an objective description of the incident which must
necessarily be given credence.
Witness Veesenmayer’s flippancy is demonstrated by his
examination in these proceedings, where he claimed to have
no recollection of having been Reich Plenipotentiary in
72. On Paragraph 156 – Mufti
The Judgment’s finding that in 1941-1942 the Accused
lectured before the Grand Mufti on the Jewish Question is
based solely on the statement of Wisliceny, whose general
untrustworthiness is manifest. Apparently in claiming that
he refused the position with the Mufti that was offered him,
Wisliceny wanted to achieve something to his advantage.
In his interrogation by the police the Accused gave a
credible description of the facts, and no obvious reason is
apparent why he should have repressed the truth.
73. On Paragraph 157 – Questions concerning persons of mixed
The Court considers that it has not been proved that the
Accused was involved in the settling of questions concerning
perons of mixed parentage. However, the matter is of
significance in the overall picture, because it is precisely
in the handling of this question that the intensifying
activities of the Ministry of the Interior came to the fore,
where Stuckart, Loesener and Globke were active.
74. On Paragraph 158 – Sterilization
The Judgment does not find that the Accused was involved
However, the matter is of importance because the Court’s
decision is based simply on a handwritten correction to the
document submitted as an exhibit. Instead of the Accused’s
Section, the correction inserts Office Chief Mueller as the
When examining all documents the possibility must be borne
in mind of such apparently unimportant inaccuracies as the
one which was corrected here.
75. On Paragraph 159 – Prevention of births
1. Obersturmfuehrer Burger, who was mentioned by the
physician Dr. Munk, was not subordinate to the Accused, but
can only have received his orders from the BdS Prague, who
in turn would have received his orders from Higher SS and
Police Leader Frank.
There are no other RSHA records which indicate any
participation by the Accused’s Section. Had there been any
such participation, written documents could also have been
2. The assumption of the Accused’s responsibility for
preventing births in Theresienstadt is based solely on the
statement by Witness Rahm who is supposed to have heard from
Jewish Elder Eppstein about an “alleged” order by the
Accused. This is not sufficient proof, particularly since
here too no written documents which might incriminate are