Q. Please read the passage on page 277, with the words
“inwieweit hatte” (to what extent).
“To what extent did I as Section Head of Section IVB4
of the Gestapo Department” – that is how it should read
– “have to do at all with the concentration camps.
First, up to the point where the Gestapo Department
also had to decide on individual cases, up to
approximately the end of 1941, because then the order
came to act summarily and from that time when the
Fuehrer’s order was issued for physical
extermination…during the first period, the
Reichsfuehrer…starting with the time when the first
concentration camps were set up, in any case at the
time when the people who later became bigwigs were
still small fry, at that time they already drew up some
guidelines, which were then in part further elaborated
on, adopted, and also in part withdrawn. There resulted
a list, more or less, of the measures which were to be
applied if a Jew became known to the Gestapo for race-
defiling relations, if he was involved in smuggling
foreign exchange, etc., i.e., offences in various areas
of life of the German people. There, ordinances were
issued. These ordinances already existed, or were
constantly supplemented, expanded or revoked, by the
Reichsfuehrer. There were few hostile acts which had to
be dealt with, where the supreme Chief himself went
into the details as much as in the case of Jewish
affairs. All the laymen had to do…if someone, a
District Leader or just X or Y on some occasion, say
when dining together, approached the Reichsfuehrer, he
immediately went into it and personally drew up his
ordinance, which might even contradict those he had
previously issued. Other matters were dealt with under
the law. The Gestapo or the Police regional
headquarters wrote to the Gestapo Department, Jew X or
Y had done X or Y. It is proposed to transfer him to
the concentration camp. I, the…”
Attorney General “Head of the Stapo office asks for
“Head of the Stapo office: Request for instructions.
Now this matter came to me. My government official
Woehrn, or one of my police inspectors or Police
Inspector Moes, the other name I forget now – they now
processed this case, checked…is this all right, can
the Jew be assigned to the concentration camp or is it
not sufficient. All right. Assignment to the
concentration camp according to the ordinance of the
Reichsfuehrer of X.Y. Reply to the office: as per
Ordinance of X.Y, Jew X.Y. is… Now this letter did
not go from IVB4, from the Department Chief, to the
Munich State Police Regional Headquarters, to the
effect that the Jew is to be transferred to X.Y. This
draft letter instead now went to the Protective Custody
Section, in Department IV. This was headed by a
Government Counsellor and Detective Superintendent. Now
he…he now, in turn, either signed himself, or got the
Department Chief’s signature, and then passed down the
requisite instruction. Normally what happened
subsequently was that the Central Registry of
Department IV took all such letters which went from
subordinates, or also from superior bodies, to the
Gestapo Department, the Registry clerks immediately
placed these in the tray of the Protective Custody
Section, and not in the tray of IVB4, so this man first
received this enquiry and then dealt with this matter
as my officials-in-charge would also have dealt with
it, and I or my permanent deputy simply had to co-sign,
i.e. had to sign for clearance purposes.
“The Protective Custody Section could not take
decisions in matters of substance. It was simply a form
of extended Registry. That is why there was no
Government Counsellor there, but only a Government
Counsellor and Detective Superintendent. He also was
not in…it should read…the higher echelons. I, of
course, was primarily jointly responsible. I also had
to have the matter checked by my official-in-charge, as
to the aspects under which the Jew could or could not
be sent to a concentration camp. Later, in order to
simplify matters, things were arranged in this way, and
we only needed to sign, because there were in fact
dozens of cases.”
Q. Did you say that?
A. In this form, I do not know whether I said that. In part
it is even factually correct, and in part it is incorrect.
That is what I can say about this. In fact I have even
stated this in part in my evidence here.
Q. Yes, in part.
A. And the accuracy of it can be gathered from the official
Q. Yes. We are coming to an end in this matter. Another two
quotations, if I might. In this case, there are also many
corrections on page 246, 247. I suppose you will admit that
there are many corrections and even additions of entire
words by you in your own handwriting, right? For example,
the words “I no longer remember the precise designation of
the Section, etc.” Did you write that? That is correct, is
A. Yes, but I am wondering. These are parts for which I
cannot give any guarantee, because I do not know whether I
was not on…on parts, where there are correction slips,
there are altogether 200 correction slips here, that would
be somewhat more accurate and somewhat – let us say more
verifiable. I cannot, in fact, in any way verify these
matters, because the possible sources of error are
enoromous, quite apart from the circumstances which I have
Q. We have already heard that before. And now, after all
these reservations, would you be so kind as to read out the
passage I have marked, the one beginning with the word
“damit” (by that).
A. Yes. “That means that for the Protective Custody Division
Heads in our Department IV there was no…” Yes, well, this
is taken out of context, so I have taken the liberty of
seeing what comes before it. This was Section IVA etc… I
forget the precise designation of that Section.
Q. Is that in your handwriting?
Q. Yes, please read on.
A. “IVB4, that was the subsection of my Section, I had
subsection IVB4a and IVB4b…” This entire sentence is
Q. Was that A?
A. “A, one IVB4a was Government Counsellor Suhr…” again,
that is not correct, as I have found out.
“And after he left, Government Counsellor Hunsche. And IVB4b
was Guenther, who combined this function with his position
was my permanent deputy. IVB4a was the ascertaining of
hostility to the people and the State, revocation of German
nationality, confiscation of property, i.e. State Police
Office X applied to the Head Office for Reich Security in
accordance with an implementing decree of…Reich President
for the Protection of the People and the State, the
ascertaining of hostility to the State of Jew Y – not only
for Jews, but the categories to which this law applied, a
law which was later expanded by amendments and amending
“Ascertaining hostility to the people and the State, and
revocation of German nationality, and then, if everything
was in order, there was automatically confiscation of
property. And this person in question might long since have
left the concentration camp or Reich borders. But he might
also still be on Reich territory and in fact have been moved
to police custody. Now, the State Police described precisely
and in detail why it was making this application for
ascertainment, with specific reasons why person so-and-so
should have this law applied to him, and so on and so forth.
Normally, the list of assets was attached to the copy, or
the matter of assets was rendered almost fully by copying
the investigation itself. What the official in charge
handling…these matters were dealt with only by jurists
with the subordinates available to these jurists; there was
always a Government Counsellor, and also an Assessor. When
Suhr was a Government Counsellor, Hunsche was an Assessor:
when Hunsche became a Government Counsellor, an Assessor
I have put a circle here with a 38, i.e. slip 38. “there was
also a Rhinelander, and they had their own staff for these
matters – it was a routine sort of job.”
Q. Did you say that?
A. I would have said something along these lines, but you
can see the gibberish here, turned into a real concoction.
It is always like this…but this time I did not notice…a
little word…”ein” or “kein”…if a little word like
“nicht, is left out or added incorrectly – then the meaning
is entirely different.
Q. At this stage I would ask you to also read out the
characteristics you gave your assistants. Where there are
corrections by you, including the pages which I would ask
you to read out. For example page 226 at the top.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, is this the last
Attorney General: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Is it long?
Attorney General: No, these are three short passages. I
regret having to take up the Court’s time with this: I would
ask for the Court’s permission.
Presiding Judge: All right.
Attorney General: Accused, please look at page 226 – there
are corrections by you there; page 277 – there words have
been added, by you; 221 also – corrections by you; and 223 –
there are two numbers of slips here, added by you, right? Is
all that correct?
Accused: On 222 there are even corrections in some other
handwriting, as I can see.
Q. I shall never ask you to accept responsibility for
corrections made by any other hand. I hold you responsible
only for your own corrections. Would you now please read out
the four lines on page 226, at the top – where you describe
A. Just a moment, please. “…because Guenther was the
personification of toughness, and a weakling, like Wisliceny
and also Krumey, was not to Guenther’s taste. Once Guenther
was beaten half-dead by the Regional Police…
Q. You wrote something in here…
A. Yes, I wrote something. But I cannot make it out…
Q. Thueringen, right?
A. Ah, yes, Thueringen – quite right “…by the Thueringen
Regional Police” – then I think this is “during” – there is
something written above the “during” -“during the seizure of
Q. “…before the seizure of power…”
A. “…before the seizure of power…” I have not managed
yet “…and then spent more time in prison than in freedom.”
Q. All right. Now on the page before, at the bottom, you
described the characteristics of Wisliceny and Krumey –
would you please read this out.
A. Page 225, last paragraph.
A. “Wisliceny and Krumey” – this should probably read
Abromeit – “‘Adoleid’ and Richter were people whom I first
had to convince – or tried to convince – who did not accept
everything as it was ordered” …there is one word which is
illegible “…who always had another ‘even if’…who always
had another ‘if’ or a ‘but’…which excessively annoyed not
only myself, but also my permanent deputy, Guenther, in
Berlin…Guenther himself, whom I must call as a witness in
this instance, will confirm what I have said…”
Q. “…he himself…”
A. “…he himself in individual executive measures, with
which he was entrusted – that he (illegible) worked… had
major difficulties with his group of individuals, and if I
think about it properly now, I must tell you that Wisliceny
was never particularly keen on Guenther – the passive
Presiding Judge: What was that last bit?
Accused It is rather mixed up, but in any case it does not
make sense: “…that Wisliceny was never particularly keen
on him – the passive sufferer…” This does not make sense
because it says: “I must tell you, that Wisliceny was never
keen on him” – i.e. Guenther – “the passive sufferer” – once
again the typist has messed this up…
Attorney General: Now the last two paragraphs which have
just been read out: did you say this or something similar?
Accused: Well, it may have sounded similar, but when I
read this, all of these passages, I cannot help feeling that
I am reading Joseph Pilzer letters or another story by
Ludwig Thoma, I am irresistibly reminded of this by these
passages…the whole tale gives me the impression…and then
there is the factual inaccuracy. This is an attempt by
someone who has been out of things for many years to
suddenly somehow feverishly patch something together, and
construct something that can somehow be turned into a book.
Judge Halevi: I have a question here to the Accused: Where
is Guenther now?
Accused I do not know where Guenther is. Since the War I
have not seen either of the two Guenthers…
Judge Halevi: No, no, I mean this [email protected], a description
of whom you gave here.
Accused I do not know. I made many enquiries about him, but
I never obtained any information. I have not heard that he
is dead, nor have I heard that he is alive. It is possible
that he is alive, because I have not heard anywhere that he
is dead. I cannot say any more about this.
Presiding Judge: I should like to ask the Accused something
further. When you said before, “that was patched together,
Accused: I know, but…I state, but…that would also fit
Presiding Judge: No, no, I heard the expression from you. I
did not catch it: patched on…
Accused: It was patched together by various cooks. What I
said about it was that Sassen said something about it, the
typist simply typed it up, and then something or other comes
out of it.
Judge Halevi: Another question. I asked you about Guenther
because you refer there to his statement that he could
confirm the foregoing details, and you told me that you
believe he is alive, because you have not heard anything
about his being dead.
Accused: I can assume both…
Q. But here in what you said to Sassen you assumed that he
was alive, and that he could back up or corroborate what you
A. That is my opinion. If he were alive, he would have to
Q. I tended to believe – I assumed from this that you had
received some information about him, or from him.
A. No, no information whatsoever.
Q. Another question I have concerns Mueller. What do you
know about Mueller? Is he still alive, or not?
A. I have tried in various ways to consider this, and I have
also been asked about it. I last saw Mueller before I had to
withdraw to the Tyrol. I never heard anything further. I
have read various things, and finally I thought that he had
been killed in the Reich Chancellery -that was my
assumption. In Argentina, I heard that it is possible that
Mueller might have gone to Russia, and I was asked about
this. But my opinion is not in any way an authoritative
one, since I have no information as to how Mueller behaved
during the period of the collapse, because at that time I
just did not see him, and so I do not know anything myself.
However, I would tend to assume that he took his own life;
on the other hand I was asked about Mueller by an official,
and I concluded again that if active enquiries are made
about someone, perhaps there are indications available as to
whether he is, in fact, still alive. Those were my personal
reflections, but they cannot be based on any authoritative
or relevant foundations.
Judge Halevi: Very well, thank you.
Attorney General: Now the last passage in this matter.
Would you please open at page 223, the last lines there.
First of all on this page there is mention of Wisliceny and
Abromeit and Krumey, and at the bottom of the page you say
something about all three. Would you please read out to us
what you said about the three of them: at the end of page
223. It is marked there. Please read out the last lines,
which start with the words: “All these three.”
“All these three were the opposite of me, peaceable,
good citizens; all three were proud, happy wearers of
uniforms; all three liked not to be bothered overmuch,
and they all were doing their duty, as long as it did
not involve overtime, and all three were prepared to
stretch a point, if only they were left in their own
blessed personal peace.”
Q. Fine. Did you say that?
A. I would not have said: “unlike me they are peaceable
citizens,” because it was and is my assumption that I have
always been a peaceable citizen, because if I had not been a
peaceable citizen, I would doubtless have behaved like the
rowdies in an entirely different fashion, which would have
been reported on.
Q. But apart from these words, which you would reject, the
rest is what you yourself said, is it not?
A. As far as the meaning is concerned it may be right. After
all, I do not in fact know what I said at that time.
Presiding Judge: That brings us to the end of this, does it
Attorney General: Yes, it does. This afternoon I shall start
cross-examining the Accused on the Hungarian chapter, and I
shall try to conclude today.
Presiding Judge: Very well. The Court will reconvene this
afternoon at 3.30.