Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial

Postby Hektor » 5 years 6 months ago (Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:27 am)

I'd like to create a list of forged documents used at the IMT Nuremberg Trial. This is for our own reference and to be used, when arguing with undecided people or believers.

The documents I am especially interested in are what is supposed to be German war time documents. But the affidavits and others are welcome, if there are any signs of forgery.

Please post facsimile image and text of the document as well as of course the reference it is known by.
Provide evidence for forgery.

If it already has been discussed here on the forum, please post a link to the thread in question.

Somewhere to start on the subject would be here:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html
http://www.cwporter.com/document.htm

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial

Postby Hannover » 5 years 6 months ago (Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:57 pm)

From a thread at the CODOH WWII Revisionist Forum:
The War That Had Many Fathers - The Documentary
Heimwehr wrote:For people understanding German: In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0

The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This was leading to a different discolouring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost... .
The usual 'loss' of the originals.

Perhaps a fluent German speaker can assist us with the specifics in this video.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent racist Jewish supremacists demand that there be no open debate.
Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial

Postby Hannover » 5 years 6 months ago (Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:00 pm)

Hektor's link to Carlos Porter is devastating. Example after example.
http://www.cwporter.com/document.htm
Text below.

This is too easy.

- Hannover
The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter
DOCUMENTS USED IN "EVIDENCE"
AT THE NUREMBERG "TRIAL"

by C W Porter

The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1 unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has many original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material. They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents.

The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtsarchiv Nurnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following forged or otherwise worthless documents (II 120-142): 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others.

1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in question (XXI-381).

The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is not included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44. Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal. (XXI 380)

The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these 'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared (See Taylor, Captured Documents).

1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report to himself about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI-137-141; 195-198; 425; XXII 148-150. See also Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May 1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy (XXVII 485).

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII-406-408; XVIII 390-402; XXII 65). The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286).

This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii, No 192 and 193.

L-3 is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.

81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511). The document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed. (XVII 612).

81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).

212-PS was also prepared by an unknown person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings, date, address, or stamp (III 540, XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative photostats from The Hague).

This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.

The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg, because the documents were not brought to court. The "original document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe in the Document Centre (II 195, 256-258).

Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21) or 6 photocopies (II 251-253) were prepared and brought to court. All other copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504).

In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II 249-250, XIII 200, 508, 519; XV 43, 169, 171, 327) to distinguish the photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246).

"Translations" of all documents were available from the beginning of the trial (II 158-161, 191, 195, 215, 249-250, 277, 415, 437) but the "original" German texts were not available until at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS. The defense received no documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26).

Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348). This letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416).
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial

Postby Hektor » 5 years 6 months ago (Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:51 pm)

Hannover wrote:From a thread at the CODOH WWII Revisionist Forum:
The War That Had Many Fathers - The Documentary
Heimwehr wrote:For people understanding German: In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0

The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This was leading to a different discolouring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost... .
The usual 'loss' of the originals.

Perhaps a fluent German speaker can assist us with the specifics in this video.
....

Schulze Rhonhof is hinting at documents that are either congruent or divergent when looking into the different national archives. The one with relevance to the IMT is the Hossbach protocol.

Notably Kaltenbrunner denied having signed several documents that were part of the trial proceedings:
The murder of approximately four million Jews in concentration camps has heretofore been described. This part of the programme was also under the supervision of the RSHA when Kaltenbrunner was head of that organisation, and special missions of the RSHA scoured the occupied territories and the various Axis satellites arranging for the deportation of Jews to these extermination institutions. Kaltenbrunner was informed of these activities. A letter which he wrote on 30th June, 1944, described the shipment to Vienna of 12,000 Jews for that purpose, and directed that all who could not work would have to be kept in readiness for " special action," which meant murder. Kaltenbrunner denied his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written. It is inconceivable that in matters of such importance his signature could have appeared so many times without his authority.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judkalt.asp

He sometimes disputes his signature, sometimes he admits it:
COL. AMEN: Well, that was your testimony yesterday, according to the record, that you had no knowledge of the Hitler Commando Order of 8 October '42 until some time in the year 1945. Is that not correct? Is that not now your position?
KALTENBRUNNER: I do not believe that I made such an answer. The order is...
COL. AMEN: Well, what is the fact? When did you first have knowledge of the Hitler Commando Order of 8 October 1942? I am speaking of the order of 18 October '42, not 8. When did you first have knowledge of that?
KALTENBRUNNER: I cannot tell you that now, exactly.
COL. AMEN: All right.
KALTENBRUNNER: In any case, this order, if it were read to me, would probably be the same one which appeared in a Wehrmacht report or in the press.
COL. AMEN: All right. And you have also denied the testimony of your own witness, Mildner, concerning the existence of a decree' issued in July or August '44, under which the Security Police were to execute members of Allied commando groups after questioning them. That is correct, is it not?
KALTENBRUNNER: I was never asked about that.
COL. AMEN: Well, I beg your pardon; but never mind, anyway. I will show you Document Number 535-PS, which trill become Exhibit USA-807; and, before anything else, I want to ask you whether it is your own signature, in your own handwriting, that appears at the bottom of that document.
[The document was submitted to the defendant.]
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. That is my signature.
COL. AMEN: Oh, it is your signature, is it?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: You admit that? Is that right?
KALTENBRUNNER: That is my signature, yes. ~
COL. AMEN: Now, when you were interrogated before this Trial, you denied that that was your signature, did you not?
KALTENBRUNNER: No, I do not believe so.

COL. AMEN: Well, I trill read you your testimony on that point, to see whether that helps you to remember whether you denied it or not.
"Answer: 'From that it can only be seen that the Wehrmacht intended to write a letter to me; whether rightly or wrongly, and whether I was the right authority to write to is very questionable. In any case, the Wehrmacht wanted to get in touch with the Gestapo, as can be seen from this exchange of letters, and I am convinced that an officer of the Gestapo, namely, the one mentioned at the beginning of the letter, is the one who wrote this document.'
"Question: 'Well, this is the letter that you know nothing about, but which, nevertheless, established just how you accomplished your desires by writing to the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. That is very clear.'
"Answer: 'But I deny that I wrote this letter.'
"Question: 'Just a moment ago, you didn't know about it, but now you deny it?'
"Answer: 'I not only did not know about the Hitler Order, but I also knew nothing about this letter.'
"Question: 'But you acknowledged your signature?'
"Answer: 'I did not say that this is my signature. I only said it resembles my signature; and I also said it is possible that it is only a facsimile. I cannot recall a letter of such contents signed by me.'
"Question: 'Would it be any more convincing to you if you saw the original letter, signed in ink?'
"Answer: 'It would certainly be more convincing, but it still would not prove that I signed in ink.'"
Did you make those answers to those questions, Defendant?

KALTENBRUNNER: Naturally, I do not remember whether I made these answers literally. But, I would like to make the following remarks to you. Questions concerning my signature have naturally always been put to me hundreds of times during interrogations, especially to confuse me Today-I believe this is the first time I have seen this document-I immediately declared, "Yes, this is my signature." I certainly know my own signature; I can recognize it. However, you have also shown me signatures which certainly were not mine.

Besides, you can see from the date of the letter, 23 January 1945, that it is correct that I learned about it in 1945, as you have already stated. I could not have the faintest notion of a Hitler order issued in the year '42. And if, in your interrogation which you just read to me, I stated that I did not write this letter, then this is confirmed by the very figures which appear on top, where you read IV A 2 a, plus numerals and letters which obviously indicates that the letter was written in a section which was in charge of these matters.

That is what I mean when I say that I did not write this letter. That it may have been submitted to me for my signature among thousands of other papers which I might have had to look into possibly in the course of one day, I cannot, of course, deny. From this, however, you cannot draw the conclusion that I undoubtedly knew about the matter. You cannot imagine the extent of the official functions which I took over in complete ignorance of police background, without instructions for carrying out police functions, but rather for organizing and directing the vast intelligence service.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer questions and do not make speeches.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, is not the signature on that document before you, Document Number 535-PS, USA-807, precisely the same and identical with your signature as it appears on Document Number 3803-PS, USA-802? Just look at the two signatures, and tell the Tribunal if they are not identical.
KALTENBRUNNER: No, I never signed in that way. I always signed, "Dr. K.," as on this document, even in informal letters.
COL. AMEN: How about the handwriting? Does that look the same to you, Defendant, or does it look different?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, certainly there is a kind of resemblance, but I think it has happened to every person in this courtroom that in his absence any one of his assistants at times signed a particularly urgent letter using his name.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, the Tribunal trill be able to see the signatures and judge for themselves.
COL. AMEN: Very good, Sir. Now, do you have the exhibit before you, 535-PS?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-13-46.asp
.... One should have a good look at the documents where he disputes this being his signature.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Very welt If it is not necessary I shall be glad to drop that.

[Turning to the defendant.] The question here is, first, whether all signed orders for protective custody bore your name either in facsimile or typewritten; and the second question is whether you have given such orders-that means whether these orders are authentic; and further, 'in case both these questions are to be answered in the negative, whether you had knowledge of these orders. Please, Till you comment on this document?

242

11 April 46

KALTENBRUNNER: I must say that not once in my whole life did I ever see or sign a single protective custody order. During the interrogations before the Trial a number of protective custody orders which bear my name were put before me when I was being questioned. Every one of these protective custody orders had this signature, that is, my name, either typewritten or in teletype, and I think in one or two cases it was a facsimile.

DR. KAUFFMANN: You will admit that, naturally, this statement o

f yours is not very credible. It is a monstrosity that the office chief should not know that such orders were signed with his name. How do you explain this fact, a fact which appears from the documents which bear your signature?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had not finished my explanation. I stated that this signature "Kaltenbrunner" on protective custody orders can only have come about through the fact that the office chief, Muller, signed the name of the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office on these protective custody orders, as he had done during Heydrich's time when he was avowed to do so, and that in addition he instructed his sections, for instance, the protective custody section. Accordingly quite obviously he continued to do so during my time, because otherwise these orders could not have been put before me now. But he has never informed me of this and he never had authority from me to do this. To the contrary, this was out of the question and, on the other hand, superfluous, because he was immediately under Himmler and he had authority from Himmler, so that he just as well might have written "Himmler" or "By order of Himmler" or "For Himmler." I admit that this remains a fact about which the Tribunal will not believe me, but nevertheless it was so and Himmler never gave me Q cause to define my attitude in this respect, since he had told me that I was not to carry out these executive tasks.

DR. KAUFFMANN: This means you are trying to say that the use of your signature was in fact a misuse?

KALTENBRUNNER: Muller did not have authority to use it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Was it known to you that protective custody was possible at all, that it was admissible, and that it has been carried out very often?

KALTENBRUNNER: As I stated, I discussed the concept "protective custody" with Himmler as early as 1942. But I think even before that, already on two occasions in detail, I have had correspondence about this concept once with him and once with Thierack; I consider protective custody as it was handled in the German Reich as being a necessity in the interests of the State, or rather a measure which was justified by the war, only in a small number...
KALTENBRUNNER: It is completely out of the question that this incident was ever brought to my knowledge, or that it happened with my participation. This is not only plainly a crime against the laws of warfare, but it is, in particular, an action which could or necessarily had to produce the most serious foreign political consequences.

Certainly, in such an incident it is out of the question that Muller or even I, myself, as Muller's superior, could have taken action; but in such a case thorough discussions must absolutely have taken place previously between Himmler, himself, and the Fuehrer.

It is to be assumed, furthermore, that quite definitely someone -maybe the competent section for international law-would have been consulted on the subject first, and that such en action, of course, would have been decreed either by the Fuehrer or by Himmler. In any case, it would have been an order from one of these two personalities. However, even that is unknown to me.

If, therefore, this man Zutter relates here that the order bore my signature, then this can only have been an order which, as I have described before, bore my name falsely since I never had

248

11 April 46

authority to issue an order for execution. Therefore, the signature should have been "Himmler" or "By Himmler's order, Muller."

DR. KAUFFMANN: So that you attribute this signature also to a misuse? ~ '

KALTENBRUNNER: No, I believe that it does not concern my signature at all here, but that Ziereis should have said "Himmler." It cannot be assumed that Muller would have signed his or my name in such a way.

DR. KAUFFMANN: We are now coming to another subject. I am referring now to Document 1063(b)PS, Exhibit USA-492, which is a letter from the Reich Security Main Office, dated 26 July 1943. It has the signature, "Signed, Dr. Kaltenbrunner," and the letter is addressed to all Higher SS and Police Leaders. It refers to the establishment of correctional labor camps.

Will you please look through the letter? The Prosecution charges you with the establishment of correctional labor camps. Please explain what your attitude really was, and state whether that letter originated from you.

KALTENBRUNNER: With regard to this point I have to make the following statement: I conclude from the fact that my name is typewritten that this order had not been shown to me before it went out: otherwise I would have signed it in handwriting.

...

DR. KAUFFMANN: Then let us turn to Hottl's affidavit. As far as I can see there are no important changes from the affidavit given me. Do the High Tribunal wish for me to put questions on that matter?

Then let us turn to question Number fib). It states:

"It is known to me that orders for commitments into concentration camps and discharges therefrom came from the RSHA. I did not know that all such orders originated with the RSHA. I have no knowledge of orders for executions by the RSHA." What can you say to that?

KALTENBRUNNER: Orders for execution could only have come through RSHA when Himmler had ordered Muller to forward these orders. But I believe that took place only in a few isolated cases and mostly after Muller had informed Himmler that a court had passed judgment.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, the defendant asked me several minutes ago to make a statement with reference to Document 1063-PS which we have discussed. He had contested his signature; I believe that he wishes to say now that it is his signature. It is the document of the RSHA of 26 July 1943. Do you want the document?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, is it 1063-PS? Have you the original there?

DR. KAUFFMANN I have only a photostatic copy; not the original, Your Honor.

267

11 April 41;

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what is the question?

DR. KAUFFMANN: [Turning to the defendant.] Are you ready?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. There is a mistake on your part, Dr. Kauffmann. I have not contested my signature, but have stated that I must assume that I received knowledge of this order only after it had been published and that the original order presumably did not carry my signature. That is what I said. But I do remember now, through the clause, "certified Employee," that it was apparently an order of which the original was signed by me at the time.

Furthermore I remember from the first few words of the decree, "The Reichsfuehrer SS has approved..." et cetera, that this order was based on a personal report which I must have made to Himmler, and that with this report-I call your attention to the date, 26 July 1943-I apparently made the first attempt with Himmler to mitigate or alleviate the conditions; namely, that in such cases for which people hitherto were committed to concentration camps they should in minor cases no longer be put in concentration camps but in labor education camps and that there was to be a differentiation between concentration camps and . labor education camps. Therefore, in my opinion it was the result of my first attempt with him against the system of concentration camps.

And third, I would like to point out that this decree carries the number IIc and thereby is not a decree which came from the Police executive offices such as State Police or Kripo but from the administrative level.

DR. KAUFFMANN: That is a sufficient explanation.

The Prosecution hold you responsible for the commitment of politically and racially undesirable persons into concentration camps., How many concentration camps became known to you after your appointment as Chief of the RSHA?
....
DR. KAUFFMANN: I now come to the Document 526-PS, Exhibit Number USA-502, which has been used by the Prosecution.

[The document was handed to the defendant.]

This refers to the landing of an enemy cutter in Norway on 30 March 1943. That report contains a sentence: "Fuehrer order carried out by SD." The signature on that document is lacking. It is dated 10 May 1943. It is a secret command matter and the heading is "Note."

Please, will you make a statement regarding that sentence, "Fuehrer order carried out by SD."

KALTENBRUNNER: The execution of such a Fuehrer order is unknown to me. I want to point out that this note is obviously one made by a military department regarding an event which took place shortly after I had come into office but at a time before I had come to Berlin. I could not have had knowledge of it at all.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It says at the end of the document, "Armed Forces report dated 6 April 1943." It states further as follows: "In northern Norway an enemy ship carrying sabotage troops was forced to fight when approaching the coast and was destroyed."

Do you know anything about the connection of this Armed Forces report-as far as you knew of it at all-with the actual decree?

KALTENBRUNNER: No. Of course, I read, daily, practically every incoming Armed Forces report. But from its composition I am unable to determine any participation of any military agency within my sphere.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp
Note the document numbers given.
of labor reformatory camps for this purpose. When, the SS embarked on a slave labor program of its own, the Gestapo was used to obtain the needed workers by sending laborers to concentration camps.

The RSHA played a leading part in the "final solution" of the Jewish question by the extermination of the Jews. A special section under the Amt IV of the RSHA was established to supervise this program. Under its direction approximately 6 million Jews were murdered, of which 2 million were killed by Einsatzgruppen and other units of the Security Police. Kaltenbrunner had been informed of the activities of these Einsatzgruppen when he was a Higher SS and Police Leader, and they continued to function after he had become Chief of the RSHA.

The murder of approximately 4 million Jews in concentration camps has heretofore been described. This part of the program was also under the supervision of the RSHA when Kaltenbrunner was head of that organization, and special missions of the RSHA scoured the occupied territories and the various Axis satellites arranging for the deportation of Jews to these extermination institutions. Kaltenbrunner was informed of these activities. A letter which he wrote on 30 June 1944 described the shipment to Vienna of 12,000 Jews for that purpose and directed that all who could not work would have to be kept in readiness for "special action," which meant murder. Kaltenbrunner denied his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and in a few instances, written. It is inconceivable that in matters of such importance his signature could have appeared so many times without his authority.

Kaltenbrunner has claimed that when he took office as Chief of the Security Police and SD and as head of the RSHA he did so pursuant to an understanding with Himmler under which he was to confine his activities to matter involving foreign intelligence and not to assume overall control over the activities of the RSHA. He claims that the criminal program had been started before his assumption of office; that he seldom knew what was going on; and that when he was informed he did what he could to stop them. It is true that he showed a special interest in matters involving foreign intelligence. But he exercised control over the activities of the RSHA, was aware of the crimes it was committing, and was an active participant in many of them.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/10-01-46.asp
Now if Kaltenbrunner didn't sign the documents, who then did?


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests