The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt//tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-140.02

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-140.02
Last-Modified: 2000/03/25

Q. Do you know anything about the anti-Semitic speech made
by the defendant, von Schirach, in September 1942, at a
Congress in Vienna, which the prosecution submitted to the

A. Yes, the contents of the speech is known to us.

Q. I want to know whether you know anything about it,
especially whether Schirach said anything to you about why
he made this anti-Semitic speech?

A. I know from the Press officer, Gunther Kaufman, mentioned
yesterday, that directly after this speech von Schirach
instructed the said Gunther Kaufman that every point from
the speech should be telephoned to the DNB (Deutsches
Nachrichten-Bureau) in Berlin, with the remark that he had
every reason to make a concession to Bormann on this point.

Q. Why a concession?

                                                   [Page 54]

A. I assume that Schirach knew that his position in Vienna
was precarious, and that he constantly heard especially from
the Party Chancellery that he had to take a stricter course
in Vienna.

Q. You were Chief of the Central Bureau with Schirach in
Vienna. In this capacity, did all Schirach's incoming mail
go through you?

A. Not all of his mail, but the great majority of it. Mail
stamped "only direct" and "personal" did not go through my

Q. Did the other mail?

A. That went through my office.

Q. Witness, we have here a number of documents which have
been submitted to the Tribunal. They are the activity and
situation reports which the Chief of the Security Police
made, I believe, monthly or weekly, and which have been
submitted to the Tribunal under Document 3943-PS. These
reports came from Vienna and since you know the situation in
the Central Bureau in Vienna, and are well informed about
its activity, I will now give you several of these
documents. Please look at the documents and then tell us
whether from these documents, which are photostatic copies,
you can determine whether these reports of the SS came to
you or to the defendant, von Schirach, or whether they went
to a different office. I call your special attention to the
manner in which these documents are marked. Please note on
the individual documents who initialled the document and
what was done with it after that. And then please tell us
who these officials are who figure in the documents as
officials of the Reich Defence Commission; for instance, a
Dr. Fischer, etc.

DR. SAUTER: Those are the documents, Mr. President, about
which the Tribunal asked questions the other day.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they are, but I do not know what
the question is exactly. It seems to me there are a great
number of questions. Well, let us get on, Dr. Sauter. We
shall have to consider these documents, you know, and the
witness ought to be able to give his answer.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President. Of course, the witness has
to look at the documents first. He must especially note
which officials initialled the documents and what the
officials did with them. That is what I must ask the
witness, in order to ascertain what the documents -

THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought that he had seen these
documents before.

DR. SAUTER: No; they were just handed over in
cross-examination. I could not discuss them previously with
the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: They were certainly handed over before this

DR. SAUTER: Not to the witness, to me, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, get on, Dr. Sauter, get on.


Q. Witness, what do these documents tell you? Did they come
to the knowledge of the defendant von Schirach, or how were
they dealt with?

A. These documents did not go through the Central Bureau. I
see here that they are initialled by a Dr. Felber. I know
him. He was the expert assigned to the Regierungsprasident
in Vienna for all matters concerning the Reich Defence

From the treatment given these documents, I must assume that
the Berlin SD agency sent them directly to the office of the
Regierungsprasident, and from there they were put into the
files, as I see here. I do not see von Schirach's initials

Q. The Regierungsprasident was a certain Dellbruegge?

A. Dr. Dellbruegge.

Q. And this Dr. Felber whom you mentioned was an official of
the Regierungsprasident?

                                                   [Page 55]

A. Yes, an official of the Regierungsprasident.

Q. And when such a document as you have there arrived, where
did the post office or any other agency deliver it? Was it
delivered to you or did the Regierungsprasident have his own
office for incoming mail, or how was it?

A. I have already said that they must have been sent
directly to the office of the Regierungsprasident, who had
his own office for incoming mail.

Q. How can you tell that the defendant von Schirach had no
knowledge of these documents?

A. Because he did not initial these documents. If documents
were submitted to him, they were initialled "z.K.g." (zur
Kenntnis genommen) (noted) B.v.S. (Baldur von Schirach) and
that does not appear on these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I do not think the prosecution
suggested that they were initialled by von Schirach. It was
quite clearly brought out in von Schirach's evidence that he
had not initialled them, and that fact was not challenged by
Mr. Dodd.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe it is a decisive point
whether defendant von Schirach had any knowledge of these

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you keep asking whether they were
initialled by him or not? That fact, as I have pointed out,
has already been proved and not challenged.


Q. Witness, I have here a collection of further documents
under number 3876-PS. They are further reports from the
Chief of the Security Police. There is another address on
these. It says here, among other things: "To the Reich
Defence Commissioner for the Defence District XVII - " that
was Vienna - "for the attention of Ob.R.R.
(Oberregierungsrat) Dr. Fischer in Vienna."

I am interested in knowing who Dr. Fischer was. Was he in
the Central Bureau, or who was he?

A. I do not know a Dr. Fischer, either in the Central Bureau
or in the Reich Governor's Office (Reichsstatthalterei).

Q. Then how do you explain the fact that in these reports it
always says, "To the Reich Defence Commissioner for the
Defence District XVII, for the attention of Regierungsrat
Dr. Fischer"?

A. I assume he was a colleague of Oberregierungsrat Dr.
Felber, who specialised in these matters. Also I see they
were secret letters, and were therefore addressed to him

Q. As far as you know did not the Regierungsprasident
Dellbruegge report to the defendant von Schirach on these
reports which reached him, or have one of his officials
report about them.

A. The Regierungsprasident reported directly to Herr von
Schirach about matters concerning the Reich Governor and the
Reich Defence Commissioner. I was not present at these
conversations; consequently I cannot say to what extent he
reported to von Schirach on these matters.

Q. If the Regierungsprasident or one of his officials
reported to the defendant von Schirach on these reports,
would that be shown in the documents?

A. Probably yes. In that case the Regierungsprasident or the
officials would have had to write on them "To be filed after
being reported to the Reich Governor," or "for further

Q. On the documents which I submitted to you, there is no
such note?

A. On these documents, no.

Q. And on the documents which I have here, there is no such
note either. Do you conclude from this that the defendant
von Schirach received no report on them?

A. I must conclude that von Schirach was not informed on
these matters.

                                                   [Page 56]

Q. Witness, the defendant von Schirach was chief of the
State administration in Vienna in his capacity as Reich
Governor, as well as Chief of the local administration to a
certain extent as mayor, and finally chief of the Party as
Gauleiter. Now, we hear that in each of these capacities he
had a permanent representative.

I should like to know who normally administered the affairs
of the Reich Defence Commissioner and the Reich Governor;
that is, the affairs of the State administration?

A. I have already said that it was the Regierungsprasident,
Dr. Dellbruegge.

Q. And then what did the defendant von Schirach do in the
field of State administration?

A. He was given regular reports by the Regierungsprasident.
Von Schirach then made his decision, and these decisions
were then carried out by the officials, or departments.

Q. If I understand you correctly, the defendant von Schirach
concerned himself only with such matters as were reported to
him by the Regierungsprasident, or which were brought to his
special attention in writing; is that true?

A. Yes, that is true.

Q. Witness, were you yourself a member of the SS?

A. No, I was never a member of the SS.

O. Of the SA?

A. No, not of that either.

Q. Do you know that these three permanent representatives,
whom the defendant von Schirach had in Vienna, namely the
Regierungsprasident, the Deputy Gauleiter, and the Mayor,
were all three SS Fuehrers?

A. Yes, I know that.

Q. How was that? Did the defendant von Schirach select these
men himself, or how do you explain the fact that all three
of his representatives were SS Fuehrers?

A. The Deputy Gauleiter, Scharizer, was an honorary SS
Fuehrer and as far as I recall, he was Oberbefehlsleiter of
the Party. When von Schirach came to Vienna, Scharizer had
already been active for several years in Vienna.

Q. As what?

A. As Deputy Gauleiter. I do not know when the
Regierungsprasident, Dr. Dellbruegge, came to Vienna; but I
assume either before or at about the same time as von
Schirach. Moreover, the Regierungsprasidents were appointed
by the Ministry of the Interior so that I think he could
hardly have had sufficient influence to refuse or select a
particular Regierungsprasident.

As for the mayor, the situation was similar.

Q. He was a certain Blaschke?

A. Yes. He was SS Brigadefuehrer Blaschke, he was also
appointed by the Ministry of the Interior as provisional

Q. By the Ministry of the Interior?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. I believe that was in 1944, in January or February of

Q. Do you know that this SS Brigadefuehrer or whatever he
was, this Blaschke, before the time of the defendant von
Schirach, was active in Vienna as a town councillor and I
believe also as vice-mayor?

A. He was a town councillor before; and I believe he was
vice-mayor before I came to Vienna.

Q. Do you know that the defendant von Schirach for a long
time opposed this SS Oberfuehrer or Brigadefuehrer Blaschke
being appointed Mayor of Vienna?

A. I should say he opposed this for about six or nine
months, and I believe later he refused to allow the Minister
of the Interior finally to confirm his appointment as Mayor.

Q. Witness, what were the relations like between the
defendant von Schirach and the SS and SS officers? Were they
especially friendly and cordial or what were they like?

                                                   [Page 57]

A. As far as I know, Schirach associated with the SS Fuehrer
as far as was officially necessary and no more.

Q. Was he friendly with SS men.

A. No, I do not know. In any case I knew of no such

Q. Did he not express to you his attitude toward the SS?

A. I have already said that he always had the feeling that
he was under a certain supervision by them and for that
reason he was rather distrustful.

Q. Distrustful of? -

A.  - of the SS.

Q. Witness, do you know how the defendant von Schirach
received his information about the foreign Press and foreign
Press reports?

A. He received it from the Reich Propaganda Office in
Vienna. They were excerpts which the Propaganda Ministry
issued in collaboration with the Reich Press Chief, Dr.
Dietrich. As far as I know, however, they were selected and

Q. Did you live for a long time with von Schirach in Vienna?

A. From 1944 on I lived in Schirach's house.

Q. You also took your meals with him?

A. Yes, I also took meals with him.

Q. Did not the defendant von Schirach obtain information
from the foreign radio?

A. No, I am almost certain he did not, because after every
meal he listened to the official German news services with
me and a few other co-workers. Besides, if he had done so it
would in my opinion have become known very soon, for, as I
said already, he had the feeling that he was being watched.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the witness can only tell us what
he knows. How could he know whether von Schirach ever
listened to any foreign news? If he does not know, why do
you not take him on to something else?

DR. SAUTER: The witness said, Mr. President, that during the
latter part of his time in Vienna, from the spring of 1944,
I believe he said, he lived in the house of the defendant
von Schirach.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know he said that, and he said that he
did not think he heard foreign news. What more can he give?
What more evidence can he give on that subject?

DR. SAUTER: I wanted to hear that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: But he said it already, I have taken it down.
Why do you not go on to something else?


Q. Witness, do you know that in the last weeks of the
resistance, an order came to Vienna from Berlin, according
to which all defeatists, whether men or women, were to be
hanged? What attitude did Schirach take towards this order?

A. I know that so-called courts-martial were to be set up
for the purpose of speedily condemning people who objected
to the conduct of the war or who showed themselves to be
defeatists. This court-martial was set up in Vienna or,
rather, appointed, but it did not meet once, and thus, did
not pronounce any sentences.

Q. Did the court-martial of the defendant von Schirach carry
on any proceedings at all?

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know anything about it?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, that fact, again, was given in
evidence by von Schirach and was not cross-examined to -
that that court-martial did not meet.

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.