COL. AMEN: Defendant, did you or did you not issue instructions to Müller, as Section Chief IV, as to whether certain individuals who were in confinement at Berlin should be transported to southern Germany or be shot? And for your assistance, I will suggest to you that it was in February 1945 when the Russian armies were closing in on Berlin. “Yes” or “no”, if you can.
KALTENBRUNNER: No, the Russian Army was not very near Berlin in February 1945. I think military persons here would be able to give you more precise information as to where the fighting was going on at the time. I do not believe that there was a reason for the evacuation of any camps to the south at that time.
COL. AMEN: Were you acquainted with Martin Sandberger, Group Leader VI A of the RSHA?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. He was the first assistant of this Schellenberg who has been mentioned several times, and he acted as intermediary with regard to intelligence news between Himmler and Schellenberg.
COL. AMEN: I ask to have the defendant shown the Document 3838-PS, which will become Exhibit USA-800.
[The document was submitted to the defendant.]
I call your attention only to the first two paragraphs of that affidavit:
“In my capacity as Group Leader VI A at the RSHA, the following became known to me:
“In February 1945 I was told by Group Leader VI B, SS Standartenführer Steimle, that he had to represent Schellenberg at the daily office chief meetings. On that occasion, Müller, Chief of Amt IV, presented to Kaltenbrunner a list of persons who were in confinement in or close to Berlin, for Kaltenbrunner to decide whether they were to be transported to southern Germany or whether they were to be shot, because the Russian armies were closing in on Berlin. Steimle did not know who these people were. Kaltenbrunner made his decisions in an extremely hasty and superficial manner and Steimle expressed his indignation to me about the frivolity of this procedure. From this I inferred that Kaltenbrunner had ordered a number of shootings, because if evacuation had been ordered there would have been no talk about the frivolity of the procedure.”
Is that affidavit true or false?