A I beg your pardon, just a minute. There were not so many. The maximum was eighteen hundred, all told. your office. According to the note from group 10 of your office:
"According to the data at my disposal the number of students affected by the closure --" I should think that would include high schools as well -"for three years of the Czech universities is 18,998.
"According to the press communications, dated the 21st of this month only 1200 persons were arrested in connection with the events of the leaves 17,800. You were faced with their occupation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: MyLord, it is page 104, document 3858, GB 523.
A I don't want to deny my official's statement. He must have known better than I, I but I am merely surprised that there should have been 18,000 students in two Czech universities, considering that this was a country with a population of 7,000,000.
THE PRESIDENT: Hadn't you better check that by the original?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, I shall. I am much obliged to Your Lorship. and they are 18, 998, and then there is the check below, and you have to take 1200 off. That leaves 17,800. My Lord, if it were only 1800, the second figure ca could not arise.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, somewhere there must be an error. This would mean that there would be more students per university in Czechoslovakia than there were in Berlin at the best of times. There were a maximum of 8,000 to 9,000 and then here, in the case of a nation of only 7,000,000 there are supposed to be 18,000 students in two universities. This can not be right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it may be that there ape three age groups. Your Lordship sees that it is "according to the data at my disposal, the number of students affected by the closure for three years is 18.000." It may be the intake for two years, in addition to present students. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: dealt with by your ministry. It may be that it includes certain high schools, but at any rate, these are your ministry's documents, and I want to know what happened. This was a minute, as I understand it, from Dr. Dennler, who was the head of Group 10 of your office, to Burgdorff, who had a superior position, and, if I may summarize it, the letter of 21 November 1939 suggests that the students should be taken forcibly from Czechoslovakia to the old Reich and put to work in the old Reich, and then, on 25 November, you will notice that the paragraph 2 it says -- The writer, who is Burgdorff, is saying that he is dealing with X119/39, which is Dennler's memorandum, and Burgdorffs says that he does not want them to go into the Reich because at that time there was some unemployment in the Reich, and he suggests that they should be dealt with my compulsory labor on the roads and canals in Czechoslovakia. Now, these were tweo proposals in your office.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, the second one is 3857-PS, which will be GB 524.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q What happened to the unfortunate students?
Q Did either of these proposals of Dr. Dennler for forced labor in the Reich of Burgdorff for forced labor in Czechoslovakia, did they come up to you?
Q Did they come to you for decision? knowledge -- that this is the earliest suggestion -- you said it was not put into effect -- but the earliest suggestion of forced labor came from an officer of your department? Do you know of any other department of the Reich that had suggested Forced labor as early as November 1939? made by all your subordinates, then you would no doubt find that there might be one or another suggestion that you had to turn down. A suggestion made by some official does not mean anything at all. says, "According to the documents at my disposal, the figure which will be involved through closing of the universities for three years will be 18,000." It is, therefore, three times 6.000, which is approximately 13,000. ago, but I respectfully agree with you. That is one matter in which we are not in difference.
Well, now, you anderstand what I am suggesting. It is that these proposals germinated in your office because they were quite in keeping with the proposals in the memoranda which I have just read to the Tribunal that you should not only get rid of Czech higher education, but you should have forced labor. Do you remember that was in the State Secretary's memorandum? What I am suggesting is that it was in your department -- the idea of forced labor -- as early as 21 November 1939.
question of fact, that you will perhaps be able to agree with me on reflection. You suggested this morning that the German University in Prague was closed down after the founding of Czechoslovakia after 1919. That is how it came to us. On reflection, do you not know that it continued and that many thousands of students graduated in the German University of Prague between 1919 and 1939 ?
A: Yes, I know. It was a sub-department of the Czech University, a German part of the Czech University, as far as I know.
Q But it continued as a university ?
Q But German students came there and could take their decrees in German? It was a permitted language ? I suggest to you that there are thousands of people who went there from Austria and from the old Reich-- went there as Germans and took their decrees in German. had been closed down by the Czechs, but there were some German department that remained, and there Germans studied.
Q I think the point is clear. I am not going to argue about the actual thing, out there was a German University, where German university students could study, you will agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to cross-examine further ?
BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: did Rosenberg try to intervene in the foreign affairs of Germany ?
A Is that a question ?
Q Would you please tell us in what form this intervention took place ? giving them to me for consideration.
Q All right. Yesterday you stated here that in 1936 you had differences of opinion with Hitler and that in July you asked to be relieved of your duties as a minister. This document was brought hers, but did not you write to Hitler -
and I will read the last sentence of your letter to him :
"It would be better if I were not a minister, but I am always at your service, whenever you wish my advice and experience in the field of foreign affairs."
Did you write these words in your letter to the Fuehrer ? was necessary to cover by diplomatic manipulations the aggressive actions of Hitler, during the invasion of the Sudetenland and so on ? Did you help Hitler ? Is that right ?
A: That is quite a mistake. On the contrary, as I stated her yesterday end today, I was called by Hitler once, and that was on the last day of the Austrian Anschluss. With that my activities came to an end. In 1938, on the other hand, I went to see him, to stop him from starting the war. That was my testimony. Q: I would like to ask you another question concerning the memorandum of Frederici without repeating what has already been said here concerning it. You remember this memorandum well, as it was just presented to the Court a short time ago. In the last sentence of the memorandum of Frederici it is stated that if the direction of the Protectorate is placed in reliable hands and is guided by the order of the Fuehrer of the 16 th of March, the territory of Maravia will become a part of German territory. It was for this purpose that Hitler chose you to be Protector; isn't that so ? A: Not a bit; that was not the reason at all. I described the reason in detail yesterday. Q: All right, we shall not repeat the causes, we have spoken about them yesterday. Well, you deny that you were precisely the man who was supposed to carry through the invasion of Czechoslovakia ? A: Is that supposed to be a question ? Q: Yes, that is a question. A: To that I can only answer by saying "no". Q: All right. Do you admit that you were, in the Protectorate, the representative of the Fuehrer and of the Government of the Reich, and that you were directly subordinate to Hitler ? A: Yes, that is right; it says so in Hitler's decree. Q: Yes, it is stated there. I will not read this decree, in order not to waste time. This decree has already been presented to the Court. Do you acknowledge that all institutions under the authority of the State, with the exception of the armed forces, were obedient to you and were under your leadership ? A: No. I will have to tell you that this, unfortunately, is a mistake. Again, you will wine it in the same decree, dated the 1st of September, 1938. Apart from that, there were numerous other organizations and Reich authorities which were not under my jurisdiction; that is, quite apart from the police.
Q: Well, as far as the police are concerned, we will speak about the separately. However, do you think it is a mistake that the decree does not mention it, or do you interpret the decree otherwise ? I shall read the first paragraph of the decree of the 1st of September. It is stated there that all the institutions in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with the exception of the armed forces, are subject to the Protector for the Reich, It is also stated that the Protector supervises everything, and that the Projector is to supervise all the administrative activity in the area. As you see, it is stated very bluntly here that all the institutions of the Reich were subordinate to you, while you were subordinate to Hitler. A: To begin with, I shall have to tell you that as to administrative organization, yes; but there were a number of other institutions and departments under the Reich which did not come under my juridiction. For instance, the Four Year Plan. Q: Now let us pass to the question of the police. Yesterday, in answer to a question of your counsel, you stated to the Tribunal that as to this decree of September 1st, signed by Goering, Frick, and Lammers, paragraph 13 was not applicable to you. Let us examine other paragraphs of the same chapter concerning the police.
Paragraph 11 says that the security police in the protectorate of Bohemia end Moravia have to investigate hostile expressions of the population of the Protectorate, inform the Protector for the Reich as well as the subordinate organizations, keep then poster on important events and advise them as to that to do.
the interior of the Reich, the Reichsfuehrer SS, and the Chief of the General Police are to issue legal measures with the knowledge of the protector of Bohemia and Moravia. obliged to let you know about all their measures and, in addition to this, all their administrative and legal acts and measures had been carried out with your knowledge. Do you acknowledge that?
A No; that is not true. First of all, there was an order that they should have informed me, but that was not carried out. Then, a second regulation said that these preventive measures -- or whatever the language was in the document -- were to be carried out with my approval. However, that was never applied.
Q So you deny it ? of March 7, 1946, on this very question ; that is, on the question of the police and to whom it was subordinated.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY : Mr. President, I present this testimony as USSR EXHIBIT No. 494.
THE PRESIDENT : Is this in the English book as well, do you know ?
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY : No, Mr. President. This document that I am presenting now is an original, signed by Frank. BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY :
Q Karl Hermann Frank, during an interrogation, testified :
" According to the order on " The Structure of the German Administration in the Protectorate and the German security Police ", all German authorities and institutions, with the exception of the armed forces of the protectorate, as well as all the Police, were formally subordinated to the Reich Protector and were under obligation to fulfill his orders.
Owing to this, the Security Police was to carry out a principal political policy set forth by the Reich Protector. Orders as to carrying out Statepolitical measures were mainly issued by the Central Office of State Security in Berlin through the Heed of the Security Police.
" If the Reich Protector wanted to carry out some state police measures he had to have the permission of the Central Office of State Security in Berlin ; that is, in this case the State Police also submitted each order for approval to the Central Office of state Security in Berlin. The same was true of directives aimed at carrying out State Police measures. These directives were given to the head of the security Police by the Supreme Fuehrer of the SS and Police. " reading now :
" This system of subordination and issuing of directives remained in force during the whole existence of the Protectorate and was used as such by von Neurath in the Protectorate, in general the Reich Protector could, on his own initiative, issue directives to the state Police through the head of the Security Police. However, if these measures were in any way connected with state or political matters, the approval of the Central Office of State Security had to be obtained for carrying them out.
" In regard to the Sd--Security Service -- which had executive powers, the authority of the Reich Protector respecting the issuing of directives to the SD was greater and in no case subject to the approval of the Reich Central Office of State Security."
Do you confirm this testimony of Frank?
Q No, you do not confirm it? which was made last year, during which he said something quite different. He said that the entire police were not under the Reich Protector, but came under the Chief of the Police in Berlin, that is to say, Himmler. I think that testimony can be found somewhere amongst your documents toe.
Q Don't worry about it; I will come back to this testimony.
Tell me, please, who was the political director in your service?
A Political? you to read it. letter to your Secretary of State and to the SS and Police Fuehrer, Karl Hermann Frank. The letter had the following contents:
"In an order of May 5, 1939, the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia named the SD fuehrer as his political director. I have ascertained that this order has not yet been published or carried out. Please carry out this order. " Signed:
"Dr. Best".
Do you remember your order now?
A. I cannot remember that decree, but I can remember that this was never carried out, because I did not have this SD leader as my political expert.
THE PRESIDENT: This would be a convenient time for the Tribunal to break off.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, just one more minute, please, to finish this question, and then we can break off.
BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY:
Q But did you issue such an order on May 6?
A I cannot tell you that today. It may be true. I do not want to deny it; I do not know anything about it.
Q But you did issue this order?
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: All right. I thank you, Mr. President. It is possible to adjourn now. I shall require thirty minutes more.
(The tribunal adjourned until Wednesday 26. June, 1946, at 1000 Hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit on Thursday, tomorrow afternoon, in open session, but will sit in closed session. That is to say, we will sit tomorrow, Thursday, from 10:00 til 1:00 in open session, and we will sit in the afternoon in closed session.
On Saturday morning, the Tribunal will sit in open session from 10:00 til 1:00.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I am aware that yesterday when I submitted the document USSR 494, the necessary copies of this document were not submitted to the Tribunal. I am very sorry about this, and I would ask you to accept the necessary copies now which I am going to submit. BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: If I understood you correctly, you said here before the Tribunal that this statement was issued in connection with the military situation of the time: is that correct? at the time, in as much as in the meantime no political tension had developed at all; therefore, it was not directly in connection with the military situation.
Q It did not depend on the military situation? Do you acknowledge that by this order which you issued, or, let us say, warning, you determined on a system of hostages?
Q I am going to repeat this question. I am asking you, do you acknowledge that by means of this warning, or order, of August, 1939 -this document is being submitted as evidence under No. USSR 490 -- that through this order you set system of hostages?
Q Was it correctly translated to you just now? question, or rather the last sentence. I did not understand. to me. I did no understand it. it now. In this order of yours, in the penultimate paragraph, it is stated that the re sponsibility for all acts of sabotage will borne not only by individuals but by the entire Czechoslovakian population; this means not only those who are actually responsible for these acts of sabotage, but so to speak, a system of hostages is being set up, so that the people who are not actually guilty will also be punished. So with this order you inaugurated a massacre against the Czech population.
A. Not at all. It merely means that the moral repon-
sibility for the possible deed should be put into the hands of the Czech people.
Q. For instance, in Lidice, was this not applied in practice, this order of yours, wasn't it put through? Was it only a question of the moral responsibility there? In this order you state the following: "Those who will not fully understand the importance of these measures will be considered to be an enemy of the Reich". Were those enemies of the Reich who felt -- did they have only moral responsibility?
A. Yes, if someone didn't obey orders, then he would naturally be punished.
Q. That is exactly what I am trying to determine and that is,why I put this question to you, that just by this order of August 1939, you set up the be inning of a massacre and you started punishing people who were not actually responsible for crimes?
A. Well, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion on the basis of this warning.
Q. We are going now to the deductions which we can make out of this. In the report of the Czechoslovakian government, which was submitted as evidence, USSR 60, which is a report on investigations of the crimes committed by your collaborators, all this documentary evidence you just deny then. I am not going to argue with you regarding this document but I am going to read into the record some of the testimony by the Witnesses, and I would like you to reply whether you corroborate this evidence or whether you deny it. I am going to read into the record an excerpt from the testimony of the former minister of Finance, Josef Kalfus, of the 8th of November 1945.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: The Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 12 of the British text, Document USS R 60.
Q (Continuing): Kalfus states: "All told, we may say that the economic system introduced thus by Neurath and after him by later German regimes, were nothing else than a systematic organized robbery.
As to the occupation of decisive positions in the Czech industry and finance, it may be pointed out that together with Neurath a vast economic machinery was installed, which immediately occupied the chief positions in industry (Skoda Works, Brno Armament works, Steel Works at Vitkovice) Important banks (Bohemian Discount Bank, Bohemian Union Bank, and Laender Bank), were occupied as well". Do you corroborate this evidence?
A. I talked about this matter in great detail yesterday, and I refer you to my statement I made yesterday. I have nothing to add.
Q. You don't corroborate this evidence. Very well.
A. Not in the least.
Q. The former President of Czechoslovakia, Richard Bienert, during the interrogation of the 8th November 1945, stated -
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this excerpt is on page 13 of the English text of the document USSR 160.
Q. (Continuing): "When we got to know him more closely, we noticed that he was ruthless toward the Czechs, and that he would not be moved by any thoughts of the Czech people hurt in its national feelings. As Regional Prsident of Bohemia I knew that is was Neurath who subjected the political administration in Bohemia and Moravia to German control, both the state administration and the local government as well... I remember also that Neurath caused the abolition of the Regional School Councils, and the appointment of German School Inspectors in their place. Neurath violated the order of Hitler issued on March 16 1939. He ordered the dissolution of the regional representative bodies; he caused that the Czech workers were being sent to the Reich from April 1939 onwards, in order to work for the war machine of the Reich; he ordered the closing down of the Czech universaties and of many Czech secondary and elementary schools;
he abolished the Czech gymnastic units and associations, such as Sokol, Orel, FDTJ, ordered the confiscation of all the property of these gymnastic organizations; he abolished the organizations YMCA, NWCA and ordered the confiscation of their property; he abolished the Czech recreation homes and recreation camps for young workman and students, and ordered the confiscation of their property; he was guilty of persecution of Church Congregations as, for example, the Congregation of the Ursulines, which had an educational and humanitarian task.
I know that all the property of these organizations was handed over for the use of the German institutions SS, SA, Wehrmacht, Hitlerjugend, RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst). All that is a matter of common knowledge. At the outbreak of the war on September 1 1939, mass arrests of socalled hostages took place all over the Protectorate. The greater part of them were higher officials, university teachers, Army officers and well-to-do Czech citizens. The Gestapo carried out she arrests, but on the order of the Reich Protector. I myself war arrested on September 1 1939, as well. I was taken away into the prison at Kanrac, and interrogated in Petschek palace. General Jazek, on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior intervened for my release. I was then released. The consent to the release by the order of the Reich Protector arrived four hours later. That showsthat the whole action was directed by him." Will you still deny this testimony?
A. No, no. About all the matters which are listed here I spoke yesterday in great detail. I do not prpose to repeat it all now. Apart from that, it seems peculiar to me that Mr. Bienert, of all people, who knew perfectly well what I had ordered and what my relations were to the Gestapo, and so forth, that Mr. Bienert of all people should say things like that.
Q. Very well. Let's look at some other testimony. The former Prime Minister of the so-called Protectorate, Dr. Krejci, during the interrogations on the 8th of November 1945, states -
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this excerpt can be found on page 17 of the English text of the document USSR 160.
Q. (Continuing): "I know that the gymnastic associations have been disbanded and their property confiscated at the order of the Reich Protector, and their funds and equipment handed over to the used by German associations such as SS, SA, Hitler Youth and so on.
On the 1st September 1939, when Poland was attacked by the German army, arresting took place on a large scale, especially arresting of army officers, intelligentsia and important political personalities. The arresting was made by the Gestapo, but it could not be done without the approval of the Reich Protector".
On the following page there is an excerpt: "As far as the Jewish problem was concerned, the government of the Protectorate was forced by the Reich Protector to an action against the Jews and when this pressure had no result, the Germans or the Reich Protector's office started die persecution of the Jews according to the laws in the Reich. The result was that tens of thousands of Jews were persecuted and lost their lives and property". Are you going to deny this testimony, too?
A. With reference to the order which you mentioned at the beginning, concerning die physical training schools, I shall have to tell you that that was a police measure which I had not ordered; and I go on to repeat, as I said yesterday, that the arrests at the beginning of the war were carried out by the Gestapo, but on the strength of a direct order from Berlin, without me even having heard about the matt er. I didn't know about it until afterwards. Finally, with reference to the Jewish problem which is mentioned in the end, the statement which is contained in the indictment I think, namely, that I had attempted to get the government of Czechoslovakia to introduce anti-Jewish laws, is an incorrect statement. I myself, or rather my Secretary of State, Frank, talked to Dr. Krejci. I myself have never talked to him. I only talked to Mr. Hacha afterwards. When there was an attempt to introduce racial laws with reference to the Czechs, Mr. Hacha objected to this and I said that I would take responsibility for it, that he need not do so. The introduction of the anti-Jewish laws was carried out by a decree of mine, yes, because as early as the beginning of April 1939, I had received orders that I should introduce the anti-Jewish laws in the Protectorate, which was now a part of the Reich.
I delayed this step until July by means of all sorts of inquiries in Berlin, so as to give time to the Jews to prepare themselves in some way or other. That is the true picture.
Q Tell me, do you know Dr. Havelka?
A I know Mr. Havelka, yes.
Q He knew exactly about your conversations with Hacha?
A How much he knew about that, I don't know. He came to see me on one or two occasions. He was transport minister, I think.
Q Yes, that is quite correct. He was the Administrator of Transport, but before that, he was thehead of the chancellery of Hacha's office. gave the following testimony, which can be found on pages 18 and 19 of the English text of Exhibit USSR No. 60. I amquoting an excerpt.
"He" -- Neurath -- "was not interested in the Czech nation and interventions of cabinet members and Dr. Hacha pressing Czech demands were on the whole without any result. Neurath was responsible for all actions which were carried out in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia and to which his attention was being drawn by the members of the Government and by Dr. Hacha.
"There were especially the following actions:
"Arresting of Czechoslovak officers, intelligentsia, members of the Czechoslovak Legion of the First World War and politicians at the time of the attack on Poland by the German army.
"There were about six to eight thousand persons arrested. They were hostages. The Germans themselves called them 'prisoners d'honneur.' The majority of those hostages was never interrogated and all steps taken at the office of the Reich Protector in favor of those unfortunate men without any result.
"Neurath, as the only representative of the Reich Government in the territory of the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was responsible for the execution of nine students on November 17, 1939."
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, wouldn't it be better and perhaps fairer to the defendant to ask him one question at a time? You are reading large passages of these documents which contain many questions. Perhaps you could take these two paragraphs you read now about the arrest of officers and ask him whether he says those are true or untrue, and then go on to the other paragraphs you want to. It is very difficult for him to answer a great number of questions at one time.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, he has these documents before him, but I will take into consideration what you have just told me, and I think I will speak about the students separately.
BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: read into the record regarding thehostages? Do you corroborate this evidence? beginning of September, 1939, I have spoken earlier, and I spoke in detail about thatyesterday. I will repeat it for you. my knowledge. Havelka'sstatement, that no steps had been taken in the interest of these people is untrue. He ought to know that I continuously fought for these people and that a large number of them were released upon my efforts.
Q Very well, lot's go over to another question. Here, before this Tribunal, there has already been introduced several times a certain document, under No. USSR-223.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: This is the diary of Frank, Mr. President. I have in view Karl Hermann Frank, who was sentenced to die for his crimes. I beg your pardon, it is the defendant Frank that I am speaking about. This excerpt has already been quoted here, but I should like to put a question to the defendant on it. I shall read it into the record:
"During an interview with a correspondent of the Voelkischer Beobachter in 1912, the defendant Frank stated that in Prague, for instance, there were put out some red placards that many Czechs were shot, and that if an order were issued that such placards be put up regarding every seven Poles who were shot, then there wouldn't be enough timber to manufacture enough paper for such placards." BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: in Prague regarding the people who were shot? poster where my signature was misused, and that I hadn't seen it. That is that red poster.