A. Well, I did assume that the personal differences did have their effect of causing the dismissal of Schacht, Blomberg, Von Neurath and Fritsch. But I have never been present at such conferences and I cannot make any statements but I do think that they often contradicted the Fuehrer.
Q. Did Hitler have distrust for the Generals, particularly those of the Army?
A. You cannot answer that in general. The Fuehrer had a certain amount of distrust for most people. He only told them what actually applied to them. If you call that distrust, so far as all the generals were concerned, nobody was told any more than he had to hear.
Q. Amongst the circle of persons who had Hitler's unrestrained confidence, was there a military leader among them?
A. I do not belive so. I don't know of one.
Q. I have now got one last question. What was the reason that the bulk of the occupied territories were under Reich commissions and only a few under military leaders?
A. As a rule it was the Fuehrer's wish that occupied territories be administered by political leaders. He considered generals unsuited for that particular job because he considered that they had no political instinct.
Q. Wasn't it, even before 1944, wasn't it the plan that the military administration in Belgium was to have a civilian commissioner?
A. That had been proposed at length but before it was put into action the Fuehrer did not desire to make it so since he had always been told that in the case of Belgium there were military administrators and if civilian administration began it might become occupied territory again.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to cross examine? BY MAJOR ELWYN JONES:
Q. Witness, there is one matter upon which I want to ask you, as to the power of Reichministers under the Constitution of Nazi Germany. It appears, from your testimony, that there were men with very little authority or jurisdiction or power of command of any kind.
That they were made of straw. Is that so?
A. Well, no authority . . .
Q. But, they were of an extremely limited character. ThatIs what you are saying to the Tribunal, isn't it?
A. Generally speaking, they were administrative chiefs. They were not political ministers who, in large scale political matters, took an active part.
Q. Less authority than the authorities of Germany had under the previous Constitution?
A ..That no doubt was the case. Under the previous Constitution there was an election amongst the Ministers, and they had the power of voting out any members of the Cabinet which they didn't like.
Q. I am not going to put to you some observations which you yourself made in 1938 about the powers of administration under the Fuehrer's State. I am referring to document 3863-PS.
"Out of this total basic concentration of power of authority in the person of the Fuehrer, however, no excessively strong and unnecessary centralization of administration in the hadn of the Fuehrer results in the governmental administration. In my general elaborations on the basic concept of the Fuehrer state I have already pointed out that the subordinate leader's (Unterfuehrer) authority, directed downward, forbids interference with every individual order he may issue. This principle is manipulated by the Fuehrer in his government leadership in such a manner that for example the position of the Reich ministers is actually much more independent today than formerly, even though today the Reich ministers are subordinated to the Fuehrer's unlimited power of command in their entire official sphere, even in every individual measure and decision in the most trivial matters. Willingness to bear responsibility, ability to make decisions, aggressive energy, and real authority -- these are the qualities which the Fuehrer demands primarily of his subordinate leaders. Therefore he allows them the greatest freedom in the execution of their affairs and in the manner in which they fulfill their tasks.
Nothing is more foreign to him than narrow or fault-finding criticism." from the picture you are painting for the Tribunal, is it not?
A. In my opinion, there isn't the least contradiction. All I am saying here is that every Minister did not have unlimited power in large scale political matters, but that he, as supreme commander in his own sphere, had complete authority, and that the Fuehrer wasn't going to be small-minded about such authority. That was right. Here in this document we are concerned with second rate matters.
Q. You say your picture, of course, is a picture of one man decisions of intensive power. Is that the picture you are trying to present to the Tribunal?
A. Yes. The Ministers, who as supreme commanders, supreme leaders in their own sphere, had power in these matters unless he was restricted. He had no more power than any other Ministers, because his power was only concentrated in small matters.
Q. In the case of the Defendant Funk, for instance. You way he was a Minister of small authority?
A. Regarding the big political decisions he had no authority.
Q. But decisions -- but as to important economic questions like the amount of wealth he was going to take from the occupied territories, the Fuehrer's decisions were based upon recommendations of Ministers like Funk, weren't they?
A. Not that I know of. The policy on occupied territories was handled by the Eastern Ministers and Reich Ministers.
Q. But as to decisions on economic matters concerning the occupied territories, as to recommendations of occupational costs, and as to the extent of black market operations, men like Funk were indispensable and were asked to give their recommendations, did they not?
A. He cooperated, yes, but he did not work with the Reich commission in occupied territories.
Q. All these ministers were indispensable to the running of the Nazi State, were they not?
A. Yes, of course, they were necessary for their cooperation. This does not mean that Funk had authority.
Q. Do you, so far as you are concerned, recall whether Funk was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer or not. Do you remember that?
A. Well, Funk was under the Fuehrer, working as a Minister.
Q And he was advising the Fuehrer himself, was he not? tant decisions to communicate to the Fuehrer and advise the Fuehrer upon, did he not?
A I don't know to what extent the Fuehrer sent for him and I was not present during any conference regarding armament and rearmament.
Q I shall ask one further question regarding ministerial matters. Ministers without portfolio did continue to receive communications as to the Reich cabinet, did they not?
Q The Defendant Frank, for instance, was a minister without portfolio? without portfolio? tained a ministerial office to deal with incoming matters of the Reich Cabinet?
A Who are you talking about, Frank? him. did it not?
A The Reich Cabinet only existed for the written procedure of its laws. Or, of course, written administrative matters. communications as to the legislative tasks and performances of the Reich Cabinet. Even though they were not available for conferences or meetings?
MAJOR ELWYN JONES: I think it's time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
Q Witness, I want to ask you some questions about the Defendant Frank. Frank is a friend of yours, is he not?
A Nothing is coming through. Will you please repeat the question?
Q The defendant Frank is a friend of yours, is he not?
A Frank? document which was submitted just a little while ago this morning, and which I have just now been able to finish reading. I would like to say just two sentences in connection with that document. doubt they will draw your attention to the matter in due course.
Will you now deal with the question that I put to you on the Defendant Frank? You say he is not a friend of yours? of the other people in the Reich Government. jurists? National socialist? in fact, since the year 1920 , and I served other governments before joining the National Socialist Party. Naturally, in my capacity or in my position in the National Socialist State, I made every effort to represent National Socialist idea.
A pr 9-A-RT-13-2 who opposed the arbituary use of power by the police.
A He did that in some of his speeches. These speeches were disaproved by the Fuehrer.
Q He was a man who believed in fair trials, was he?
A What kind of proceedings are you referring to?
A He was always for the right; but I did not quite understand what you were saying. I did not quite got it. If you mean fair, yes. SS? That is your evidence, is it? that respect in speeches too. territory of which he was Governor General? Is that so?
A I am sorry, but I can't follow this; there is so much static that I can only gather half of what you are saying; the other half escapes me completely.
Q Well, we will try again. Did you ever hear of the AB Action, for which Frank was responsible in the Government General?
A That is an action which was totally unknown to me. About a week ago a gentleman mentioned this term to me, that Frank was accused of this AB action, However, I don't know what this AB action is. his territory, were you not?
Q Are you saying that Frank never informed you about the AB action?
A Yes, I don't know what the AB action is.
Q I will remind you. It was an action which resulted in the slaughter of the flower of the Polish race, of the Polish intelligentsia. USSr-223, and which is Frank's diary, you will see the history of this action and perhaps you will then remember something of the circumstances of it.
AAt which page is that, please?
Q On page 8 of the annex to that text. You will see on that page that the action started on the 16th of May with a conference at which Frank, the Govenor General, Secretary of State Buehler, SS Brigadier Streckenbach, and a Colonel Mueller were present. You will see there that Frank decreed, with immediate effect, that the task of carrying out an extraordinary pacification program be given to the Chief of the Security Police, to commence immediately. The more important details of the action were then discussed, and Brigadier Streclenbach was formally given the necessary authority by the Govenor General. The Governor General then ordered a detailed report to be made on the 30th of May.
ference on the 30th of May, where you, and, what is more important, this Tribunal, may be able to judge what kind of jurisprudence Nazi jurists believed in. police conference on the 30th of May, where Frank and Krueger and others were present.
A. I was never present at these conferences.
Q. I want you to see how far removed Frank, the apostle of decency in administration, was from the true Frank that was Governor General of Poland. You will see there that Frank states: "If I had not the old Nazi guard of fighters of the Police and SS, with whom could we then carry out this policy?" describe how, now that the German aggressions in the West were in full swing, it was possible for Frank to go through with this action against the Polish intelligentsia.
A. If the Governor General contradicts what I gathered from his phblic speeches and what I gathered contrary to that, I cannot utter a view, because I do not know what he waid. It may be that many of his speeches are in contradiction to speeches which he gave at other times. I was just concerned in testifying to those speeches which the Fuehrer disapproved of, which he objected to, and which had as a consequence that he was prohibited from speaking. I was concerned with those speeches. If the Governor General made other speeches and made notes in his diary, I cannot tell you about that, and especially at this moment.
Q. Let us be quite clear. Do you know that the regime of Frank in the Government General was a murderous one?
A. I never had may knowledge of anything like that.
Q. Did you receive any reports from him, or from some other source, of misgovernment in the Government General?
A. As far as misgovernment in the Governor-Generalship is concerned, yes, there were complaints on the part of Frank, and by other parties against Frank.
Q. Did you have knowledge of the utter ruthlessness of Frank's methods in the Government General?
A. I only understood half of your question, I am sorry.
Q. You were receiving reports from Frank as to what he was doing in the Government General, were you not?
A. Yes. Reports came in repeatedly, which I hurriedly passed on to the Fuehrer; I just passed them. In most cases they went to Bormann or the adjutant office of the Fuehrer. These were reports -
Q. Just a moment. If you deal with the questions I put to you, we shall get on much faster, you know. Just answer the questions I put, briefly. I am going to put to you one message which Frank's diary indicated that you received.
At page 41 of the English text of Frank's diary there is this entry for the 5th of August:
"The Governor General sends the following teletype to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"The City of Warsaw is, for the most part, in flames. The burning down of houses is the surest way of getting the insurgents out of their holes. After this insurrection and its crushing, Warsaw will rightfully suffer or be subjected to its deserved fate of being completely annihiliated."
Do you recollect receiving that teletype?
A. To my knowledge this report did come in, and it was given over to the Fuehrer immediately. However, I personally was not concerned with the action; that was a military measure and in the normal course of events the military reports came to the Fuehrer directly. In all probability I passed this teletype message on not only to the Fuehrer, but to the Chief of the OKW.
Q. I am not concerned with the action which you took in these circumstances; I am concerned with your knowledge, because you have denied to this Tribunal, time and time again, that you ever know anything of these abominations that were going on under the Nazi regime. So just deal with the question of your knowledge at the moment.
A. I know that this report was received.
Q. And that was a characteristic Frank message, was it not?
A. It was that an annihiliation action had been decreed in Warsaw and that there was fighting going on in Warsaw. However, I could not give any decrees or instructions to the Governor General. The report was meant for the Fuehrer and not for me personally.
Q. You say that Frank was opposed to the institution of concentration camps. That is your evidence, is it not? Is it your evidence that Frank was opposed to concentration camps?
A. Yes. Frank told me, in a general way, that he was against interning in concentration camps, for he agreed with me in my view that such proceedings would at least have to have a basis in law.
Q. That is what he told you?
A. Yes, he told me that. Yes.
Q. Just let me read to you one brief extract from his diary to show why he disapproved of concentration camps. I am reading from page 45 of the diary. He is referring to the Polish intelligentsia, and he says:
"We do not need to deport these elements to the concentration camps in the Reich, first, because we should only have bothers and unnecessary correspondence with their families." Then: "Instead, we shall liquidate things in the country itself."
Then he goes on to say this: "There will be no concentration camps in the real sense in the Government General. What prisoners from the Government General there are in the concentration camps in the Reich must be put at our disposal for the AB Action, or dealt with there. Whoever is suspect in our part of the world is to be liquidated immediately."
That is why Frank opposed the institution of concentration camps. He believed in immediate murder, did he not?
A. It may be that the diary of Frank and his actions do not agree with what he told me, but I can only testify to what he told me in his opinion of concentration camps. What he said in his diary I do not know, and how he acted in practice I do not know either, because I was not to supervise the Governor General.
You have spoken of the battle between Frank and various other Reich commissars and Reich ministers and the SS.
I suggest to you that the battle between Frank and the SS Brigadier Krueger was a battle for power, a battle between personalities, and was not connected in any way with Frank's desire to see decency and justice determine the administration of the Government General. and how he acted. You must question Mr. Frank about that, for I am not responsible for what he did; in fact, I can only testify as to what he told me. but from the SS, were you net? routine manner, for which I was just a passing through and transmission center. Reports from the SS did in most cases not go through my office. Nazi Reich were founded, were you?
A I am sorry; I don't follow you. in the Government General?
A Yes. I know that Himmler wanted to remove Frank from the Government General. He would rather have had a different Governor General in that position. you had had with SS Lieutenant General Krueger, did you not? GB 321. That is your report to Himmler. You will see that that report is dated the 17th of April, 1943, addressed to Himmler, reference the situation in the Government General. I just read some of it; it has not been read before:
"Dear Mr. Reich Leader:
"We had agreed at our conference on March 27th of this year that written texts should be worked out about the situation in the Government General on which our intended mutual report to the Fuehrer could be based."
That was the mutual report of the SS and yourself, and then the next paragraph reads: "The material -certain complaints against Frank would be investigated by me. A series of complaints had been entered against Frank, and the Fuehrer had given instructions that Himmler and I should investigate the matter. That is the matter we are concerned with now. interested in this matter. I just want you to look further at this report. You will see that in the report itself it is headed, in paragraph A:
"The task of the German administration in the Government General:
"The German administration in the Government General has to fulfill the following tasks:
"1. For the purpose of securing food for the German people, to increase agricultural production and utilize to the fullest extent, to allow sufficient rationsto the native population occupied with work essential for the war effort, and to deliver the rest to the armed forces and the homeland." sufficient manpower and wealth from the territory of the Government General for the benefit of the Third Reich. And then towards the end it deals specifically with the utilization of manpower, and it is to that paragraph that I desire to draw your particular attention. Have you found the paragraph headed "utilization of manpower", dealing with the difficulties that the administration in the Government General was confronted with? I draw your attention to it because it contains the sentence: "It is clear that these difficulties have been increased by the elimination of Jewish manpower."
AAnd where is that, please?
Q It is in the paragraph headed "Utilization of manpower."
A But that is not my report; that is not a report of mine.
was checked with General Krueger, who agrees with it in full. You re-
collect in your covering letter you indicated that this memorandum had received your consideration. Now, whether you wrote that or not is not the matter that I am concerned with at the moment. What I want you to explain to the Tribunal is, first of all, did you appreciate that this report contained the sentence "It is clear that these difficulties of manpower have been increased by the elimination of Jewish manpower."?
A May I please read this document first? I cannot reply to documents which are pages long unless I nave read them. I find it quite impossible, and I ask for the time to read this report.
You have the time required; but I only want you to concern yourself with one sentence, you see. You can take it that in the last paragraph but one of thatreport where appears this sentence about the elimination of Jewish manpower, and what I am going to suggest to you is that -
A I am sorry, I haven't read this sentence. I haven't found the place. Where can I find it? Is it at the top or at the bottom of the page? If I am to read the whole page in order to find the sentence, I will need a few minutes. Can you indicate the approximate location for me? Krueger is reporting this, and he probably means the further evacuation of the Jews to the East. I do not mean what he means, and I am not in the position to tell you about one sentence which is torn out of the context of fourteen pages translated as emigration of Jewish manpower?
A That I do not know. I will have to read the complete document before I can give you any testimony on it. There are fourteen closely written pages, and I do not know what the continuity is.
licy of extermination of the Jewish people?
A Whether he had this view or did not have it I cannot tell you. He told me the exact opposite of that view, and as a witness I can only tell you what he told me and not what he said somewhere else.
Q You see, this Tribunal has had read to it extracts from Frank's diary in which he says that my attitude towards the Jews -- and this is found at page 12 of the German copy -- my attitude towards the Jews will be based only on the expectation that they should dissapear. And he says, as to the three and a half million Jews in the Government General, that he can't shoot them or poison them, but will nevertheless be able to intervene in ways which will lead in some way to successful annihilation. The Government General must become as free of Jews as the Reich is.
Are you saying that frank didn't express similar views to you? it, then it is contrary to what he told me; and that is all I can say on that point.
Q Did you know that Frank's diary inidcates that on the 9th of September 1944, there were three and a half million Jews in the Government General and when he makes an entry on the 2nd of August 1943, he says that only a few labor companies are left? Did you not know that?
A That it actually happened, that I don't know. He never told me about that and I knew nothing of the particulars. What he said in his diary he must be held responsible for. Whether he did it or not, that must be testified to by him. But at any rate I never knew anything about these things. in connection with those millions that this Tribunal knows were murdered; All the others have, let us say, emigrated. Are you using the word "emigrated" in an equally cynical and brutal sense as that ?
A I am not in a position to comment on the entries in his diary. Mr. Frank himself will have to do that. in assisting in drafting legislation towards achieving the end of racial perse cution, were you not?
Is that not so? Did you not put your signature on the Fuehrer decree empowering Himmler to carry out the necessary measures to eliminate from the territory of the Reich racial elements that you as Nazi did not approve?
Q Well, I will draw your attention to it. It is document 686-PS, which is GB 322. It is the decree of Hitler to strengthen German folkdom. That is the tittle of it. It is dated the 7th of October.
Q Just look at the first clause of it. It reads:
"The Reichsfuehrer SS has the obligation in accordance with my directives to bring back for final return into the Reich all German nationals and racial Germans in the foreign countries.
Paragraph 2:
"To eliminate the harmful influence of such alien parts of the population which represent a danger to the Reich and German folk community." that the Reichsfuehrer SS is authorized to take necessary measures to execute his obligation.
You signed that decree, did you not?
A It is correct. It doesn't say that Jews are to be killed. We were concerned with the elimination of a detrimental element. We are not concerned here with the elimination of foreign elements, merely with the detrimental influence of certain elements of the population;to remove the influence of people does not mean that the person himself is to be removed. the secrets of the Third Reich, saying to this Tribunal that you had no knowledge of the murder of millions and millions who were murdered under the Nazi regime? collapse, that is, the end of April and the beginning of May; through foreign radio I received these reports but at that time, I did not believe those reports and later on, here, through the papers, I received further material about that but as far as the elimination of a detrimental influence is concerned, that does not mean the annihilation; not with one word did the Fuehrer talk about murdering, not with one word was a plan like that ever considered. You have told us that the first you heard of several of the major military operations of the Third Reich, was through the newspapers. Was it from the newspapers that you heard of the Nazi plans to invade the Soviet Union? concerned, after the action had been completed. Before, the Fuehrer never mentioned aggressive action or war against Russia. He spoke only about warlike entanglements with Russia which were to be considered and might be imminent but I did not interpret that as aggressive war on Russia. was a defensive war on the part of Nazi Germany? testified to, that concentration of troops had been observed which might lead us to conclude that warlike entanglements with Russia are to be thought of or to be declared in any and all counts, and therefore, let Mr. Rosenberg concern himself with the questions of the East.
Beyond that, I knew nothing. I didn't knew at all that aggressive action was to be taken. we were informed; it was pictured that way. 1941, Hitler was planning and plotting the details of action against the Soviet Union. Just look at Exhibit 865-PS, USA 143, will you? That, as you will see, is a decree of the Fuehrer, in which it is dated the 20th of April 1941, and, let me remind you, that the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany did not take place until the 22nd of June. On the 20th of April, you signed that decree, in which Hitler named Rosenberg as "My Commissioner for the central control of questions connected with the East European Region."
A Yes, that is correct. I have never testified to anything else. That was the first mission which Rosenberg was given and it was on this occasion that the Fuehrer was speaking about a possible warlike entanglement with Russia.
Q Just a minute. Answer the question I am putting to you at the moment. You can give your explanations later. You look further down that document 865-PS, You see it is a letter from you to Keitel, dated the 21st of April, in which you say, "Herewith I am sending you a copy of the Fuehrer's decree by which the Fuehrer appointed Reichsleiter Rosenberg as his Commissioner for the Central Control connected with the East European Region. In this capacity, Reichsleiter Rosenberg is to make the necessary preparations for the probable emergency with all speed." Are you saying that these activities of yours and Rosenberg at that time were not connected with aggressive plans on the part of Nazi Germany?
A I do not wish to say that at any part; the Fuehrer was concerned with the matter, as I said before, but the Fuehrer believed that we might get into a war with Russia, but that was the matter of necessity through which Rosenberg was to have this mission, but not with one word is aggressive war mentioned and indeed there never was any such thought.
departments of the Third Reich, in connection with this preparation for aggression against the Soviet Union, weeks before the invasion took place; do you not?
A He had influence on "whom", did you say? I didn't quite follow.
Q Perhaps I was not understood. He was collaborating with other departments of the Third Reich weeks before the invasion happened. but what the scope and the aim was, that I do not know, and what further instructions he had from the Fuehrer, that I do not know either. took office, what the main principles of Nazi policy towards the conquered territories of the Soviet Union was to be, do you not? You attended the conference of Hitler on the 16th of July 1941, when he set out his principles and aims with regard to the Soviet Union?
AAfter the outbreak of the war this happened but not before. Before theoutbreak of the war, as far as I was concerned, and to me, there was never any talk about war of aggression, treatment for those whom the Nazi armies conquered, but you were at Hitler's conference in July 1941, in the very first weeks of this man's responsibility, and you heard Hitler in that conference enunciating a program of terror and brutality and exploitation, did you not?
AAlready, on the 16th of July, Mr. Rosenberg had his doubts and objected.
Q But they were doubts which didn't cause him to leave his post and he continued until the Red Army made his position somewhat uncomfortable in the East, did he not?
A Yes, but he always followed mitigating principles and actions. I spoke about his activities generally. I do not know about every special measure which he took and I can only tell you what Rosenberg told me personally, what he complained about personally, and what he enumerated as his objectives to me.