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.
If indeed and in practice he acted differently, that I do not know. the Reichcommissar for the Ukraine, were you not?
A Yes, I knew that very well. Rosenberg was always the man who was for mitigating influences and who wanted to have all matters, political matters handled reasonably. Koch was the one who leaned toward a more radical solution.
Q When you say a "more radical solution," what do you mean by that, "Mass murder"?
Q But you did in fact know that Koch was a murderer, did you not?
A That Koch was a murderer?
Q I will just draw your attention to them. Look at the document 032-PS, which will be GB 321, the document which has not yet been exhibited. That is a report dated the 2nd of April 1943, from Rosenberg to Himmler, with a copy to you. It is a report on the murder of the people of the Zyman wooded area so that there could be established a place for Reichscommissar Koch to hunt in.
A I know of this complaint. I transmitted it to the Fuehrer. Mr. Rosenberg complained that Reichscommissar Koch had said he had a certain region cleansed for he wanted to hunt there, and Rosenberg complained about this to the Fuehrer.
Q And this word "cleansed," does that mean emigration or does that mean murder?
Q I don't want you to shut this document. I just want you to look at this document because you have denied knowledge that Koch was a murderer. In paragraph 2 of the report you see this:
"Now, I received the following information from an old Party Comrade who has worked for nine months in Volhnia and Podolia for the purpose of preparing for the taking over of a District Commissariat or of a chief section in General District Volhnia and Podolia. This information goes as follows:
"On the order of the highest position it was directed that the whole Rayon Zuman be evacuated. Germans and Ukrainers both stated that this was happening because the Reich Commissar wishedto have the whole wooded area Zuman for his beloved hunting. In December 1942 (when the cold was already severe) the evacuation was begun. Hundreds of families were forced to pack all their possessions over night and were then evacuated a distance of over 60 km. Hundreds of men in Zuman and the vicinity were mowed dawn by the gunfire of an entire Police Company, 'because they were Communist party members'. No Ukrainer believed this....." see. Have you found it?
A No, I have not found it.
document, you know. murders might be refreshed.
"Hundreds of men in Zuman and the vicinity were mowed down by the gunfire of an entire police company because they were Communist Party members. No Ukrainian believed this and likewise the Germans were perplexed by this argument because if the security of the area were at stake it would have been necessary to execute communistically inclined elements in other regions. On the contrary it was generally maintained that those men were ruthlessly shot down without judgement because so extensive an evacuation in so short a time was out of the question and furthermore therewas not enough space available at the new place for settling the evacuees." that Koch was amurderer?
A On the strength of that report I did everything possible. The report was immediately submitted to the Fuehrer and if it actually took place then I must admit it was murder but today I do not recall if this did take place but if it did it was murder but I am not a judge. was immediately passed on to the Fuehrer. commissars, did he not? Bormann and he tried to console Rosenberg. Rosenberg tried to resign repeatedly but was not able to do so. information to the Court as to the conditions in the occupied territories because what I am putting to you generally, you see, is that the battles that were going on there were battles between ruthless men struggling for power and that there was a totally absent from this scene of Nazi control any person who was pressing for human decency, pressing for human pity.
You were not pressing for either of those things, were you?
A I did not quite understand your question. There are several languages it seems to me on this channel, at least there is a disturbance. May I ask that you please repeat the question. on the side of human pity or human decency in this regime, were you? manythings. I have saved the lives of perhaps one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand Jews. and Bormanns and Hitlers, was that not so?
AAnnihilation orders, no I did not issue any of them. They never went through my hands. the defendant Keitel and the ruthless policy that Terboven was carrying out against the Norwegian people. I draw your attention to the document -
A I asked Mr. Keitel to define his position and I objected to the Fuehrer against the shooting of hostages and my officials, my subordinates can vouch for that. will be Exhibit G.B. 322, which is a letter from Keitel to yourself and is related to the report by Terboven in document 870-PS, which my learned friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyffe put in in connection with the defendant Keitel.
Keitel to yourself and it says in the first paragraph:
"In view of checking sabotage in Norway I agree with the view of the Reichscommissioner for occupied Norwegian territory to the extent that I expect results from reprisals only if they are carried out ruth-lessly and if Reichscommissioner Terboven is authorized to carry out shootings."
my view against the shooting of hostages and I was successful to the Fuehrer.
Q You were successful in what respect? expressed explicitly that the shooting of hostages was net to take place on that scope and that extent which he desired and others wanted. Hostages were to be taken only from the circle of miscreants. take place on the scale thatTerboven wanted to commit them, did it? but the Fuehrer did not approve of that and I objected to the shooting of hostages and the gentlemen of the Reichschancellory can vouch for that.
A Yes, it is right that I received this message. Matters took the following course. I had a request from Terboven and then I wrote to Keitel and told him that I intended to submit the request of Terboven to the Fuehrer -- please give me your views and your position. Then the report came back from Keitel and then it was submitted to the Fuehrer.
The request of Terboven was watered down. The Fuehrer took the position that first of all the miscreants were to be taken; then hostages were to be taken out of the circle of the miscreants but shootings were not talked about. where Nazi power ruled hostages were taken, fathers and mothers were killed for the actions of their sons against the Nazi regime. Are you saying you do not know about that? theoccupied territories and I never went to the occupied countries. between the ministers. Just a minute -- you were the Hitler, were you not?
A Not in all cases, no. Many of them went through Bormann, especially Terboven. My officials and my subordinates in the Chancellory can vouch for that. Terboven went over my head all the time and sent his reports to Bormann.
Q You were working hand in glove with Bormann, you know, were you not?
Q You had to work with him? You were the head of the Reichschancellory. Bormann. I had to work closely with him to keep the Party agreement on many things and in many matters the agreement of the Party was prescribed and therefore I had to work with Bormann.
Q Did you find it distasteful to work with Bormann?
A I did not particularly like it. It was my duty to work with him. Bormann exercised was very great. daily but I only every six or eight weeks. Bormann always passed on the decision of the Fuehrer to me and had personal audiences with the Fuehrer but I did not. Bormann, were you not? certain things to the attention of the Fuehrer at all. During those last eight months I had no personal discussion with the Fuehrer and the things I could succeed in through Bormann. 1945, a letter, Exhibit D-753A. that from memory without reading the letter. I complained that I could not be heard by the Fuehrer any longer and I complained that this situation could no longer go on.
Q And you say in that letter in the last paragraph but one:
"For our unanimous cooperation to date has for a long time been a thorn in the flesh of one person or another, because they would have preferred to play us of one against the other."
A The next to the last page you mean?
A "In conclusion I would like to say --",is that the paragraph you mean?
"For our unanimous cooperation to date --." relations and that it was the New Year and I was congratulating him on the New Year and I stated that we might continue cordial relations. Therefore, I said everything had not gone well. Bormann. You were the link between the occupied territories and Hitler? importance. The Reichscommissars were directly responsible to the Fuehrer. in the territory that Germany conquered but about the terror in Germany itself. You have testified as to the defendant Frick that as Minister of Interior he was in effect a man without power, a man of straw. That is the rough effect of your evidence, isn't it? camps went to Frick? the victims who were in those camps? Did you not hear my question?
A I can only understand half of what you are saying. Loud noises interfere on my channel. Perhaps I had better take the earphones off.
Q No, put them on. Just try again, just put them on will you? Put your earphones on will you and just try patiently you see, a little patience.
from concentration camps went? that sort came to me. I dealt with them carefully and methodically and in many cases I was responsible for the release of certain people. matters? petitions and such I do not know.
Q I want you to listen to an affidavit by a Dr. Sidney Mendel, a Doctor of Law, which is Exhibit 601-PS. member of the Berlin Bar and admitted as an attorney at law of the German courts. His legal residence is now 88520 Elmhurst Avenue, Elmhurst, State of New York.
In his capacity as attorney he handled numerous concentration camp cases in the years 1933 to 1938. He remembers distinctly that in the years 1934-1935 he approached in several cases Frick's Vice Ministry of the Interior as the agency superior to the Gestapo for the release of concentration camp inmates. Frick's Ministry had special control functions over concentration camps. illegal arrests, beatings, tortures, mistreatment of inmates, but the Ministry declined the release and upheld the decisions of the Gestapo.
That was Frick's attitude towards those matters, wasn't it?
A I really don't know just what caused Frick to make these complaints. You will have to ask Dr. Frick.
Q But you have testified on behalf, you see of Frick. If you now say you know nothing about him, then I shall not trouble you further with the case of the defendant Frick; but you gave evidence for him, you know. know just what caused him to give out particular matters. again was a man without power. That was the effect of your evidence, wasn't it? but that does not exclude that he received petitions and proposals. How he did them and in so far as he was competent in those matters, I don't know.
Q You say he was a decorative personality. That is a matter of taste. But one of his functions, at any rate, was that he was the person to decide whether death sentences in his territory were carried out or not. That's not a small matter for the human being in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, you know.
A Please then let us eliminate the word"decorative". I mean, more decorative than actual. The head of the state is usually competent as far as certain state matters are concerned, and Frick was the German head of state there and had to do with matters of releases and reprieves,
Q You know, witness, perfectly well that it was within Frick's power to reprieve the death sentences that were being carried out in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia, don't you?
A Yes, certainly that was within his power; there is no doubt about that. influence by moderation, but on the contrary enforced brutal measures against the victims of Nazi administration in that unfortunate part of Europe. ercised that power, according to what inner principles he exercised that power I do not know.