Q I would like you to tell us who were members of this court. Could you please pay attention to paragraph 3, point 1 of paragraph 3?
A Yes; the Security Police, yes.
Q You were telling us of your histile attitude to the SD. Why, then, did you give the SD the right to exert oppression against the Polish population? ences. If I had not published this decree, then there would have been no control and the police would have acted quite blindly.
Q You spoke of the right of amnesty, which was entrusted to you. I remind you that the verdict of this court was to be put into effect immediately, that the court could not change this verdict if it was to be put into effect immediately, if the condemned person was to be shot immediately, Could you agree with that?
A That is the general instruction which I had given; that was the same time when I had been given powers to reprieve and that committee which dealt with pardons was continuously sitting. Files were handed in and on the strength of them they acted. question. Do you remember the B Action? of Polish intellectuals?
Q And what did it signify in that case? was my plan that by means of a properly arranged procedure, willful actions of the police should be excluded; that was all contained in that.
Q I do not understand very well your formula. How did you treat persons who were subjected to AB Action; what happened to them? ring the meeting.
Q But what happened to then later?
Q And then? jected to the proceedings which were established --at least, that is what I intended.
Q Was this left to the Police Exclusively? ple after they had been arrested; is that so? why you rejected your own right of reprieve?
Q I will then put before you your statement, dated 30 May 1940. Do you remember this meeting of the police on the 30th of May 1940, when you gave final instructions to the police before carrying; out this action ? You state the following: We will directly find the excerpts. You stated that any attempt on the part of the legal institutions to intervene in the operation AB, should be considered treason towards the German interests. Do you remember this statement story, a story which went on for several weeks, before you summarize. You must consider the whole statement and not just one fact which you are drawing out. This is a thing which went on for weeks and weeks and months and the forming of this committee of reprieve comes in between, which I had had formed and there is my protest against the willful actions, and then there is the inclusion of a legal system in all these proceedings. All this went on for several weeks and you can't summarize that, in my opinion, in one sentence.
in the eyes of a jurist cannot be misinterpreted.
"The reprieve committee which is submitted to me is not concerned with these matters. AB operation must be carried out exclusively by SS Chief Krueger and his organization. This is a purely internal repressive operation which goes beyond the limits of a normal procedure." developments during the following weeks then you will see that it never became effective. That was an intention, a bad intention which, thank God, stopped in time. Perhaps my defense counsel will be able to say a few words on the subject later.
Q One single question arises here. Did you reject your right of reprieve while carrying out the separation or not?
Q Well then, how can you account for your words, this one sentence? "The reprieve committee is not concerned with these matters."?
How should we interpret these words? ruling on the matter. It is a remark which was made .after days of negotiations. One must recognize the final picture of a development and not learn the various motives as they came up during the development.
Q Yes, I understand that very well, defendant. But I would like to ask you, to remind you, that this statement was made during a conference with the police, that you instructed the police in that matter.
A Not during that meeting. I assume it came up at some other meeting or occasion. Here we only discussed that one action. After all, I had to talk to Secretary of State Buehler first.
Q Well, all right. While discussing with the police the AB operation you stated that the results of this action would not concern the reprieve committee, is that right?
final result but rather at the intermediate stage. may judge the results of this action. Perhaps you can recall this part which I will put to you. You stated the following:
"We need not shut up these elements in German concentration camps for in that case we would have to carry out unnecessary correspondence with their families. We will liquidate them in the country and we will do it in the simplest form." is that not so?
A That is a terrible word. Thank God that did not become a fact in this connection.
Q Yes, but these persons were executed. How do you mean this was not carried out? reprieve was not exercised. without the right of applying the right of reprieve? they were executed, exterminated.
A Which people?
Q Those who were arrested because of the AB operation. I will remind you of another excerpt connected with this AB operation. If you did not agree with the police in regard to their police actions it would be difficult to explain the celebrations in connection with the departure of Brigadefuehrer Streckenbach when he left for Berlin. Does this not mean that you were at least on friendly relations with him? and I think you know that as well as the others.
Brigadefuehrer Streckenbach, one sentence only. You said:
"What you, the Fuehrer, and your people have done in the Governor Generalship must not be forgotten and you need not be ashamed of all of it." toward Streckenbach and his people?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude the cross-examination?
MR. DODD: I have only one or two questions, if your Honor pleases. BY MR. DODD: had never gathered to yourself any of the art treasures of the Government General, By that I do not suppose you to mean that you did not have them collected and registered for you did them collected and registered, is not that so? collected and registered officially and the book has been submitted here in Court.
Q Yes. And before you got there you told the Tribunal that one Duerer collection had already been seized, before you took over your duties.
A May I ask you to understand it as follows: from the counties, the various districts before the civilian administration started to work. Muehlmann went to Lemberg and collected them from the library whereas I had not been to Lemberg at all before that time.
These leaves, these sheets were then taken directly to the Fuehrer HQ or the Reichsmarshal Goering, I am not sure.
at. Is that not a fact? was coming by order of the Reichsmarshal and that they were collected by order of the Reichsmarshal. lected by the Reichsmarshal and also by the defendant Rosenberg at the time you told the Tribunal you were too busy with war tasks to get involved in that sort of thing?
A There is nothing like that known to me .with reference to the Government General. Rosenberg's Action Staff had no jurisdiction in the General Government and apart from the collection of the composer Elsner and a Jewish library from Lublin I had no official duties to demand the return of any art treasures from Rosenberg. you were captured by the American forces.
A Yes. They were not in my possession, I was safeguarding them but not for myself. They were not under my immediate control, they had been taken away by me at once when the towns were inflamed. They could not be safeguarded or secured any other way. Aside from that these art treasures are so widely known that they are numbers one to ten on this list so that even if you wanted to you could not appropriate them. You cannot steal a Mona Lisa. possession. I am not trying to imply you were holding them for yourself if you were not. However, I think you have made that clear. since I am particularly keen on clarifying these points, that these art treasures with which we are concerned, could only be made safe in that particular way. Otherwise they would have gotten lost.
Q Very well. I have one other matter I would like to clear up and I will not be long. struggled for sometime to effect the release of the Cracow professors who were seized and sent to Oranienburg soon after the occupation of Poland. Now, of course, you are probably familiar with what you said about it yourself in your diary, are you? apart from what is said in the diary what I said this morning is the truth and you must never forget that I had to speak amongst a circle of deadly enemies, people who reported every word I said either to the Fuehrer or Himmler. should have been retained in Poland and liquidated or imprisoned there. you that I never did that. On the contrary, I received the professors from Cracow and talked to them quietly and at length. Regarding everything and all the matters that have happened that is the one I regret the most.
Q Perhaps you do not understand me. I am talking about what you wrote in your own diary about these professors and I shall be glad to read it be you and make it available to you if you care to contest it. You are not denying that you said they should either be returned for liquidation in Poland and imprisoned in Poland, are you? You do not deny that? could exist in front of my enemies but the truth is I have liberated the professors and nothing after all had happened to them after that. General Krueger that fond farewell, the SS and higher police authority?
A That was definitely the same thing. Perhaps I may say, Mr. Prosecutor, that I admit altogether without restriction what can be admitted but I have also sworn to add nothing and no one can admit any more than I have done by handing over these diaries. What I am asking is that you do not ask me to add anything to that.
Q. No, I'm not asking you to add anything to it; rather, I was trying to clear up because you've made a rather difficult situation, perhaps, for yourself and for others. You see, if we can' believe what you wrote in your diary, I don't know how you can ask us to believe what you say here. You were writing those things yourself and at the time you wrote them, I assume you didn't expect that you'd be confronted with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he not mean that this was a record of a speech that he has made?
MR. DODD: In his diary, yes. It is recorded in his diary.
THE PRESIDENT: When he said, "I did it so I could exist"?
MR. DODD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I presume that that particular record is a record of some speech that he made.
MR. DODD: It is. It is entered in the diary.
A. (Continuing) May I be allowed to say something more to that. I didn't put myself in a difficult position. The developments of the war meant a dreadful situation for every administrative official.
Q. Finally, do you recall an entry in your diary, in which you stated that you had a long hour and a holf with the Fuehrer and that you had-
A. Please, when was the last conference?
Q. Well, this entry is on Monday, the 17th of March, 1941 -March 17, 1941. It's in your diary.
A. That will probably be one of those few conferences; whether I was alone with him, I don't know.
Q. In which you said you and the Fuehrer had come to a complete agreement and that he approved all the measures, including all the decrees, especially also the entire organization of the country. Would you stand by that today?
A. No.
Q. You say that wasn't a speech.
A. But perhaps 1 may say the following: The Fuehrer's agreements always happened very spontaneously, but the carrying out always dragged out; it kept one waiting.
Q. Was that one of the times you complained to him that you told us about this morning?
A. I have complained continuously. As you know, I have offered to resign on fourteen occasions.
Q. Yes, I know; but on this occasion did you make many complaints and did you have the approval of the Fuehrer or did he turn down your complaints, on this occasion of the 17th of March, 1941?
A. The Fuehrer had the very simple way out by saying, "You'll have to talk to Himmler about that."
Q. Well, that isn't really an answer. You've entered in your diary that you talked it out with him and that he approved everything, and you make no mention in your diary of any disappointment over the filing; of a complaint. Surely, this wasn't a speech that you were recording in your diary; it seems to be a factual entry on your conversations with the Fuehrer. And my question is simply, do you now admit that that was the situation or are you saying that it was a false entry?
A. Please, I didn't say that I was making false entries. I've never said, that, and I'm not going to argue about words. I am merely saying that you must judge the words according to the entire context. If I am emphasizing before the officials that the Fuehrer has received me and has agreed to my measures, then I am saying that to back up my own authority and maintain it, which would be impossinle without the Fuehrer's agreement. What my thoughts were, that doesn't become clear from it. What I want to emphasize, Mr. Prosecutor, is that I'm not going to argue about words or am I asking to.
Q. Very well, I don't care to press it any further.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, do you wish to reexamine? BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, the first question put to you by the Soviet Prosecutor was whether the chief of the NSDAP was in the General Government, and you answered "yes". Did the Party have any decisive influence in the Government General on the political and administrative life?
A. No. The Party as an organization in that theatre was under my command, yes; but, of course, only nominally. All the Party officials were appointed by Bormann; about that I was never asked. There is a special Fuehrer decree for the districts of the NSDAP in the occupied territories, and it says in that that they are immediately under Bormann's jurisdiction.
Government General, have anything at all to do with any security police affairs?
A The Party was much too small and couldn't play any important parts; it had no state functions. USSR 335, in paragraph 6 it states--this is the decree on court martials. It states in paragraph 6: "Sentences of the court martial must be carried out at once." Is it true if I say that there was no formal legal means against these sentences, but that a reprieve was perfectly feasible and possible? an impossibility. the decree, this decree on October the 2nd, 1943, and I'm thinking in particular of the security situation?
A If I look back on that, then I can't think of any cause which would make such a demand possible; but, if you put yourself back into the war and the flames in all the places, then this was an explosive measure, a desperate measure, rather I wanted to say.
Q I now come back to the "A.B." Action. Is it true that as early as 1939, there was a decree on a court martial which had considerably larger legal guarantees than that of '43?
Q And is it also Correct that those arrested in the "A.B." Action, and of the strength of this decree and during those proceedings, were sentenced or acquitted? martials, at least in accordance with your will, were handed to the reprieve commission under Secretary of State Buehler?
Q The Prosecutor of the United States has accused you that in Neuhaus, where you were arrested after the collapse of the German armed forces, there had been found a large number of art treasures, not in your house, but perhaps in the official building of the Governor General.
Is it true that State Secretary Dr. Buehler, together with a letter to Dr. Lammers, was sent off by you, which letter contained a list of these art treasures?
A Yes; not only that, but the Chief of the "Pinakothek" in Munich was told by me that these articles were there; that they should be made secure from bombs. He has looked at the pictures and they were put in a cellar which was bombproof. I'm glad I did so; otherwise, these valuable articles would have been destroyed.
Q And now one last matter. The Prosecution have submitted document 661-PS. This document has a USSR exhibit number, which, unfortunately, I don't know at the moment. This is a document which has been connected with the activities of the academy for German law, of which, of course, you were president. The document has the heading "The Legal Forming of German-Polish policies from the Point of View of Nationalism in the Legal Part for the Committee on Nationals in the Academy for German Law", and I'm having it submitted to you. Please, will you tell me whether you've ever had this document in your hands before?
A From whom does it originate?
Q This is USA Exhibit No. 300.
A Does it state anywhere who worked on it?
Q The document has no author; it's not stated on it; nor does it show by whose order it was compiled.
A In that case, all I can say is that I've never seen the document; that I have never given an order of this kind, and that, in fact, I can't say anything other than in practice. Was there such a ministry in Kassel at that time?
AA ministry in Kassel, did you say? That doesn't exist since 1866.
Q DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to his seat.
DR. SEIDL: In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I shall call witness Dr. Bilfinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: This document which is USSR 223, which are extracts from defendant Frank's diary, are you offering that in evidence? Apparently, some entries out of Frank's diary have already been offered in evidence; others have not. Are you wishing to offer this in evidence?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This document is already submitted in evidence under two numbers; the first number is 223-PS, which was submitted by the American Prosecution, and the second is 223, USSR exhibit, and was already submitted by us on the 15th of February, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Have these entries which you have in this document been submitted under 223 USSR? You see, the PS number does not necessarily mean that the documents have been offered in evidence. The PS numbers were applied to documents before they were offered in evidence; but the USSR 223 does imply that it has been offered in evidence.
COL. SMIRNOV: This document has already been presented in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, what the Tribunal wants to know is whether you wish to offer this USSR 223 in evidence, because unless it was read before it hasn't been offered in evidence or it hasn't gone into the record.
COL. SMIRNOV: We already read excerpt on the 15th of February, and it is therefore', already read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. SMIRNOV: May I retire, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT; Yes.
RUDOLF BILFINGER, A witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you stand up, please, and will you tell us your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me? truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT; You may sit down. BY DR. SEIDL: position? RSHA where I was a Government councillor and Oberregierungsrat, and I was working on security questions and police questions. of the sector of legal administration attached to the commander of Security Police and SD in Cracow?
A Yes. In the autumn of 1940 I was the head of the administrative legal department attached to the commander of Security Police in Cracow.
Q What were your tasks? Please refer to the various periods and tell us what tasks you had to fulfill, very briefly.
tion with the police administration in the Government General and work on them under the Higher SS and Police leader. what was his relationship to the Governor General? Did the Highest SS and Police Leader receive his instructions regarding the Security Police and the SD from the Governor General? Or did he receive then directly from the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler. in the Government General, and of course of the SD, also received direct orders and instructions from Department IV, the Gestapo, and Department V, the Criminal Police Department, in the RSHA?
A Yes. The commander of the Security Police received many orders directly from the various departments of the RSHA, particularly IV and V. which was created in 1942, bring about a change in the legal position of the Governor General with reference to measures in connection with the Security Police and the SD? legal position of the Governor General, There were merely now spheres of juridiction which were added to the tasks of the Secretary of State for the Security Service. of the German Police Himmler in the year 1939, and what was its contents
A I know a decree probably dated 1939? dealing with the employment of the Higher SS and Police Leader.
In that decree it was ruled that the Higher SS and Police Leader would receive his instructions directly from Himmler. May 1942 and is based on a Fuehrer decree. In the employment of this decree another decree was issued which deals with the transfer of the business to the Secretary of State for the Security Service, dated June 3, 1942. Do you know the contents of that decree? Security Police were concerned, the entire political and criminal police, as it had been the case before, were in turn subordinated to the Secretary of State for the Security Service directly? under the Higher SS and Police Leader and later on the Secretary of State for the Security Service. So these decrees did not introduce innovations. It was merely a confirmation. points which deal with all the sectors dealt with by the Security Police, and their transfer to the Higher SS and the Secretary of State for Security Service? mentioned specifically? matters of the Security Police representation in the Government General during conferences and meetings, particularly in the central department in the Reich, will include the following spheres and sectors?
A I know that such a statement was contained therein. Whether it was Figure 21 or whether this is the exact wording, that I can no longer recollect. of the Administrative Police were removed from the administration of the Governor General and handed over to the Secretary of State for the security system, who was, after all, directly under Himmler?
contrary to the wording of that decree, certain few sectors were not taken away from the administration, about which the fight continued later on. Apart from that, all sectors of the police administration were taken away. anything to do with the direction and administration of concentration camps? When did you yourself hear of concentration camps at Maidanek, Treblinka and Lublin for the first time?
Q May,I, first of all, correct you. I was attached to the Chief of the Security Police, commander of the Security Police. I heard of Maidanek for the first time when Lublin and Maidanek were occupied by the Russians; and I heard it through propaganda for the first time what the name Maidanek meant when at that time the former Governor General. Frank ordered an investigation regarding the events and the responsibility in connection with Maidanek. relationship between the Governor General and the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, and what were the reasons for that?
A Their relations were bad from the beginning. The reasons were partly a question of the organization and the use of the police, and partly obvious differences of opinion.
Q What do you consider those differences of opinion? Do you mean different opinions regarding the treatment of the Polish population? court martials sentences by Governor General Frank were concerned. Contrary to Krueger's opinion, he either failed to confirm a number of sentences or he ordered much milder ones. It was in.
such connection that I heard of these differences and remember them. the so-called A.B. action?
A I know nothing of an A.B. action.
Q Oh, you came to the Government General later, did you?
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel want to ask questions?
DR. MERKEL: Dr. Merkel for the State Police. May I be permitted to put a few questions to the witness. BY DR. MERKEL: had been a circle of persons in accordance with a mutual intention, and that its membership had been voluntary. Since you had a leading position in the RSHA, may I ask you be tell me briefly what you know on these questions? small extent volunteers. The nucleus of the members were these former officials of the old political departments of the police president's offices. These former political departments under the police president originated the Secret State Police Department, and most of the officials of the former political departments were taken over. So in Berlin, for instance, there was Department I-A of the police president's department. other administrations to the Secret State Police, or were detailed to go there ... In the course of the years officials from other service departments and administrations were forced to transfer to the Secret State Police. So, for instance, the entire customs officials were in 1944, by order of the Fuehrer, transferred to the Secret State Police at about the same time all counter-intelligence personnel were transferred.
not able to do service at the front were detached and attached to the Secret State Police. Apart from that and to a considerable degree, people who had originally had nothing to do with police work were appointed to serve with the Secret State Police in the emergency a Reich authority and that the German civil servants legislation would be applicable, would that be correct?
Q Was it possible for the officials to resign easily? ly difficult, and, in fact, really impossible. A man could only leave under certain special circumstances. the officials of the Secret State Police the following ratio was applicable: Executives, about 20 percent; administrative officials, also 20 percent; and technical personnel, approximately 60 percent. Are these figures about right? certain service departments which I know intimately, in their case these figures would apply, yes. and in the occupied countries? nomic and administrative central department, that is, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.