A. It doesn't mention buckets of blood in my translation. It says containers. I don't think that blood flowed to fill buckets.
Q. No, no. We are talking here about containers or vessels into which the soil was placed. Do you not consider the question of organizing secret places for execution a purely police question?
A. I am of the same opinion. For this reason, this affair was by no means approved of. But perhaps I may add that at the same time German passers through were daily killed when they were traveling through Cracow and Warsaw, and that this affair was brought about due to the excitement which was taking place among the German population at the time.
Q. I am asking you about something else, Mr. Witness. Do you not consider the fact that this question was discussed at the initiative of the police and that even the officials of the civilian administration had only indirect connection with this -- or was it otherwise?
A. No, I wouldn't way so. This wasn't suggested as a police measure. It arose from the threat from which the Germans were suffering at that stage, that period of the occupation.
Q. This question of the secret places for execution, did it arise at the initiative of Ohlenbusch, or do you deny that?
A. What do you mean, this question?
Q. Did it arise at the initiative of Ohlenbusch, or do you deny that?
A. I don't know whether this was discussed at all. In my opinion -
Q. (Interposing) Before you are the minutes of that conference at which you were present.
A. Yes. It is referring here to statements made by Ohlenbusch, if I am not mistaken. Yes, it mentions President Ohlenbusch in here, that's right.
Q. I am going on to the next question. Were there no reports read at the conference to Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe about the following? On page 34 in the second paragraph there is a quotation which I want to give. It is on page 180 of the text. Beginning quotation:
"For accidents on the railway there have been 150 persons shot and 50 Polish terrorists have been shot on the place of the crime for the death of one German official.
However, we should take into consideration the fact that during the shooting of 200 persons, more than 3,000 persons were usually concerned, including close and distant relatives." same severe measures, the same barbarous measures, were taken in Poland with regard to the civilian population as previous to Koppe's arrival?
A. As far as this mentions the shooting of 150 and 50 people respectively this obviously doesn't concern the shooting of hostages, which never did have the approval of the Governor General or my approval. If I have nevertheless stated that in its entirety Koppe's regime appeared milder to me, then I must stand by that statement of mine.
Q. The shooting of the hostages was not approved either by you or by the Governor General; is that what you are saying?
A. They did not have my approval, and I don't think they had the approval of the Governor General.
Q. Will you please look at page 185, beginning quotation, "The Governor General -
A. Interposing) Just a moment; I haven't found it yet.
Q. "The Governor General expresses to Obergruppenfuehrer SS Koppe his gratitude for his total efforts in the field with which he is connected, and wants to mention that he is a great expert in the police matters. He promises to Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe the cooperation of all the departments of the Government General and wishes him success in his work."
How should we interpret this statement? In view of the answer you just gave before to the other question, how should we interpret this statement now?
A. This statement of the Governor General does not apply to these 50 or 150 people. It applies to the work in its entirety which was to be done by Koppe in the Government General. And in consideration of the principles that should apply to that work, one of the principles was that shooting of hostages were no longer to take place. It is quite possible that in this case that principle had not yet been applied and achieved.
Q. Please stop here for a minute. Just before this you read Koppe's report dealing with the shooting of the hostages, on page 180, and subsequent to that the Governor General expressed his approval. Does that not mean that the Governor General approved this activity of Koppe's?
A Well, this was not the only statement made by Koppe. The statement of the Governor General was referring to the statements made by Koppe, and not only to that one bit.
Q Very well. In that case, he also approved this report and this statement. was influencing Koppe so that the shooting of hostages was no longer to happen. chief of police, who personally issued a decree to shoot one male citizen from every household in which a poster announcing a Polish national holiday should be found? book on the first page.
"The Governor General received Dr. Waechter, who explained that posters announcing Polish national holidays were being posted throughout the city. The Governor General immediately issued a decree that in every household where such a poster is found, one male person should be shot. This decree must be carried out by chief of the police, Dr. Waechter. Dr. Waechter arrested 120 hostages immediately in connection with this situation."
Do you remember that? Who introduced the practice of taking hostages? ference?
A Please, will you answer my question? Was I there or was I not? please.
Would you answer the following question, please? Your residence in Krakow took place according to the decree of Dr. Waechter, where Dr. Waechter detained 120 hostages. Now, are you trying to tell me that you did not know that 120 hostages were detained?
that hostages were shot at all.
Q Please answer the following question. Have I understood you correctly to have said today that there was no famine in Poland, that there was no dearth of food?
A What? I didn't understand that.
Q Yes, this is a question. Have I understood you to have said that there was -
Q I am asking that you be shown the speech of Dr. Buehler, State Secretary, at a meeting on the 31st of May 1943, in Krakow, and I am quoting:
"The Administration of the Government General considers it quite clear that for some time already the food quota established for non-Germans in Poland cannot in the future be maintained at the same level without allowing an increase in the activity of the population and thus lead the population to revolt. Quite naturally, the insufficiency of the food supply affects the mood of the population. However, the increased activity on the one hand, and the decrease in wages on the other, leads to further depression."
Did you not say that?
A I could follow the first part, but I didn't find the last sentence. second sentence. "Part of the Polish population is, by this time, in despair." That is also there in your test!
A Where does it say so, please? Would you show it to me?
(The text was indicated to the witness)
A (continuing) Yes, I have made these statements.
Q I also have this question. Do you not think that your announcement made in 1943 testifies to the fact that you have testified falsely today?
A No; no. What I meant by my statement was that the population had to help themselves, and I regarded it as helping themselves when a worker remained away from his place of work for three days and was looking after his food supplies.
That was considered by me to be a desperate step on the part of the worker. population to obtain the necessary food supplies but that it was not impossible, so that a famine and catastrophe was not noticed by me at all. of the Government General were country people so that famine, to a considerable degree, could not happen at all. It may be, then, that the low part of the country had been exploited completely. in the Government General, a revolt could take place, and you also stated that the population was in despair. Is that not evidence of the fact that there was famine in the country?
A When I said "revolt" I meant "disquiet". I didn't mean an armed uprising. It is quite clear that order, and the will to work, did suffer from the lack of rations. I stated this morning how it happened that the supplies for the Poles couldn't be carried out. On the other hand, however, there was such a considerable free market and black market that the worker too, if he had sufficient time, could obtain the necessary rations; and time which he didn't have, he took. That was the help of which I was ***
Q Please answer the following question. Is it now true that the Poles had only such chances for education which, according to the idea of Frank and Goebbels, would merely emphasize the future fate of their nation?
A There were efforts which could be felt; there were efforts to keep the level of education down. These tendencies originated in Berlin, from Himmler.
A What?
A They were closed; they were closed and they were not reopened.
However, certain courses took place in Warsaw, in Lubeck, during which university education was passed on to these people, but these courses were to be closed out by demand from the Reich. issued to close the universities. Perhaps you recognize the signature? It is an official report. and was signed by the Governor General on the 1st of November, 1940.
Q Tell me, were there not only workingmen's schools left in Poland?
A Not only handicraft schools remained. There were, for instance, commercial schools, and there was a group of them. Apart from that, there were trade schools and elementary schools, which were installed to a full extent. to train workers, petty officials, tradesmen; craft schools, in other words?
A Whether only small persons or other attended them, I don't know, but at any rate, they had to level off commercial schools. at Warsaw destroyed? Can you answer that question?
A I don't know for certain. I heard once that it had been the Fuehrer's wish that the walls of the castle in Warsaw should be razed to the ground. destroyed?
A I don't know whether it was blown up; that I don't know.
Q But it was destroyed. Who ordered it to be destroyed, do you know?
Q Defendant, I show you the place where I would like to quote. It is found on page 1 of the document book, and it is a very brief quotation. I am reading:
"The Fuehrer discussed with the Governor General the general situation and the approved general administration, specifically referring to the destruction of the royal palace and of other parts of the city."
At whose directive, then, was it destroyed? Do you see?
A It is not known to me that the castle was destroyed. As far as I know it was meant to be destroyed on one occasion, a plan which was, however, discarded.
Q Was it not in your presence that Dr. Frank, on the 31st of April 1943, gave a decree to apply police measures while recruiting manpower?
A I should have to see the minutes. I can't remember it offhand.
Q If you please (handing papers to the witness). The place which I should like to quote is on page 46, in the last paragraph. Quoting:
"Discussion with Secretary of State Dr. Buehler, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger and Dr. Frauendorfer in the presence of Reich Minister Dr. SeyssInquart. Subject of discussion is the deportation of workers, especially agricultural workers, to the Reich. The Governor-General states that as all methods in the way of appeals, etc. have been unsuccessful, one must come to the conclusion now that the Poles evaded this duty to work, either out of malice or with the intention of doing Germany indirect harm by not placing themselves at its disposal. He therefore asked Dr. Frauendorfer whether there were any more measures left which had not yet been taken in order to win the Poles over voluntarily. Reichshauptamtsleiter (head of a Reich head office) Dr. Frauendorfer answered this question in the negative.
"The Governor General stated in conclusion that the path had now been indicated.
"Where the Labor Department could not achieve any more, the police would have to step in."
Is that not a decree to apply police measures in recruiting manpower?
A I wouldn't contradict the statement, since I have seen the minutes. It is one of the utterances of the Governor General which, I believe,were not altogether made voluntarily, but which did in no way alter my course which I took on this question.
Q Please answer the following: Were you not present on the 18th of August 1942 at the discussion of Sauckel with Frank, and was it not in your presence that Doctor Frank spoke to Sauckel joyfully about sending new echelons of workers to the Reich with the help of the police and with methods of recruiting? recruiting of workers I had a conference with the Reichs Commissioner Sauckel before the visit to the Governor General took place. I cannot now remember whether I was present when Reichs Commissioner Sauckel visited the Governor General.
I would ask you therefore to let me have a look at the minutes.
Q Will you show the witness the minutes?
(Papers were handed to the witness.)
Quoting two short sentences:
"Doctor Funk: I am very glad that I can inform you officially that after this date, as of today we have sent to Germany over 800,000 workers. Only a short time ago you asked for more, for another 140,000. I am happy to inform you officially that in accordance with our agreement of yesterday, 60 per cent of these new Poles will be sent before the end of October, whereas the other 40 per cent will be dispatched to the Reich before the end of the year."
On page 120 there is one other sentence I want to quote:
"Besides the 140,000 you can count during the following year on new echelons of workers. Now that we have been using police measures you can count on a considerable number more than the following year."
Doesn't that imply the use of quite unorthodox police methods in recruiting manpower?
A I don't recollect that I have been present on that occasion, so I can in no way confirm or deny whether that was done in this particular way.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine?
DR. SEIDL: I have a fewmore questions to ask the witness. to have arisen. The question which I put in connection with Document USSR Exhibit 93 really referred to Appendix 1, which has the title "Cultural Life in Poland." That appendix deals with directives regarding the cultural policy which the administration of the Government General was supposed to have issued, and the way I understood the witness was that he was only to answer that particular question and not refer to the other appendices, such as, for instance, confiscated art treasures.
Perhaps it would have been better if he had not used the word "forged". At any rate, he wanted to say that he didn't know the directives in question.
BY DR. SEIDL: were brought to the Reich were volunteers? Prosecution of committing a forgery. I merely wanted to point out that possibly they were using a forged document. I didn't want to accuse any one of forging anything. I want to rectify that.
Now, regarding the question put by defendant's counsel, I want to say that according to my observations, by far the greater majority of all the workers from the Government General went to the Reich voluntarily. from the diary, which deals with the recruiting of laborers:
"On the 4 March 1940 the Governor General spoke before a meeting of the chiefs of the districts around Lublin and stated the following regarding workers and their recruiting:
"'The decree demanded from Berlin regarding new coercion to be applied was turned down, and measures which would cause disquiet would have to be avoided. The forcible transport of people had every reason against it.'" Does that conception reflect the true views of the Governor General?
A I was not present during that conference, so I didn't hear that utterance by the Governor General, but it does tally with those instructions and principles which the Governor General has always given to me and which I have always had carried out.
Q Were you present during a conference on the 14 January 1944? It was a conference with the Secretary of State Dr. Buehler, Dr. Koppe and several others. I quote from it:
"The Governor General turned against measures under which police forces were to be used for the carrying out of such measures. Such a task was not to go to the police." police in connection with the recruiting of workers?
A That wasn't the only question. The deputy of Commissioner Sauckel was often attacked by him during public meetings, official meetings, when he was talking about raids for the recruiting of workers; but I must state that Sauckel always stated that he had given instructions for these raids for the rounding up of workers.
dated the 25th of January 1943. He asked you whether you yourself regarded yourself as a war criminal. I shall now put to you another passage from that very conference, during which you yourself were present. I quote from page 7 of that entry in the diary:
"The Governor General stated: 'Secretary of State Krueger, you know that orders of the Reich Fuehrer SS can only be carried out by you when you have heard me first. This was omitted in this particular instance. I wish to express my regret that you have carried out an order from the Reichs Fuehrer without informing me of the orders of the Fuehrer first. According to that order from the Fuehrer, orders of the Reichs Fuehrer SS can only be carried out by the Governor General here if I have previously stated my agreement. I hope that this is the last time that that has been omitted, because I don't want to better the Fuehrer in every single such case."
I shall skip a few sentences and continue to quote:
"It is impossible that we can disregard Fuehrer orders, and it is out of the question that in the sphere of police and security direct orders from the Reichs Fuehrer are obeyed while the man is left out who has been appointed here by the Fuehrer. Otherwise I should be completely superfluous. and the higher SS Police Leader Krueger there were very frequently such arguments, and that the Governor General terminated these discussions and arguments by asking for cooperation, so that some sort of administration in this sphere could be made possible?
bread and butter. U.S.S.R. Exhibit 335, the Rules for Court Martial Procedures, dated October 1943. I now ask you what the security situation was in the Government General at that time,and would it have been possible at all at that time to carry out normal criminal procedures?
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Seidl, hasn't that already been dealt with fully in his examination in chief?
DR. SEIDL: In that case I shall forego having this question answered. I shall withdraw the question and now ask one last question which refers to art treasures. BY DR. SEIDL: found in the upper Silesian theatre were taken to the last official residence of the Governor General at Neuhaus, to be safeguarded, and that the Governor General had given you instructions to prepare a list of these articles and send it to Minister Lammers? fer of twenty of the most outstanding art treasures from the property of the Polish State. The report was dictated and referred to Minister Lammers. I was present when it was dictated and I took that report personally to Secretary of State Kritzinger in Berlin. It was stated therein that these art treasures, so as to save them from the Russians, had been taken from Seichau to Schliersee. These art treasures were in the official residence of the Governor General.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SEIDL: I have now completed the examination of witnesses, but since the document books have not yet been found, I would like to suggest that at some later stage, perhaps after the case of Frick, I could submit the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, how many books are you presenting?
DR. SEIDL: A total of five volumes, but I myself, have not received them yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Tribunal approved the documents in five volumes?
DR. SEIDL: They are almost entirely documents which have already been submitted to the Prosecution and an agreement has been reached with the Prosecution regarding the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, we need not wait now for the document books. The document books will be considered by the Tribunal when they are put in and then, if you have anything in particular you want to say upon them in explanation, you may do so.
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: No doubt you will comment upon them in your final speech. You say that they are mostly documents which have already been put in, and,therefore, it would not be necessary to make any preliminary comment upon them. You will be able to deal, with them in your final speech.
DR. SEIDL: Oh, but I should have liked to quote a few passages during my submission of evidence, since this is necessary to establish the connection and since it would be impossible to do all that during my final speech; but I do not think that a great deal of time will be lost through that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr.Seidl, it would not be useful to the Tribunal for you to make a commentary upon the documents at a later stage, when your witnesses have been finished and some other defendant's witness has been interpolated; therefore, the Tribunal thinks it would be much better and much more convenient to the Tribunal if you defer your comments on the documents until your final speech.
Well, Dr. Seidl, as I understand, you have two books which are before us now. Three is it?
DR. SEIDL: There is a total of five books. The other three do not appear to have been bound.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you say that most of the documents in them are documents which are already in evidence.
DR. SEIDL: There is a diary of defendant Dr. Frank. It has been submitted. It contains forty-two volumes, but the point is the Prosecution has only used those parts which appeared suitable to them. In my opinion, it is, therefore, necessary that during the submission of evidence some sort of connection is established. Also, there are other documents in the document book which should be read in extract before this Tribunal, but I shall, of course, limit myself to the absolutely necessary passages when I read the documents. If I may, I should like to suggest to the Tribunal that the matter be treated as it was in the case of the defendant Ribbentrop. So that I will submit the documents to the Tribunal as exhibits, such as several speeches by defendant Frank, such as the publication of laws, and there are two affidavits, and I do believe that somehow I should be able to define my attitude during the submission of evidence;
and, once more, individual documents will have to be given an exhibit number Up to now only one document has been submitted on behalf of the defendant Frank, and that is the affidavit of the witness Dr. Buehler, but I have the intention of submitting a number of other documents for the notice of the Tribunal, and the exhibits, and I merely suggest putting that back since the Tribunal has not yet received the document books.
THE PRESIDENT: When will these other books be ready, Dr Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: I was told that they would be completed by this evening.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will take in dealing with these books?
DR. SEIDL: I think that two hours will be enough.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal would like you to deal with you documents now, is so far as they are documents which have already been put evidence, unless you wish to refer to other passages in them. They think that you need only tell us what the documents are and put them in evidence, unless it is very important to you to refer to any particular document. So far as they are new documents, you will, no doubt, offer them in evidence and make such short comments as you think necessary. But the Tribunal hopes that you will be able to finish this afternoon, With reference to the other books that you have, we understand that you have all the documents in German yourself andm therefore, you can refer us to those documents now.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, upon the wish of the Prosecution and also, believe, of the Tribunal, I have reduced the extent of my document books considerably. The first five document books, such as I had them prepared, contained more than eight hundred pages. The new form is considerably shorter and the German text of the new form I have not received. So that I am not in a position right now to say anything about the number of pages and to coordinate my page number of the numbered pages with that of the tranalated books. If I may express one wish it is that we should wait first until the five document books in their new form are available because, otherwise, it is very likely that the pagination of the books and documents would not be coordinate such as it should be.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, we think you better go on with the first three books which you have here and we have them here.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal has the first three volumes, then I would like to begin with them. I begin with volume 1. The first document on page 1 is the decree of the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor concerning the administration of the Occupied Polish Territories, of 12 October 1939. This decree describes in detail the authority of the Governor General and in paragraph 5 and 6, some of the limitations of his authority are included, which already the witnesses Dr. Lammers and Dr. Buehler have pointed out. This document has the number 2537-PS and it will be Exhibit Frank No. 2.
I pass to page 3 of the document book. that is the decree of the Fuehrer concerning the establishment of the State Secretariat for Security Affairs in the Government General, dated 17 May 1942. I quote paragraph 2:
"The State Secretary for security affairs is at the same time the Deputy of the Reichs-Fuehrer SS in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the strengthening of German nationality."
On page four, I quote paragraph IV: "The Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German police is authorized to give the state Secretary for security affairs direct orders in the fields of security and the strengthening of German nationality."
This document will be Exhibit Frank No. 3. the decree of the Fuehrer 27 May 1942. This decree was the decree about the transfer of authority to the State Secretary for Security. I do not know whether that decree is already bound in that volume. Apparently that decree which was added later has not yet been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date?
DR. SEIDL: 23 June 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: We have one of the 27th of May 1942.
DR. SEIDL: That decree apparently has not yet been translated. it was added later and I will put it in a document book later. It will be Exhibit Frank No. 4.
In paragraph 1 of that decree, we find "The province of Police administration in Annex A and B are under the jurisdiction of the State Secretary for Security." In Annex 1 the provinces of authority of the order police are mentioned --- under 17 points---Now, I have to correct that--26 points; and in annex B, in 21 points.
I pass now to document book 1, page 5. That is the decree of the Fuehrer concerning the appiontment of officials and the discontinuance of an official status in the sphere of activity of the Governor General.
of 20 May 1942.
"The Governor General's sphere of activity does not, in the sense of this decree, include officials belonging to the sphere of the SS Reichsfuehrer and the Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior and to the customs control." Secutity Police and the Security Service, of July ----
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I suggest that an exhibit number be given as we go along so we can follow better and later on have some sequence. Dr. Seidl says he goes through the last one and this one has not yet been given any exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: The last one was Frank No 5, wasn't it?
MR. DODD: Frank No 5 was the 27th of May 1942. We didn't know that; we didn't get the number. I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: It may not have been stated but I took it down as that myself. Will you take care to state each time, Dr. Seidl, what the exhibit number is that you are giving. You are dealing now with the letter of the 31st of July 1941.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. This letter has a USA number; that is 509.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Wait a minute, Perhaps I made a mistake. Yes, Mr. Dodd, I think I made a mistake, The reason why Dr. Seidl didn't give a number was because it was already in evidence as USA 305. I made a mistake. It wasn't Frank No 5. He only got to Frank no. 4. The next one is USA 509.
DR. SEIDL: 509. I pass through page 10 of the document book. That is an order directive rather of the high command of the armed forces concerning the Case Barbarssa, USA 135, and I quote paragraph 2:
"A declaration of East Prussia and the General Government to be an operational area of the Army is not yet contemplated. However, on the basis of the unpublished Fuehrer decree of the 19th and 21st of October, 1939, the Commander in Chief of the Army is authorized to enact measures that are necessary for the execution of his military task and for the security of his troops." Fuehrer's Decree on the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Committment, of the 27th of March 1942. I quote No. 4:
"The Plenipotentiary General for Labor Committment will have at his disposal for the performance of his task the authority delegated to me by the Fuehrer for the issuance of instructions to the highest Reich authorities, their subordinated offices, as well as the offices of the party and its formations and affiliated organizations, to the Reich Protector, the Governor General, the military commanders and the chiefs of the civil administrations."
This document becomes Exhibit Frank No. 5.
The next document is on page 12. The Decree by the Fuehrer, concerning a Plenipotentiary General for the Utilization of Labor, of 21 March 1942, from which it can be seen that his authority included the Government General. It receives the Exhibit Frank No. 6.