Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-112.04
Last-Modified: 2000/01/23

DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir. He has given the answer already.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q. Witness, during the war did the government of the Reich
...

                                                  [Page 155]

THE PRESIDENT: But I am speaking for the future, Dr. Seidl.

DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q. During the war, Himmler submitted to the Reich Government
the draft of a law about the treatment of foreign elements.

A. Yes.

Q. What was the attitude of the Governor General to this?

A. The Governor General protested against this. At the
conference which I had with Heydrich in February, 1942, the
latter asked me as a special request to ask the Governor
General to retract his protest against the law. The Governor
General refused to do this.

Q. The prosecution has presented a chart which shows Dr.
Frank as having authority over the Reich Minister of Justice
Dr. Thierack. Did such a relation ever exist?

A. That must be an error; such a relation never existed.

Q. What were, according to your observations, the relations
between the Governor General and the Reichsfuehrer S.S.
Himmler?

A. The Governor General and the Reichsfuehrer S.S. Himmler
as individuals were so different ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, I thought we had been hearing all
morning what the relations were between the Governor General
and the Reich Fuehrer.

DR. SEIDL: Then I will not put that question.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q. Witness, the Soviet prosecution under Exhibit USSR-93,
submitted an appendix to the report of the Polish
Government. The appendix is entitled "Cultural Life in
Poland." I have shown it to you once before and would like
you to tell me whether the Governor General or his
Government actually
ever issued such directives?

A. I do not remember ever having signed such directives or
having seen any such directives signed by the Governor
General. The document which was shown me seems to me to be a
fake or a forgery. This can be recognised from the contents.

Q. In the diary we find a large number of entries, referring
to the policies of the Governor General, which seem to
contradict what you yourself said before as a witness. How
can you explain these contradictions?

A. These statements by the Governor General, which have also
been called to my attention during previous interrogations,
do not merely seem to contradict what I said, they very
clearly do contradict what I have to say as a witness. Since
I myself heard such statements frequently I have tried to
figure out how he came to make them, and I can only say that
Frank perhaps took part more than was necessary in the
conferences and affairs of the Government offices. There was
scarcely a conference in which he did not take part. Thus it
happened that he had to speak many times during one day, and
I might say that ninety-nine times out of a hundred he spoke
on the spur of the moment, without due reflection.
Frequently I witnessed that, after making such grotesque
statements, he would try in the next sentences or at the
next opportunity to retract them and straighten them out. I
also witnessed how he rescinded authority which he had
delegated on the spur of the moment. I am sure that if I
could work through the diary I should be able to give you,
for each of these statements, a dozen statements to the
contrary. I should like to add the following: when the
Governor General was working together with the members of
his administration, he never made such statements; at least
I cannot remember any. These statements were always made
when the Higher S.S. and Police Fuehrer was sitting next to
him, so that I had the impression that he was not free on
such occasions.

                                                  [Page 156]

Q. The diary of the defendant Dr. Frank covers about ten to
twelve thousand typewritten pages. Who kept this diary - he
himself or somebody else?

A. According to my observations, that diary was kept by
stenographers, first by Stenographer Dr. Meitinger, later by
Nauk and Mohr. It was kept in such a manner, that these
stenographers were in the room during conferences and took
notes.

Q. Is it correct that to a certain extent the reports of
these stenographers about what was said at a conference were
corrected by other people?

A. I have often noticed - that these stenographers did not
take pains to put down everything literally but merely took
down summaries according to the sense. It has also been my
experience to often be asked who was this or that man, or
what the Governor General had said or thought in any
particular instance.

Q. Did the Governor General read these diary notes later?

A. From what I know of the Governor General, I do not
believe that he read them over.

THE PRESIDENT: How can this witness tell whether he read the
notes later?

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the witness, Dr. Buehler, was the
Governor General's closest co-worker.

THE PRESIDENT: If you wanted to put that sort of question,
you should have asked the defendant Frank.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q. A further question, witness. According to your
observations what caused the Governor General not to destroy
that diary and to turn it over when he was arrested?

A. On 15 March for the last time I was ...

THE PRESIDENT: That again is a matter which rests in the
mind of Dr. Frank, not of this witness, why he did not
destroy it.

DR. SEIDL: He has answered the question already.

BY DR. SIEDL:

Now, one last question. In 1942, after the speeches made by
Dr. Frank, he was deprived of all his Party offices. What
effect did that have on his position as Governor General?

A. I have already referred to that; It weakened his
authority considerably and the administration in the
Government General became increasingly difficult.

Q. Is it correct that the Governor General repeatedly made
an application to resign, both in writing and verbally?

A. Yes, written applications for resignation I often worded
myself, and I know that he also applied verbally many times
to be permitted to resign, but that this was never approved.

DR. SEIDL: I have no more questions for the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants' counsel wish to ask
any questions?

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Sauckel):

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Witness, is it correct that by far the largest number of
the Polish workers who came to Germany, came into the Reich
before April, 1942, that is, before Sauckel came into
office?

A. I cannot make any definite statement about that, but I
know that the recruitment of labour produced ever fewer
results, and that the main quotas were probably delivered
during the first years.

Q. Were the labour quotas which had been demanded by the
Governor General reduced by Sauckel, in view of the fact
that so many Poles were already working in the Reich?

                                                  [Page 157]

A. I know of one such case. Sauckel's deputy, President
Struve, talked to me about it.

Q. Is it true that Himmler for his own purposes recruited
workers from the Polish area, without Sauckel's knowledge
and without adhering to the rulings which Sauckel had
issued?

A. I assume that that happened. Whenever I was told about
raids against workers, I tried to clear matters up. The
police always said "That is the labour administration," and
the labour administration said "That is the police. " But I
know that once on a visit to Warsaw Himmler was very annoyed
about the loafers standing on the street corners, and I
consider it quite possible that these manpower raids in
Warsaw, were carried out arbitrarily by the police, without
the participation of the labour administration.

Q. Do you know about Sauckel's directives in regard to the
carrying out of labour recruitment?

A. I have not seen them in detail and I don't remember them.
I know only that Sauckel stated, on the occasion of a visit
to Cracow, that he had not ordered the use of violence.

Q. Was that a speech of Sauckel's?

A. No, that was a conference.

Q. Do you recall an address which Sauckel made in Cracow to
the various offices?

A. He spoke as a Party speaker.

Q. Did he make any statements there about the treatment of
workers?

A. These statements were made in a conference which preceded
the visit to the Governor General.

Q. And what was the nature of his remarks?

A. My officials had told him that there had been
encroachments, and he answered that he had not ordered the
use of violence and denied that these events, the arrest of
people in cinemas or other places of assembly, had ever been
ordered or decreed by him.

Q. Do you know the structure of the labour administration in
the Government General?

A. The man-power department was part of my field of
activity.

Q. Did Sauckel have any immediate influence on the carrying
out of labour recruitment?

A. Not only did he have influence, he also sent a deputy who
was not under my authority.

Q. Was it possible for that deputy to carry out labour
recruitment directly?

A. If he wanted to, yes.

Q. In what manner? Could he give any instructions or direct
orders?

A. The recruitment columns established by Sauckel were not
under any authority. I tried on several occasions to get
these people within my organisation; this attempt was always
countered with the argument that these
recruitment columns had to be used in all occupied
territories and that they could not be attached to one
particular area.

In other words, Sauckel's deputy in the Government General,
President Struve, who was also in charge of the man-power
department, was on the one hand dependent on Sauckel's
directives and did not need to pay attention to me, but was
also on the other hand responsible to me in as far as he
acted as president of that department.

Q. What branches handled forced recruitment whenever that
became necessary? Could the recruitment columns do that?

A. I do not know that. The deputy always denied the fact of
forced recruitment.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions.

                                                  [Page 158]

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask
questions? Does the prosecution desire to cross-examine?

BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:

Q. Witness, I should like you to define your official
position more accurately. As from 1940 and until the moment
of the liberation of Poland you were Frank's chief deputy?

A. From the end of September until November, 1939, I served
the Governor General, in a leading position, on his labour
staff. In November, 1939, I became Chief of the Office of
the Governor General; that was the central administrative
office of the Governor General, in Cracow. During the second
half of the year 1940 the designation was changed to "State
Secretary of the Government," and I was State Secretary of
the Government until I left Cracow on 18 January, 1945.

Q. Consequently you were the chief deputy of the defendant
Hans Frank.

A. My field of activity was definitely limited. I had
administrative matters to take care of. Neither the police
nor the Party, nor the armed forces, nor the various Reich
offices who were directly active in the area of the
Government General were under my authority.

Q. When Frank was away, who was then his deputy?

A. The deputy of the Governor General was Seyss-Inquart,
Reich Minister Seyss-Inquart.

Q. And after Seyss-Inquart left?

A. After the departure of Seyss-Inquart there was a gap; I
cannot recall the month but I think it was in 1941 that I
was designated the deputy of the Governor General. But that
appointment was approved only with certain modifications. I
was supposed to represent the Governor General only when he
was neither present in the area nor ...

Q. (Interposing) Answer me briefly. When Frank was away, who
carried out his duties?

A. I answer as my conscience tells me to. Whenever Frank was
not in the area and could not be reached outside of the
area, then I was supposed to represent him.

Q. I understand. That means that you took over when he was
away.

A. Yes, whenever he could not be reached outside the area
either.

Q. Yes, yes. That is precisely what I am asking about.

I should like the defendant to be shown the typed transcript
of the report on a conference of 25 January. Will you show
him, first of all, the list of those who were present. The
Tribunal will find the passage that I desire to quote ...

THE PRESIDENT: What year? You said 25 January.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: 1943, Mr. President. Your Honours will find
it on Page 7, Exhibit USSR-232, paragraph 6.

BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:

Q. That is your signature among the list of those present?

A. My signature, yes.

Q. That means you were present at that conference.

A. 1943, yes.

Q. I shall quote three sentences from the typed transcript
of the report. Please hand the original to the witness.

It is Dr. Frank's speech:-

  "I should like to emphasise one thing. We must not be too
  soft-hearted when we hear that 17,000 have been shot.
  These persons who have been shot are also victims of the
  war. Let us now remember that all of us who are meeting
  together here, figure in Mr. Roosevelt's list of
  criminals. I have the honour of being No. 1. We have
  thus, so to speak, become accomplices in terms of world
  history."

                                                  [Page 159]

Your name is second on the list of those present at the
conference. Do you not consider that Frank must have had
sufficient grounds to number you amongst the most active of
his accomplices in crime?

A. About such statements of the Governor General I have
already said all that is necessary.

Q. Then you ascribe this to the Governor General's
temperament?

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, that is not an answer to the
question. The question was, do you consider yourself to be
one of those criminals?

THE WITNESS: I do not consider myself a criminal.

BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:

Q. If you do not consider yourself a war criminal, can you
perhaps recollect who personally - I emphasise the word
"personally" - actively participated in one of Frank's most
cruel orders with regard to the Polish population? I am
talking about the decree of 12 October, 1942. Were you not
one of the participants?

A. Which measures? Which decree? I should like to be shown
it.

Q. I am talking about the decree signed 2 October and
published 9 October, 1943, Exhibit USSR-335, the decree
about the creation of the so-called courts-martial conducted
by the secret police.

A. The draft of this decree did not come from my office.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor