dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR.SERVATIUS: Were the labor quotas which had been demanded from the Governor General reduced by Sauckel in view of the fact that so many Poles were already working in the Reich?
BUEHLER: I know of one such case; Sauckel's deputy, President Struve, talked to me about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it true that Himmler for his own purposes recruited workers from the Polish area. without Sauckel's knowledge and without observing the conditions which Sauckel had laid down?
BUEHLER: I assume that that happened. Whenever I was told about roundups of workers, I tried to clear matters up. The Police always said, "That is the labor administration," and the labor administration said, "That is the Police." But I know that once, on a visit to Warsaw, Himmler was very annoyed at the loafers standing at the street corners; and I consider it quite possible that these labor raids in Warsaw were carried out arbitrarily by the Police without the participation of the labor administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know Sauckel's directives with regard to the carrying out of labor recruitment?
BUEHLER: 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 in Krak6w, that he had not ordered the use of violence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a speech of Sauckel's?
BUEHLER: No, it was a conference.
DR.SERVATIUS: Do you recall an address which Sauckel made in Krak6w to the various authorities?
BUEHLER: He spoke as a Party speaker.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he make any statements there about the treatment of workers?
BUEHLER: These statements were made at a conference which preceded the visit to the Governor General.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the nature of his remarks?
BUEHLER: My people had told him and his people 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 motion picture houses or other places of assembly-had ever been ordered or decreed by him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the structure of the labor administration in the Government General?
BUEHLER: The Labor Department was part of my field of authority.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Sauckel have any immediate influence on the carrying out of labor recruitment?
BUEHLER: Not only did he have influence, but he also sent a deputy who was not under my authority.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it possible for that deputy to carry out the recruitment of labor direct?
BUEHLER: If he wanted to, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: In what manner? Could he give any instructions, or direct orders?
BUEHLER: The recruiting units set up by Sauckel were not under my authority. I tried on several occasions to get these people within my organization, but these attempts were always countered with the argument that these recruiting units had to be used in all the 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 Labor 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 to the extent that he acted as president of the Labor Department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What branches handled forced recruitment whenever that became necessary? Could the recruiting units do that?
BUEHLER: I do not know. The deputy always denied the fact of forced recruitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask questions? Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, I should like 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, were you not?
BUEHLER: From the end of September until November 1939 I served the Governor General in a leading position on his labor staff. In November 1939 I became Chief of the Department of the Governor General; that was the central administrative office of the Governor General, in Krak6w. During the second half of the year 1940 the designation of this function Was changed to "State Secretary of the Government," and I was State Secretary of the Government until I left Krakow on 18 January 1945.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently you were the chief deputy of the Defendant Hans Frank.
BUEHLER: My field of activity was definitely limited. I had to direct the administrative matters. Neither the Police, nor the Party, nor the Wehrmacht, nor the various Reich of flees which were directly active in the area of the Government General, were under my authority.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When Frank was away, who was then his deputy?
BUEHLER: The deputy of the Governor General was Seyss-Inquart, Reich Minister Seyss-Inquart.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And after Seyss-Inquart left?
BUEHLER: 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 assigned as 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 . . .
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Answer me briefly. When Frank was away, did you carry out his duties?
BUEHLER: I answer us my conscience dictates. Whenever Frank was not present within the area, and could not be reached outside the area, then I was supposed to represent him.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I understand. That means that you took over when he was away.
BUEHLER: Yes, whenever he could not be reached outside of the area either.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, yes. That is precisely what I am asking about. I should like the witness 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 the 25th of January.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: 1943, Mr. President. Your Honors will find it on Page 7, Exhibit Number USSR-223, (Document Number USSR-223), Paragraph 6. Witness, is that your signature among the list of those present?
BUEHLER: My signature, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means you were present at that conference.
BUEHLER: 1943, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote three sentences from the typed transcript of the report. Please hand the original to the witness. I quote three sentences from this document. It is Dr. Frank's speech: "I should like to emphasize 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 ever.... Let us now remember that all of us who are meeting together here figure in Mr. Roosevelt's list of war criminals. I have the honor of being Number 1. We have thus, so to speak, become accomplices in terms of world history". 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 among the most active of his accomplices in crime?
BUEHLER: About such statements of the Governor General I have already said all that is necessary.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: 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?
BUEHLER: I do not consider myself a criminal.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you do not consider yourself a war criminal, will you perhaps recollect who personally-I emphasize 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 2 October 1942. Were you not one of the participants?
BUEHLER: Which measures? Which decree? I should like to be shown it.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am talking about the decree signed 2 October and published 9 October 1943, Exhibit Number USSR 335, (Document Number USSR-335), the decree, about the creation of the so-called courts-martial conducted by the Secret Police.
BUEHLER: The draft of this degree did not come from my office.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this mean that you deny participation in rendering that cruel decree effective?
BUEHLER: Yes, the decree comes from the Police.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The passage I should like to quote, Mr. President, is on Page 35, of our document book, and in Paragraph 4 of the English translation. [Turning to the witness.] Did you not, together with Dr. Weh, at a time when even Frank was undecided about signing, succeed in persuading him to do so and bring into force a decree of a frankly terrorist nature to legalize tyranny by the Police? I quote Page 142 of the minutes on the conference with State Secretary Dr. Buehler (he evidently means you) and with Dr. Weh, concerning the order issued by Dr. Weh for combating attacks on the German work of reconstruction in the Government General: "After some brief statements by the State Secretary Dr. Buehler and Dr. Weh, the Governor General withdraws his objections and signs the drafted decree." Was it not you?
BUEHLER: I request the interpreter to repeat the question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am asking you: Was it you who persuaded Frank to sign that decree as quickly as possible?
BUEHLER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does that mean that the entry is false?
BUEHLER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In that case, how am I to understand you, if this is "no" and the other is "no"?
BUEHLER: I can explain that to you exactly. The draft for this decree had been submitted to the Governor General by SS Oberfuehrer Bierkamp who had recently been assigned to the Government General. The Governor General...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please. . .
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing] He is in the middle of his answer. You must let the man answer. What were you saying? You were saying the draft had been made by somebody?
BUEHLER: This draft had been submitted to the Governor General by Bierkamp who had just recently come to the Government General. The Governor General returned this draft and had it revised in the legislative department. When it was presented to the Governor General, the Governor General's doubts were whether the legislative department had revised it or not. I do not assume material responsibility for this draft, and I did not have to.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You simply explained to Frank that the project of the decree had been sufficiently worked over by the competent technical department?
BUEHLER: Yes, by the legislative department.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And after that the Governor General signed the decree?
BUEHLER: Obviously.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were you not the person who, at the meeting of 23 October 1943, when a letter from Count Ronikier, a person evidently known to you, was discussed, referred to the practical Interpretation of this cruel decree of 2 October and stated that the application of the decree would in the future favor the camouflaging of the murder of hostages by giving the shootings of hostages the semblance of a legal sentence? Were you that person?
BUEHLER: I ask that the question be repeated. I understood only part of it.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were you the person who, at the meeting of 23 October 1943, stated that the application of the decree of 2 October would, in the future, favor the camouflaging of the shooting of hostages, since it would give them the semblance of a legal sentence?
BUEHLER: It is not quite clear to me. May I repeat what I understood?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you please.
BUEHLER: You want to ask me whether I was the one who, on the occasion of a conference on the 23rd of October 1944...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: 1943.
BUEHLER: 1943-who, on the occasion of a conference on 23 October 1943 stated-stated what?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stated that the application of the decree of 2 October would help to camouflage the shooting of hostages.
BUEHLER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The place which I wish to quote now, Your Honors, is on Page 26 of the English translation of Exhibit Number USSR-223, (Document Number 2233-PS), Paragraph 4. I shall now quote your own words to you: "State Secretary Dr. Buehler considers it advisable that all those Poles who are to be shot should first be tried by regular court-martial proceedings. In the future one should also refrain from referring to such Poles as hostages, for the shooting of hostages is always a deplorable event and merely provides foreign countries with evidence against the German leadership in the Government General".
BUEHLER: I said that, and thus I objected, and wanted to object, to the shooting of hostages and to executions without court-martial proceedings.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you consider that a court consisting of high-ranking police officials represents justice and is not a travesty of the very idea of justice?
BUEHLER: To which court do you refer? I pleaded for courts-martial.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is the very court I am talking about, the "Standgericht" or summary court-martial, composed of Gestapo officials centralized in the Government General, according to the decree of 2 October.
BUEHLER: I can give you information about the reasons which may have led to this stiffening of the summary court-martial order of 2 October, so that you may understand how, psychologically, such a degree came about.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am not interested in psychology. I am interested in knowing if a court, composed of secret police officials and considered to be a court, is not in fact sheer mockery of Me very idea of a court of justice?
BUEHLER: The summary courts martial had to be appointed exactly in accordance with the decree. I am not of the opinion that a summary court martial, simply because it is composed exclusively of police, should not be considered a court. But I did not make these statements which you have held against me now in reference to this decree of 2 October; rather I demanded, in general, sentences by courts-martial, and termed the shooting of hostages a regrettable fact.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You are not giving me a direct answer to my question. Perhaps you will remember Paragraph 3 of the decree which stipulates how these counts were to be composed. Show the witness Paragraphs 3 and 4. I am reading Paragraph 4 into the record: "The summary court-martial of the Security Police are to be composed of one SS Fuehrer of the office of the commander of the Security Police and the SD, and of two members of these organizations". Would a court of this composition not testify a priori to the nature of the sentence which the court would impose?
BUEHLER: Did you ask me?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, yes.
BUEHLER: Whether I consider a summary court-martial a court? I think, you are asking me about things which have nothing to do with my field of activity. I do not know what reasons were given for composing these courts in this fashion. I cannot therefore say anything about it.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps you will look at the signature to that decree. It is signed by Frank, and it was you who persuaded Frank to sign that decree.
BUEHLER: I thought that I had corrected that error before. I did not persuade Herr Frank to sign that order. Rather, I told him that that order had been worked out in the legislative department. As before, I must now deny any responsibility for this order, because it did not belong to my sphere of activity.
MR.COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall pass on to another series of questions. Do you recollect the following subparagraph of that decree, particularly the report of Obergruppenfuehrer Bierkamp at the conference of 27 October 1943 in Krakow?
BUEHLER: I cannot remember without notes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please show him the passage which I wish to quote. The passage I wish to quote, Your Honors, is on Page 26 of our document, the last paragraph of the text. I quote the passage in question: "Pursuant to the decree of even date, the Security Police have detained many people who since 10 October have committed criminal acts. They have been condemned to death and will be shot as an expiation for their crimes. Their names will be made known to the population by means of posters, and the population will be told that such and such people may expect a pardon, provided there are no further murders of, Germans. For every murdered German, 10 Poles will be executed.... " Does it not testify to the fact that from the very first days of the enforcing of Frank's decree, it merely served to mask mass executions of hostages?
BUEHLER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Then to what does it testify if, for each slain German, 10 Poles entirely unconnected with the crime were to be executed In accordance with these so-called "verdicts"?
BUEHLER: In my opinion it testifies that 10 Poles would be allot who had committed crimes punishable by death, and who had been sentenced to death.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: For each German killed?
BUEHLER: It is possible that these Poles were called hostages. That is possible.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means that the decree camouflaged the system of taking hostages?
BUEHLER: No, it was rather that real shootings of hostages no longer occurred. Real shootings of hostages occur when people who are not criminals, who are innocent, are shot because of an act committed by someone else.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this will be a convenient time to break off? [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has heard with the deepest regret of the death of Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. His loss will be most deeply felt in America, where he had proved himself to be a great public servant. But it is fitting that this Tribunal, upon which the representatives of the United States sit, should express its sympathy with the American people in their great loss. After serving as Dean of the Law School of Columbia University he was appointed Attorney General of the United States in 1923, and two years later he became Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1941 he became Chief Justice and discharged the duties of that high office with great ability and in accordance with the highest traditions. The Tribunal desires that I should express its sympathy in acknowledgment of the great loss the American people have sustained. Mr. Justice Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor of the United States, is a member of the Supreme Court over which the Chief Justice presided, and perhaps he would like to add a few words.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal: It is not only because he was the head of the judicial system of the United States that the news of the passing of Chief Justice Stone brings sadness to every American heart in Nuremberg, but because he was the personal friend of so many of us. He had a rare capacity for personal friendship. No one was more kind to, and thoughtful of, the younger men who from time to time came to Washington; and they found in him a guide, philosopher, and friend. Now, I know that not only do I feel the loss of a personal friend but that the American representatives on the Tribunal, Mr. Biddle and Judge Parker, feel the same way, and many of the younger men on the staff had intimate contact with the Chief Justice which you might not expect if you had not known Harlan Stone. As Attorney General he took over the Department of Justice at one of its most difficult periods and imparted to it the impress of his integrity, an impress which stayed with it and was traditional in the department, as we well know. As a Justice of the Court he was a forward-looking man, open-minded, always patient to hear the arguments of both sides and to arrive at his decision with that complete disinterestedness and detachment which is characteristic of the just judge. He presided with great fairness and with kindness to his associates and to those who appeared before him. It is the passing of a man who exemplified in public life those sturdy qualities which we have come to associate with the New Englander. The consolation of his friends lies in this: He died exactly as he would have chosen to die, in full possession of his faculties and in the discharge of his duties. I express great appreciation that this Tribunal has seen fit to take note of his passing and to allow us to record on behalf of the American Bar our appreciation of his talents and character.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, before proceeding to a further examination of the witness, I feel that I ought to make the following statement: During the examination of the witness by counsel for the defense Dr. Seidl, the former stated that the document, which is an official appendix to the report of the Government of the Polish Republic, was a forgery. This document sets out the losses suffered by the Polish Republic in objects of cultural value. The Soviet Prosecution does not wish to enter into any controversies on the subject, but it does request the Tribunal to note that this is an official appendix to the report of the Government of the Polish Republic, and that it considers the statement of the witness as libelous.
THE PRESIDENT: [To the witness.] Did you say anything then?
BUEHLER: I was going to say that it was a document that contained a list of art treasures.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the document, Colonel Smirnov, a document which contains a list of art treasures?
BUEHLER: No, I do not mean that.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President. It is a list of losses in cultural treasures. It is a list of libraries and of the losses suffered by these libraries during the reign of the Germans in Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: It is USSR-93, is it not, the document you are referring to?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is an appendix to the Document Number USSR-93, an official report by the Polish Government.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it deals with certain directives. That was the evidence that was given this morning.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President. This is a list of losses sustained. It is an official appendix to the report of the Polish Government. It contains no directives, but it does state the sum total of the losses sustained by the public libraries in Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: [To the witness.] Is there anything you want to say about it?
BUEHLER: Yes. I do not think the description just given applies to the document which I had in mind. The document which I question contains directives regarding German cultural policy in the Government General. It does not deal with art treasures or details of library property.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What I took that you said this morning was that the directives which you thought were referred to in the document did not appear to have been made, or at any rate you had not heard of them, and you thought they might be forgeries.
BUEHLER: I questioned the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the document.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I proceed to the next question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You state that you personally, as well as the administration of the Government General, had no close connection with the activities of the Police. Have I understood you correctly?
BUEHLER: May I hear that question again, please?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You declare that neither you personally nor the administration of the Government General were in any way closely connected with the activities of the Police. Have I understood you correctly?