dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
BUEHLER: The decisive reason, the real cause, why the population in the Government General could not be supplied as efficiently and as satisfactorily as in Germany was the lack of co-operation on the part of the Polish population in the measures taken by the Germans to bring about a Just and equal distribution of food quotas. This lack of co-operation was caused by patriotic considerations, the aversion to German domination, and the continuous, effective propaganda from the outside. I do not believe that there was a single country in Europe where so much was pillaged, stolen, and diverted to the black market. where so much was destroyed and so much damage was done in order to sabotage the food program, as in the Government General. To give one example: All the dairy machinery, which had been provided with great pains, and the chain of dairies, which had been organized with difficulty, were destroyed again and again so that a snore or less comprehensive control of mill: and fat supplies could not be carried out. I estimate that the fat sold on the free market and the black market in the Government General was several times the quantity of that controlled and distributed officially. Another decisive reason may be seen in the fact that the Government General had beers carved out of a hitherto self-contained governmental and economic structure and that no consideration had been given effecting a proper economic balance. The large centers of consumption in the Government General, that is to say, the cities such as Warsaw, Krakow, later Lvov, and also the industrial area in the center of Poland, had previously received their supplies to a very large extent directly from the country through the standing market. In these areas of the Government General there Was a lack of granaries; a lack of refrigerators; there was no systematic chain of dairies; and storehouses of all kinds revere lacking-all necessary for the directing or controlling of Q supply economy by the state.
BUEHLER: The Government General had to construct all these things step by step, and therefore the supplying of the population was proportionately difficult. It was not intended to supply the population fully right away; the supplies were to be improved gradually. I always saw to it that the directives issued for combating the black market allowed margins for the acquisition of foodstuffs and that the inhabitants of the cities were given the opportunity of contacting the producers. In 1942 the rations revere to have been Increased; then an order came from the Delegate for the Four Year Plan that rations revere not to be increased and that certain quotas of foodstuffs were to be allocated to the Reich. Most of these foodstuffs were not taken out of the area, but were consumed by the Allied Forces on the spot. The Governor General fought continually against the authorities of the Four Year Plan, in order to achieve an increase and an improvement in the food supplies for the Polish population. That struggle was not without success. In many cases it was possible to increase the rations considerably, especially those of the workers in armament industries, and other privileged groups of the working population. To sum up I should like to say that it was not easy for the population of the Government General to get its daily food requirements. On the other hand there were no famines and no hunger epidemics in the Government General. A Polish and Ukrainian auxiliary committee, which had delegations in all districts of the Government General, saw to the supply of foodstuffs for those parts of the population which revere in greatest need.. I used my influence to have, this committee supplied with the largest possible amount of foodstuffs, so that it should be able to pursue its welfare work successfully, and it is known to me that that committee took special care of the children of large cities.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, Chant were the measures that the Governor General took to safeguard art treasures in the areas under his administration? BUEHLER With a decree of 16 December 1939 the Reichsfuehrer SS, in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality, had already ordered, without informing the Governor General, that an art treasures of the Government General were to be confiscated and transported to the Reich. The Government General was successful in preventing this transport to a great extent. Then a man arrived in the Government General from the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, State Secretary Muehlmann, who claimed to have plenary authority from the Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I asked to see that authorization. It was signed, not by Goering himself, but by somebody in his circle, Gritzbach. He was entrusted with the task of safeguarding the art treasures of the Government General in the interests of the Reich. In order to bring this commissioner provided as he was with plenary authority from the Reich-into line with the Government General the Governor General entrusted to him, in addition, the task of collecting together the art treasures of the Government General. He collected these art treasures and also had catalogues printed; and I know, from conferences which took place with the Governor General, that the Governor always attached the greatest importance to having these art treasures kept within the area of the Government General.
DR.SEIDL: The prosecution, under Number USA-378, that is Document 1709-PS, submitted a report about the investigation of the entire activity of the Special Commissioner for the Collection and Safeguarding of Art and Cultural Treasures in the Government General. On Page 6 of that report it reads, and I quote: "Reason for investigation: Order of the State Secretary of the Government of the Government General of 30 June 1942 to investigate the entire activity of the Special Commissioner appointed for the collection and safeguarding of art and cultural treasures in the Government General, according to the decree of the Governor General of 16 December 1939." I ask you now what caused you in 1942 to give thy order for investigation, and did the report lead to serious charges?
BUEHLER: The investigation was found necessary because of the possibility of a collision of duties, in the case of State Secretary Muehlmann, between the order given by the Reich and the order given by the Governor General. I had also heard that some museum pieces had not been properly taken care of. The investigation showed that State Secretary Muehlmann could not be blamed in any way.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution has submitted another document, 3042-PS, Exhibit USA-375. It is an affidavit by Dr. Muehlmann, and I quote: "I was the Special Commissioner of the Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, for the safeguarding of art treasures in the Government General, from October 1939 to September 1943. Goering in his capacity as chairman of the Reich Defense Council had commissioned me with this duty. "I confirm that it was the official policy of the Governor General, Hans Frank, to take into safekeeping all important art treasures which belonged to Polish public institutions, private collections, and the Church. I confirm that the art treasures mentioned were actually confiscated; and it is clear to me that in case of a German victory they would not have remained in Poland, but would have been used to complement German art collections." I ask you now: Is it correct that the Governor General from the very beginning considered all art treasures which had been safeguarded the property of the Government General?
BUEHLER: Insofar as they were state property, yes; insofar as they were private property, they were temporally confiscated and safeguarded; but the Governor General never thought of transferring them to the Reich. If he had wanted to do that, he could have taken advantage of the wax situation itself in order to send these art treasures to Germany. But where the witness obtained his information, as contained in the last sentence of his affidavit, I do not know.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted a document, L-37, under Exhibit Number USA-506. It is a letter of 19 July 1944 from the commander of the Security Police and SD of the district of Radom, to the branch office of Tomassov. There it says, among other things, and I quote: "The Higher SS and Police Leader East issued the following order on 28 June 1944:", I skip a few sentences and then quote: "The Reichsfuehrer SS, with the approval of the Governor General, has ordered that in all cases where assassinations of Germans or attempts at such assassinations have occurred, or where saboteurs have destroyed vital installations, not only the perpetrators are to be shot but also all their kinsmen are likewise to be executed and their female relatives above 16 years of age are to be put into concentration camps." Is it known to you whether the Governor General ever spoke about this question with the Reichsfuehrer SS and whether he had given any such approval?
BUEHLER: I know nothing about the issuing of an order of that kind. Once during the second half of 1944, an order came through my hands relating to the joint responsibility of kin, but I cannot say whether that concerned the Reich or the Government General; it was a police order, I Should say. If it had had that formula, "with the approval of the Government General," I should have questioned the Governor General on that point.
DR. SEIDL: Would such an approval have been consistent with the fundamental attitude of the Governor General to this question as you knew it?
BUEHLER: The fundamental attitude of the Governor General was on the contrary opposed to all executions without trial and without legal reasons.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that from 1940 on the Governor General complained continually to the Fuehrer about the measures taken by the Police and the SD?
BUEHLER: Yes; I myself drew up at least half a dozen memoranda of about the length of the one submitted, addressed to the Fuehrer direct or to him through the Chief of the Reich Chancellery. They contained repeater complaints with regard to executions, encroachments in connection with the recruiting of workers, the importation of inhabitants of other regions without the permission of the Governor General, the food situation, and happenings in general which were contrary to the principles of an orderly administration.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted one of these memoranda under the number USA-610. This is a memorandum to the Fuehrer of 19 June 1943. Is this memorandum essentially different to any previous or later memoranda; and what, basically, was the attitude of the Fuehrer to such complaints and proposals?
BUEHLER: This memorandum, which has been submitted, is somewhat different from the previous ones. The previous memoranda contained direct. accusations with regard to these happenings and the encroachments by the Police. When these memoranda remained unsuccessful, acting on the order of the Governor General, I drew up the complaints contained in this memorandum of June in the form of a political proposal. The grievances listed there were not caused by the government of the Governor General; rather they were complaints about Interference by outside authorities.
DR. SEIDL: In the diary we find on 26 October 1943 a long report about the 4 years of German construction work in the Government General which was made by you yourself. On the basis of what documents did you compile that report?
BUEHLER: I compiled that report on the basis of the material which the 13 main departments of the government had given me.
DR. SEIDL: Now a question of principle: What, basically, was the attitude of the Governor General to the Polish and Ukrainian people, as you know it from your 5 years' activity, as the head of the government?
BUEHLER: The first principle of all was that of keeping peace in this area and of increasing the usefulness of this area as far as possible by improving its resources, economically speaking. In order to achieve that, decent treatment of the population was necessary; freedom and property must not be infringed upon. Those were the principles of policy according to which, wooing on the order of the Governor General, I always carried out my functions as state secretary of the government.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that the Governor General also tried within the framework of wartime conditions to grant the population a certain minimum of cultural development?
BUEHLER: That was the desire of the Governor General, but the realization of this desire very frequently met with resistance on the part of the Security Police, or the Propaganda Ministry of the Reich, or it was made impossible by conditions themselves. But in principle the Governor General did not ravish to prohibit cultural activity among the Polish and Ukrainian populations.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that he tried particularly to revive higher education and that, evading the directives from the Reich, he instituted so-called technical courses in colleges?
BUEHLER: Instruction was certainly given at the technical schools by Polish professors in Warsaw and Lvov which corresponded approximately to a university education. As a matter of principle, the Governor General also wanted to open secondary schools and seminaries for priests, but that always failed because of the objections of the Security Police. As no agreement could be reached, and acting on the order of the Governor General, in October 1941 on my own authority I promised the opening of secondary schools and, I believe, of seminaries for priests with a certain advisory autonomy for the Poles. Two days after this announcement the Fuehrer's opinion was transmitted to me that I had no authority to announce such measures.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Frank's diary often mentions the principle of unity of administration and the fact that the Governor General was the deputy of the Fuehrer in this territory and the representative of the authority o f the Reich. Does this conception tally with the facts? What other authorities of the Reich and the Party came into the administration of the Government General?
BUEHLER: The authority of the Governor General was limited from the very beginning in many important respects. Thus, for instance, before the establishment of the Government General, the Reichsfuehrer SS had been invested with full power in the matter of the preservation of German Nationality in all occupied territories. The Delegate for the Four Year Plan had equal authority and power to issue decrees in the Government General. But many other offices as well, such as those for armaments, post, railways, building, and other departments tried, and tried successfully, to take over parts of the administration of the Government General or to gain some influence over it. After the Governor General had lost his offices as Reichsleiter in 1942, there was a special rush in this direction. I might almost say that it became a kind of sport to diminish the prestige of the King of Poland.
DR. SEIDL: Who appointed, dismissed, and paid the police officials in the Government General and otherwise saw to their interests from the point of view of the Civil Service?
BUEHLER: That was done exclusively by Himmler's administrative office in Berlin.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that even officials of the administration of the Government General were arrested by Krueger and that it was not possible for even the Governor General to effect their release? I remind you of the case of Scipessi.
BUEHLER: Yes. I can confirm that from my own experience. Even from my own circle people were arrested without my being notified. In one such case I instructed the commander of the Security Police that the official was to be released within a certain space of time. He was not released, and I demanded the recall of the commander of the Security Police. The result was that Himmler expressed his special confidence in this commander of the Security Police and the recall was refused.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, how long was the Government General able to work at all under normal conditions?
BUEHLER: I might almost say, never at any time. The first year was taken up in repairing destruction caused by the war. There were destroyed villages, destroyed cities, destroyed means of transport; bridges had been blown up in very large numbers. After these destroyed objects had been repaired, as far as it was possible under war conditions, the Government General became again able deployment area for the war against the East, against the Russians, and then the transit area to the front and the line of communications area. It was the great repair shop for the front.
DR. SEIDL: Another question: During the war Himmler presented to the Reich Government the draft of a law concerning the treatment of anti-social elements. What was the attitude of Dr. Frank towards this draft?
BUEHLER: As far as I can remember . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that the matters which the witness is going into are really matters of common knowledge. Everyone knows about that. I think you might take the witness over this ground a little bit faster than you are.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir. He has given the answer already. Witness, during the war did the government of the Reich . . .
THE PRESIDENT: But I am speaking of the future, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir. [Turning to the witness.] During the war, Himmler submitted to the Reich Government, the draft of a law concerning the treatment of anti-social elements.
BUEHLER: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: What was the attitude of the Governor General to this?
BUEHLER: 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 redact his protest against the law. The Governor General refused to do this.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution has presented a chart which shows Dr. Frank as having authority over the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack. Did such a situation ever exist?
BUEHLER: That must be an error; such a situation never exited.
DR. SEIDL: What, according to your observations, were the relations between the Governor General and the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler?
BUEHLER: The Governor General and the Reichsfuehrer SS 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 Reichsfuehrer.
DR. SEIDL: Then I will not put that question. Witness, the Soviet Prosecution, under Exhibit Number USSR-93, (Document Number USSR-93)9 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, ever actually issued such directives?
BUEHLER: I do not remember ever having signed such directives or having seen any such directives signed by the Governor General. This document submitted to me, seem;; to me to be a fake or a forgery. That can be recognized from the contents.
DR.SEIDL: 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?
BUEHLER: 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 had to say as a witness. As I myself heard such statements frequently, I have tried to understand how he came to make such statements; and I can only say that Frank perhaps took part more than was necessary in the conferences and affairs of the government officials. There was scarcely a conference an which he did not take part. Thus it happened that he had to speak many times during one day, and I might say that in 99 out of 100 cases he spoke on the spur of the moment, without due reflection, and I frequently witnessed how 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 go through the diary for every one of these statements, I would be able to give you a dozen-- dozens of other statements to the contrary.
DR. SEIDL: Frank's diary includes . . .
BUEHLER: I should like to say the following: When the Governor General was working with the members of his administration, he never made such statements; at least I cannot remember any. Those statements were always made when the Higher SS and Police Leader was sitting next to him, so that I had the impression that he was not free at such moments.
DR. SEIDL: The diary of the Defendant Dr. Frank covers about 10,000 to 12,000 typewritten pages. Who kept this diary-he himself or somebody else?
BUEHLER: According to my observations, the diary was kept by stenographers. At first by one stenographer, Dr. Meidinger, later by two stenographers, Nauk and Mohr. The procedure was that these stenographers were in the room during conferences and took notes.
DR.SEIDL: Is it correct that to a certain extent these stenographers received reports from a third person as to what was said at a conference?
BUEHLER: I often noticed that these stenographers did not take the trouble to record everything literally, but merely wrote summaries of the sense. I was also sometimes asked what this or that person, or cheat the Governor General, had said or thought in some particular instance.
DR. SEIDL: Did the Governor General see these entries in the diary or read them later?
BUEHLER: 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 collaborator.
THE PRESIDENT: If you wanted to put that sort of question, you should have asked the Defendant Frank.
DR. SEIDL: A further question, Witness. According to your observations what caused the Governor General not to destroy that diary, but to hand it over Men he was arrested?
BUEHLER: 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, and I forego the answer of the witness. [Turning to the witness.] 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?
BUEHLER: I have already referred to that. It weakened his authority considerably, and the administration in the Government General became increasingly difficult..
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that the Governor General repeatedly, both in writing and orally, tendered his resignation?
BUEHLER: Yes, written applications for resignation I often worded myself; and I know that he also asked orally 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. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): 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?
BUEHLER: I cannot make any definite statement about that, but I know that the recruitment of labor produced smaller and smaller results and that the main quotas were probably delivered during the first years.