BÜHLER: 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.
BÜHLER: 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. Bühler 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”.
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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.
BÜHLER: 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 decree 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 the very
idea of a court of justice?
BÜHLER: 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 courts were to be composed. Show the witness
Paragraphs 3 and 4. I am reading Paragraph 4 into the record:
“The summary courts-martial of the Security Police are to be
composed of one SS Führer 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?
BÜHLER: Did you ask me?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, yes.
BÜHLER: 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.
BÜHLER: 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 Obergruppenführer Bierkamp at the conference of 27 October
1943 in Kraków?
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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”?
BÜHLER: In my opinion it testifies that 10 Poles would be shot who had
committed crimes punishable by death, and who had been sentenced to
death.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: For each German killed?
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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._]
_Afternoon Session_
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
acknowledgement 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 libellous.
THE PRESIDENT: [_To the witness._] Did you say anything then?
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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.
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: 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?
BÜHLER: We had daily contact with the Police, but we had differences of
opinion. Moreover, the Police were not under my jurisdiction; the Chief
of Police was in no way under my orders.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In that case the Police did not come within your
competence?
BÜHLER: No, it was not one of my duties.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How then can you explain that no one but you
carried out successful negotiations with the Police for the exploitation
of the property of Jews executed in the concentration camps? Do you
remember these negotiations?
BÜHLER: I did not quite understand you.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask you: If you had no direct relations with
the Police, how can you explain the fact that you, and none other but
you, were the person who carried out successful negotiations with the
Police for the exploitation of property belonging to Jews murdered in
the concentration camps? Do you remember these negotiations with the
Police?
BÜHLER: I do not remember any such negotiations, and I could not have
conducted them. In any case the Administration was the department which,
by order of the Four Year Plan, had to effect the confiscation of Jewish
property.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, have I your permission to submit
a document handed to us by the American Prosecution, Document Number
2819-PS? It is a directive issued by the Administration of the Economic
Department of the Government General and addressed to the Governors of
Warsaw, Radom, Lublin, and Galicia. May I submit this document?