“Subject: Transfer of Jewish movable property from the SS to the
Government.
“I inform you herewith that, on 21 February 1944, in the
presence of various departmental directors, an agreement was
reached by State Secretary Dr. Bühler and the Higher SS and
Police Leader, Obergruppenführer Koppe, that movable Jewish
property, insofar as it is, or will be in the future, in
storehouses, will be placed at the disposal of the Government by
the SS. In execution of the agreement arrived at I have ordered
that the taking over of the goods stored in the various SS
depots shall take place in the shortest possible time. Goods
deriving from confiscation and safeguarding have likewise been
turned over to me by the commander of the Security Police and
the Security Service. Please get in touch with the local SS and
Police Leader in order to come to an understanding....”
Here I interrupt the quotation. After this, Witness, do you still insist
that you had no relations with the Police?
BÜHLER: I was in touch with the Police daily in my work, I do not want
to deny that for a moment; but I had no right to give orders to the
Police.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In any case the property of Jews murdered in the
concentration camps of Poland was, as a result of your negotiations,
transferred to warehouses in the Government General?
BÜHLER: That is not correct. The property mentioned was not that which
proceeded from Jews who were killed, but simply property which came from
Jews and which was removed by the Police after having been converted
through the administration department in the regular way.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But could the Security Police or the SD be in
possession of property belonging to Jews who were not murdered?
BÜHLER: Why not? Right from the beginning the Police had taken over
Jewish problems, and therefore also came into possession of their
property in this manner.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But did the Auschwitz depot in Chopin Street
also keep the property of Jews who had not been murdered? Of Jews who
were still alive?
BÜHLER: The depots which have been mentioned here are not to be
interpreted as being concentration camps, but as depots where goods were
stored.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What other depots were there for storing the
movable property of Jews besides those in the concentration camps?
BÜHLER: I do not know what things looked like in concentration camps, as
I have never entered or seen one; but that the Police took possession of
movable Jewish property is something I was certainly told about by the
director of my trustee department.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask you this: In 1944 when the machines of
destruction were working at top speed at Auschwitz and Maidanek, what
depots or warehouses existed for the storage of Jewish movable property
besides those which stored the movable property of Jews executed in
concentration camps? Do you know of any other warehouses and where they
were located?
BÜHLER: The Jews were deprived of their property on the spot. I have
never assumed that Jewish property was to be found in concentration
camps. I did not know anything at all about these camps. Where the
Police took that movable property was not clear to me, but depots must
have existed.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would draw your attention to the date—21
February 1944. At that time were there any Jews still alive in Poland,
or were the Jewish ghettos already quite empty?
BÜHLER: The Jewish ghettos were empty, but there were still some Jews; I
know that because they were being used in one way or another in the
armament industry. Jewish property could not have been removed from the
territory, it must have been somewhere in the Government General, very
probably near the ghettos or wherever else the evacuation of Jews took
place. And this telegram, I repeat, does not concern stores which were
in concentration camps; they were everywhere. Every place had property
stored somewhere which originated from the resettlement of the Jews.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Then the Jewish ghettos were already empty. In
that case, what happened to the Jews from Poland?
BÜHLER: When these Jewish ghettos were emptied, I assumed they were
resettled in the northeast of Europe. The chief of the RSHA had
definitely told me at the conference in February 1942 that this was the
intention.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: On the 21 February 1944 the front line ran
through the Government General. How and where could the Jews have been
transferred to the northeast?
BÜHLER: According to the conference this was to have taken place in
1942.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The document is dated 1944, 21 February 1944.
I pass on to the next question. Tell me, does not the fact that the
police chiefs attended all the conferences at the headquarters of the
Governor General and that the Governor General arranged for special
conferences to be held dealing exclusively with police matters indicate
that the very closest relations existed between the administration
department of the Governor General and the Gestapo?
BÜHLER: I have already mentioned at the beginning that the view of the
Governor General was that he should have jurisdiction over the Police.
This is the reason why the Governor General repeatedly called the Police
for discussions around the conference table. But that did not prevent
the Police from going their own way and using methods of their own.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But were no conferences held by the Governor
General for dealing directly and exclusively with police problems, and
with police problems only?
BÜHLER: Yes, from time to time.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Very well. Then will you tell me who took
Krüger’s place when he was removed from his post as Chief of Police?
BÜHLER: As far as I can remember Krüger was removed from his post in
Kraków in November 1943 and was replaced by Obergruppenführer Koppe.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What were your personal relations with Koppe?
BÜHLER: The relationship with the Police under Krüger had always been
hostile, and whenever the administration department had any wish that
involved police jurisdiction, such wishes had always been frustrated by
Krüger; therefore, after Krüger had left Kraków I tried to establish a
comradely relationship with the new Higher SS and Police Leader, so that
in this manner I could influence the work of the Police and the methods
employed by them.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Could you answer briefly: What exactly were your
personal relations with Koppe? Were they good or bad?
BÜHLER: They were comradely.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to show you one document. You, Mr.
President, will find the passage on Page 38, Paragraph 2, of the English
translation. I am reading the passage into the record. It is a statement
made by Frank to Himmler at the conference with Himmler on the 12
February 1944:
“Immediately after the exchange of greetings, Reichsführer SS
Himmler entered into conversation with me and SS
Obergruppenführer Koppe. The Reichsführer asked me right at the
beginning how I was co-operating with the new Secretary of State
for Security, SS Obergruppenführer Koppe. I expressed my deep
satisfaction at the fact that between myself and SS
Obergruppenführer Koppe, as well as between him and State
Secretary Dr. Bühler, there existed extraordinarily good
relations of friendly co-operation.” (Document Number 2233-PS.)
Does that statement by Frank correspond to the fact, Witness?
BÜHLER: At that time Koppe had been in the Government General only a few
weeks. This statement confirms just what I said here at the beginning,
namely, that after Krüger had been replaced by Koppe I tried through
comradely relations with Koppe to gain influence over the police powers
in the Government General. Thus there had been no friction up to that
time.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And between Koppe and Dr. Bühler, that is,
between Koppe and yourself, there existed the most comradely
collaboration; is that correct?
BÜHLER: I repeat, my relations with Koppe were comradely. Apart from
that, the problems with which we had to deal brought me into daily
contact with Koppe. For instance, there was this question of Jewish
property. One could not possibly have discussed such a question with
Krüger, as he held the view that all Jewish property belonged to the SS.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When Koppe took over the post of Chief of
Police, was there any change with regard to the Polish population? Did
the police measures become less severe? Did they become less repressive
with Koppe’s arrival?
BÜHLER: I believe they were milder.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to follow the minutes of one
particular administrative conference of the 16 December 1943, held at
Kraków.
Please show the witness the original.
Incidentally, is that your signature on the list of those present? On
Page 154.
BÜHLER: Government meeting, 16 December 1943? Yes, I signed that; that
is right.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, do you remember who Ohlenbusch was?
BÜHLER: Ohlenbusch was the President of the Department of Propaganda.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was he in any way connected with the Police or
with the administration?
BÜHLER: Ohlenbusch participated in the government meetings, at which the
Police were also present as a rule.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But he himself, in his own function, did he have
any connection with the Police or not?
BÜHLER: As a state official and head of a government department he did,
of course, have connections with the Police, official connections.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But he was an official of the civilian
administration of your organization?
BÜHLER: Yes, of course. As far as his official position was concerned,
he was subordinate to me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am reading into the record a short extract
from Page 176. Your Honors will find it on Page 33 of our document book,
Paragraph 3, Ohlenbusch’s speech:
“It would be well to consider whether, for reasons of
expediency, one should not, as far as possible, carry out
executions on the spot where the attempt upon the life of a
German took place. One ought, perhaps, also to consider whether
special execution sites should not be created for this purpose,
for it has been confirmed that the Polish population streamed to
the execution grounds, which were accessible to all, in order to
put the blood-soaked earth into containers and take them to the
church.” (Document Number 2233-PS.)
Do you not consider this question a purely police question?
BÜHLER: It does not mention buckets of blood in my translation. It says
containers. I do not think that the blood could be carried away in
buckets.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: We are talking here about containers into which
the blood-soaked soil was placed. Do you not consider that the question
of organizing secret execution grounds was purely a matter for the
Police?
BÜHLER: I am of the same opinion. For this reason this matter was by no
means approved of. But perhaps I may add that at the same time German
pedestrians in Kraków and Warsaw were being shot in the back daily,
without any reason, and that this affair was due to the excitement
which...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am asking you about something else, Witness.
Do you not consider the fact that this question was discussed at the
initiative of Ohlenbusch as positive proof that even the petty officials
in the civilian administration interfered in police matters and were in
direct contact with the Police?
BÜHLER: No, I would not say so. This was not suggested as a police
measure. It arose from the threat under which all Germans lived at that
stage of the occupation.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This question of secret execution grounds—did
it arise on Ohlenbusch’s initiative? I trust you are not going to deny
this.
BÜHLER: What do you mean by this question?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did it arise on—was it provoked by the
initiative of Ohlenbusch? You are not going to deny it?
BÜHLER: I do not know whether this was discussed at all. In my opinion
there was not...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The typewritten report of that conference is
before you, and you were present at that conference.
BÜHLER: Yes, there are statements made by Ohlenbusch, if I am not
mistaken. Yes, it mentions “President Ohlenbusch” here. That is right.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall proceed to the next question. Did SS
Obergruppenführer Koppe not report on the subject at all during the
conference? I will quote a brief excerpt which Your Honors will find on
Page 34, Paragraph 2. It is on Page 180 of your document book.
“...For the railway outrage 150 and for the two German
officials, 50 Polish terrorists were executed either on the spot
or in the immediate vicinity. It must be remembered that the
shooting of 200 people affects at least 3,000 (nearest
relatives)...” (Document Number 2288-PS.)
Do you not consider this as evidence that with the arrival of Koppe the
same savage measures of repression were used against the people of
Poland?
BÜHLER: Inasmuch as this mentions the shooting of 150 and 50 people this
obviously concerns 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.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this mean that the hostage system did not
meet either with your approval or with the approval of the Governor
General; is that correct?
BÜHLER: It did not have my approval, and I do not think it had the
approval of the Governor General.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please look at Page 185 of the document
in your possession. I begin with the quotation:
“The Governor General expressed his gratitude and recognition to
SS Obergruppenführer Koppe for his effective work and spoke of
his satisfaction that an expert with such high qualifications
should be at the head of the police organization in the
Government General. He promised SS Obergruppenführer Koppe the
active co-operation of all offices in the Government General and
expressed his best wishes for the success of his work.”
(Document Number 2233-PS.)
How are we to interpret this statement in the light of your previous
answer?
BÜHLER: This statement of the Governor General does not apply to these
50 and 150 people. It applies to the work in its entirety which was to
be done by Koppe in the Government General. And one of the principles
that was to be applied to that work—which I helped bring about—was
that shootings of hostages were to cease. It is quite possible that in
this case that principle had not yet been applied.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you please wait one minute. Just before
this you read Koppe’s report on the shooting of the hostages, Page 180.
And after that the Governor General expressed his approval. This means
that it was precisely this activity of Koppe’s that the Governor General
had approved?
BÜHLER: Well, this was not the only statement made by Koppe. The
statement of the Governor General was in reference to all the statements
made by Koppe, and not to detached portions.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Very well. In that case he also approved, among
other things, of this statement, that is to say, this report.
BÜHLER: But I know that the Governor General, together with me, was
exerting pressure on Koppe in order to stop the shooting of hostages.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you kindly inform me who, while Krüger was
still Chief of Police, issued instructions for the shooting of one male
inhabitant from each house which displayed a poster announcing a Polish
national holiday?
BÜHLER: That is unknown to me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask to have the corresponding document
submitted to you. It is in the document book, on Page 1, Paragraph 7:
“The Governor General received District Chief, Dr. Waechter, who
reported on the appearance in some districts of inflammatory
posters on the occasion of the 11 November (the Polish Day of
Liberation). The Governor General ordered that from every house
where a poster remains exhibited one male inhabitant is to be
shot. This order is to be carried out by the Chief of Police.
Dr. Waechter has taken 120 hostages in Kraków as a precautionary
measure.”
Do you remember that? Who then introduced this criminal practice of
taking hostages?
BÜHLER: Are you trying to say that I was present during that conference?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to ask you about something else.
BÜHLER: Please, will you answer my question? Was I there or was I not?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am not obliged to answer your question. It is
you, Witness, who have to answer mine. It is I who am interrogating you,
not you who are examining me. Kindly answer the next question. You
resided in Kraków. Acting on Frank’s orders, Dr. Waechter, as a
precautionary measure, detained 120 hostages. Do you wish to say that
you knew nothing about this either?
BÜHLER: I know nothing about this measure; nor is it known to me that
hostages were shot.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer the following question. Have I
understood you correctly—did you state today that there was no famine
in Poland?
BÜHLER: Yes, there was no famine in Poland.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am asking you to be shown the speech of Dr.
Bühler, State Secretary—that obviously means you—at a meeting on the
31 May 1943, in Kraków. I begin the quotation:
“...The Government of the Government General has for a long time
been clear on the point that the scale of food rations allowed
to non-Germans cannot be continued any longer without the
population taking matters into its own hands or being driven to
insurrection... The difficulties of the food situation, which
naturally have a bad effect on the morale of the population, the
enormous rise in prices, the exaggerated and narrow-minded
salary and wage policy, have driven part of the Polish
population to despair.” (Document Number 2233-PS.)
Did you say that?
BÜHLER: I could follow the first part, but I could not find the last
sentence.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you kindly follow the text. In the text
you will find both the first part and the last sentence: “...have driven
part of the Polish population to despair.” Please study the text.
BÜHLER: Where does it say so, please? Would you show it to me?
[_The text was indicated to the witness._]