MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Then I also have the following question to ask
you. Do you not think that your announcement in 1943 bears witness to
the fact that you have today testified falsely before the Tribunal?
BÜHLER: No; no. What I meant by my statement was that the population
would take things into its own hands. When for instance a worker
remained away from his place of work for 3 days to go in search of food,
this was considered by me to be a desperate step on the part of the
worker.
However, I said this morning that it was very difficult for the
population to obtain the necessary food supplies but that it was not
impossible, so that I did not notice famine at all in the Government
General.
And please may I ask you to consider that 80 percent of the population
of the Government General were country people, so that there could be no
famine on a large scale unless the countryside had been completely
despoiled, and that was not the case.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stated that as a result of the food quotas
established in the Government General a revolt might arise, and you said
that the population was driven to despair by hunger. Is that not
evidence that a famine was raging in the country?
BÜHLER: By “revolt” I meant “unrest,” not an armed uprising. It is quite
clear that morale and the will to work did suffer by reason of the
insufficient rations. I stated this morning how it was that adequate
provisioning of the population could not be carried out. On the other
hand, however, there was such a widespread free market and black market
that even the worker, if he had sufficient time, could obtain food; and
if he did not have time, he took it. That was what I meant by the
workers taking things in their own hands.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please, answer this question. Were only such
educational possibilities left to the Poles as would—according to the
plan of Frank and Goebbels—merely emphasize the hopeless destiny of
their nation?
BÜHLER: Efforts to keep down the level of education of the Polish
population were noticeable. These tendencies originated from Himmler in
Berlin.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to answer: What was done with
the Polish universities?
BÜHLER: They were closed and they were not reopened. However, technical
courses were arranged in Warsaw and in Lvov in which these people
received university education; but, to be sure, these courses had to be
closed by demand of the Reich.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps you will recollect under whose signature
the decree was issued to close the universities. Perhaps you will
recognize this signature? It is an official report.
BÜHLER: The decree regarding the appointment of university trustees was
signed by the Governor General in November 1940.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell me whether technical
schools only were left in Poland?
BÜHLER: Not technical schools alone remained open; there were, for
instance, commercial schools, and the attendance there was very large.
Apart from that, there were craft schools and elementary schools, which
were set up on a large scale.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In other words, only those schools were left
which trained artisans, and petty commercial clerks and tradesmen?
BÜHLER: Whether only petty or also more important traders attended them
I do not know. At any rate commercial schools were permitted.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to know on whose initiative the
royal palace at Warsaw was destroyed?
BÜHLER: I do not know for certain. I heard once that it had been the
Führer’s wish that the castle in Warsaw, which was heavily damaged,
should be razed to the ground.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And by whose personal order was this castle, the
royal castle of Warsaw destroyed?
BÜHLER: I do not know whether it was blown up; that I do not know.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes. It was destroyed. Who ordered it to be
destroyed, do you know?
BÜHLER: I do not know.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You do not know?
BÜHLER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The quotation which I want to read to you is on
Page 1 of the translation of the document submitted by us to the
Tribunal. It is a very short quotation. I shall proceed to read it into
the record:
“...The Führer discussed the general situation with the Governor
General and he approved of the work of the Governor General in
Poland, especially the pulling down of the palace at Warsaw and
the intention not to reconstruct the city...”
Was it not true that the palace in Warsaw was destroyed by order of
Frank?
BÜHLER: It is not known to me that the castle was destroyed. As far as I
know there was at one time a project to pull it down, but the plan was
abandoned.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, please, was it not in your presence
that the Defendant Frank on 21 April 1940 issued an order to apply
police measures during the so-called recruitment of labor.
BÜHLER: I should have to see the minutes. I cannot remember it offhand.
[_The document was handed to the witness._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The place which I should like to quote is on
Page 46 of the document, the last paragraph. I quote:
“Discussion with State Secretary Dr. Bühler, SS
Obergruppenführer Krüger, and Dr. Frauendorfer in the presence
of Reich Minister Dr. Seyss-Inquart.
“Subject of discussion is the deportation of workers, especially
agricultural workers, to the Reich.
“The Governor General stated that, as all methods in the way of
appeals, _et cetera_, had been unsuccessful, one was now obliged
to come to the conclusion that the Poles evaded this duty of
work either out of malice, or with the intention of doing
Germany indirect harm by not placing themselves at her disposal.
He therefore asked Dr. Frauendorfer whether there were any
measures left which had not yet been taken to win the Poles over
voluntarily.
“Reichshauptamtsleiter Dr. Frauendorfer answered this question
in the negative.
“The Governor General stated emphatically that a final decision
was now required of him. The question now was whether one would
not have to resort to some form of coercive measure.”
Was that not an order to apply coercive measures when recruiting labor?
BÜHLER: I will not contradict the statement, as I have seen the minutes.
It is one of the utterances of the Governor General which, I believe,
were not altogether made voluntarily but which in no way altered the
course which I took on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer the following question: Were you
present at a discussion with Sauckel on 18 August 1942, and was it in
your presence that Frank told Sauckel that he—as he put it—“joyfully”
informed him that he had shipped a fresh convoy of workers to the Reich
with the help of the Police.
BÜHLER: Together with my departmental heads who dealt with the
recruitment of workers I had a conference with Reich Commissioner
Sauckel before the visit to the Governor General took place. I cannot
now remember whether I was present when Reich Commissioner Sauckel
visited the Governor General. I ask to see the minutes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please show the defendant, I mean the witness,
the passage.
[_The document was handed to the witness._]
I will now read into the record two short passages on Pages 918 and 920.
Doctor Frank says:
“I am very glad that I can inform you officially that up to this
date we have sent to Germany over 800,000 workers. Only a short
time ago you asked for another 140,000. I am happy to inform you
officially that, in accordance with our agreement of yesterday,
60 percent of these newly requested workers will be sent by the
end of October, and the other 40 percent will be dispatched to
the Reich by the end of the year.”
Then I will ask you to pass on to Page 120. There is only one other
sentence I want to quote:
“Besides the 140,000, you can count on a further number of
workers from the Government General during the coming year, for
we will use the Police to get them.”
Does that not imply the use of Draconian police methods in the so-called
recruiting of manpower?
BÜHLER: I do not recollect that I was present on that occasion, so I can
in no way confirm whether that was said in this way.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put
to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: [_To Dr. Seidl._] Do you want to re-examine?
DR. SEIDL: I have a few more questions to ask the witness.
First of all, I should like to clarify a misunderstanding which seems to
have arisen. The question which I put to the witness in connection with
Document Number USSR-93 referred only to Appendix 1, which has the title
“Cultural Life in Poland.” That appendix deals with directives regarding
cultural policies which the administration of the Government General was
supposed to have issued, and the way I understood the witness was that
he only wanted to answer that particular question and not refer to the
other appendices, such as, for instance, those dealing with confiscated
art treasures.
Perhaps it would have been better if he had not used the word “forged.”
At any rate, he wanted to say that he did not know the directives in
question.
[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, is it correct that by far the
greater number of Polish workers who were brought to the Reich were
volunteers?
BÜHLER: May I, first of all, say that I by no means wished to accuse the
Prosecution of committing a forgery. I merely wanted to point out that
possibly they were using a forged document. I did not want to accuse the
Prosecution itself of a forgery.
Now, regarding the question put by defense counsel, I want to say that
according to my observations by far the greater number of all the
workers from the Government General went to the Reich voluntarily.
DR. SEIDL: So as to assist your memory, I am going to read a short
quotation from the diary, which deals with the recruiting of workers.
On 4 March 1940 the Governor General addressed a meeting of the town
mayors of the Lublin district and stated the following regarding the
recruitment of workers:
“He rejected the issue of a new decree, as demanded by Berlin,
containing particular coercive measures and threats of
punishment. Measures which attract attention abroad should be
avoided. The forcible transport of people had every argument
against it.”
Does that conception reflect the true views of the Governor General?
BÜHLER: I was not present during that conference, so I did not hear that
utterance by the Governor General, but it does tally with those
instructions and principles which the Governor General gave to me and
which I have always resolutely observed and carried out.
DR. SEIDL: Were you present during a conference on 14 January 1944—I
see you were there—it was a conference with the State Secretary Dr.
Bühler, Dr. Koppe, and several others. I quote from it:
“The Governor General resolutely opposes the employment of
Police for carrying out such measures. Such a task is not a
matter for the Police.”
Is it correct that the Governor General repeatedly opposed the use of
Police in connection with the recruiting of workers?
BÜHLER: That was not the only occasion. The deputy of Reich Commissioner
Sauckel was often attacked by him during public meetings when he talked
about raids for recruiting workers; but I must state that Sauckel’s
deputy always declared that it was not he who had given instructions for
these raids.
DR. SEIDL: The first quotation which the prosecutor submitted to you was
an entry dated 25 January 1943. He asked you whether you regarded
yourself as a war criminal. I shall now put to you another passage from
that conference, at which you yourself were present. I quote from Page 7
of that entry in the diary. The Governor General stated:
“State Secretary Krüger, you know that orders of the
Reichsführer SS can be carried out by you only after you have
spoken with me. This was omitted in this instance. I express my
regret that you have carried out an order from the Reichsführer
without first informing me, in accordance with the orders of the
Führer. According to that order, instructions of the
Reichsführer SS may be carried out here in the Government
General only after I have previously given my approval. I hope
that this is the last time that that is overlooked; because I do
not want to trouble the Führer about every single case of this
kind.” (Document Number 2233-PS.)