The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-191.04

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-191.04
Last-Modified: 1999/11/06

Q. Did you not hear about the fact that these workers were to sleep in a
barn and were to receive their food there as well?

A. I know nothing about a directive to that effect, that these workers
were to sleep in a barn and were to receive their food there. The
Labouroffice only gave each Polish worker a slip which was to be turned
over to the farmer and which said that the Polish workers should not cat
at the family table and that they must be at home at a certain hour. In
discussing this matter with the Bauernfuehrer at that time, I told him
this was not to be carried through within our Gau by the farmers. ' If
the foreign worker involved behaved himself decently and did his work as
well as a German worker, then he was to enjoy the same rights as the
German worker.

Q. Witness, was it not the case that the comments which one heard among
the farmers about the Party in the Reich were such that one would have
liked to deviate from certain points, especially during the war?

A. No, I never noticed anything of that sort, for we on the land all
believed in the Fuehrer's love of peace, for we knew that Hitler had
lived through the horrors of the First World War and we were convinced
of his desire for peace of which we were told time and again.

Q. Therefore, you dispute the fact that the political leaders in your
district deliberately took part in a conspiracy to terrorize the
population for the purpose of waging an aggressive war and committing
war crimes?

A. No, that was not the case.

Q. If, today, an accusation is raised that these political leaders in
your area were criminals, would you admit that?

A. No, that was not the case.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to this witness.


LT-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have two things about which perhaps. the
Tribunal will permit me to ask a few very short questions. The first is
EC 68, which is Document US 205 and the Tribunal will find it on Page 21
of their document book.


Q. Witness, I want to ask you about the Bauemfuehrer on your staff. The
Bauernfuehrer was one of the so-called "non-political" political
leaders, was he not? Can you hear me?

A. I do not understand you.

Q. Can you hear me now?

A. A little better.

                                                              [Page 122]

Q. I will ask you the question again. Was the Batiernfuehrer on the
staff of the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter and Ortsgruppenleiter one of the
"non-political" political leaders who were said to be merely expert

A. Yes, the Ortsbauemfuehrer was only indirectly active in the
Ortsgruppen staff.

Q. Now, look at that document and explain to me the part that the
so-called expert was playing in connection with slave labour. Do you see
that document? It is a document addressed to all Kreisbauernschaften. Do
you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And it would be the duty of the Kreisbauernfuehrer to bring any
regulations he received in connection with foreign workers to the notice
of the Kreisleiter, would it not? Witness, please be kind enough to
answer my question. Would it be the duty of the Kreisbauernfuehrer to
bring to the notice of his Kreisleiter regulations and the instructions
which he received in connection with foreign labour?

A. I do not believe so. I believe that was left to the discretion of the
Kreisleiter or the Kreisbauernfuehrer and that things which could not be
carried through were passed by.

Q. Are you really saying to this Tribunal that that expert whose duty it
was to advise his Kreisleiter and keep his Kreisleiter informed, and who
was continually conferring with his Kreisleiter, would never have drawn
his Kreisleiter's attention to the instructions he had received about
foreign labour?

A. I must mention that I still hear very poorly.

Q. But I am sure you can hear well enough to answer me.

A. Yes, now I can hear much better.

Q. We will not pursue that matter. We will just seethe part that this
so-called non-political expert was expected to play himself. Do you see
first of all that the "agencies of the Reich Food Administration, the
Reichsnaehrstand, State Peasant Association, have received the result of
the negotiations with a higher SS and police officer in Stuttgart with
great satisfaction"? Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that "the State Peasant Association and the Reich Food
Administration have received the result of the negotiations with the
higher SS and police officer in Stuttgart with great satisfaction"?

A. Yes.

Q. Let us just see what these results are that the Reich Food
Association was receiving with such satisfaction,. You see on that
document that Poles are not allowed to complain, they have no right to
complain -- Nos. 2-3 and 4 are not very important -- 5, no form of
entertainment -- 6, no restaurants-no sexual intercourse -- no use of
public transport -- is not allowed to change his employment. In no case
may he be granted permission to leave his village -- and in no case may
permission be granted if he wants to visit a public agency on his own,
whether it is a labour office or the District Peasant Association. Why
should he not be allowed to visit the District Peasant Association?

A. I see here that this letter comes from Karlsruhe. That is an entirely
different Gau. These measures were not decreed in our region, or at any
rate, not to such a large extent. As a matter of fact, the foreign
workers during the summer had to be home at 9 o'clock in the evening,
and during the winter they had to be home at 8 o'clock in the evening. .
. .

Q. We are really not interested in that. Are you telling us that the
care of foreign workers was different in your Gau from the Gau at Baden
or KarIsrulie, and that the Bauemfuehrer had to carry out different
tasks in the two different Gaue?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Let us just see exactly what they were carrying out in

                                                              [Page 123]

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones, is that already in evidence?


Q. I just want to put one new document to you. Will you look at Document
D-894? That is a report from the Kreis leadership in Kali dated 23rd
September, 1944, subject: Foreigners. Polish youth in the Kali mining
area, which has always shown an endeavour to stick particularly closely
together, is being watched with especial care. The Ortsgruppenleiter
reports that he noticed thirteen young Poles who had left Buggingen
without permission and who were in possession of ,Inedical certificates.
He had eleven of these Poles arrested and taken to the Gestapo at
Muelhausen for re-examination. I just want to ask you one question on
that. Was it a recognized duty of Kreisleiter and Ortsgruppenleiter to
hand over Polish workers to the Gestapo when they saw fit?

A. I know nothing at all about such cases in Kreis Kemptenland and in
Kempten city.

Q. Nothing like that happened in your Kreis at all?

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a new document

LT.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is a new document and will be Exhibit GB
545. I have no further questions to ask this witness. Perhaps I might
supplement my answer to the question raised, I think, by the American
judge on the euthanasia point, as to how it became a war crime. If I
might refer the Tribunal to Page 31 of the document book, which they
have, which is the protest from the Bishop Wurm to Frick, and which is
familiar to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal will look at the first
paragraph of that letter it will be seen that the Bishop states that
this action is taking place on orders from the Reich Defence Council.
And again, if the Tribunal would turn to Page 36 of their document book,
which is another letter which has already been put in, it is a second
letter that the Bishop Wurm wrote to Frick, this time in September, the
first in July of 1940, and now in September he writes again. And in the
middle of the paragraph it will be seen he states, "If the leadership of
the State is convinced that it is a question of an inevitable war
measure, why does it not issue a decree with legal force?" I have no
further questions.


Q. Witness, you were a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 on, is that

A. One moment, I did not understand the question.

Q. You were a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 on, is that correct?

A. Yes, beginning with 1933.

Q. Did you join the Party voluntarily or under constraint?

A. I joined the Party voluntarily.

Q. Were you well acquainted with the programme of the Party, the tasks
and aims of the Party?

A. Yes, in the course of the years 1 familiarized myself with the
various points of the Party programme.

Q. And did you completely agree with the programme, the tasks and aims
of the Party?

A. Well, perhaps not 100 per cent. with all points, but-in general one
could see that Hitler . . .

Q. What was the percentage of your agreement with the aims of the Party?

A. Especially in this matter -- that is, the way the Jewish question
developed according to the programme -- there were further happenings,
and then, as I already mentioned, the people and I myself were no longer
quite in agreement with this policy.

Q. It was only on the question of the persecution of the Jews that you
did not agree with the Party, is that correct?

                                                              [Page 124]

A. Yes.

Q. And with all the rest you agreed?

A. Yes.

Q. Arid now do you still have the same convictions that you had before?
Do you agree with the aims and tasks of the Party?

A. Yes.of course, if action had always been taken in accordance with the
programme, then we surely would not have had the war. War of itself,
which we had gone through as participants in the World War . . .

Q. I did not ask you that Did you understand my question? I am asking
you: have you now the same point of view that you had before?

A. No.

Q. You renounce them?

A. No.

Q. That is incomprehensible, you do not agree and you do not renounce.

A. I beg your pardon.

0. My question is quite simple and clear. Do you still agree with the
views of ilie Nazis?

A. No, that is no longer possible.

Q. Why?

A. Because the confidence of the people was abused in many respects.

Q. And now do you consider the programme and the tasks of the Nazi Party
as correct or incorrect from your point of view? Did you hear the

A. No, I did not hear it.

Q. I am asking whether now you consider the programme and views of the
Nazi Party correct or incorrect?

A. I do not, today, consider them correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you had a document from KarIsruhe, stating the
effect of a certain decree with reference to Polish farm workers. You
said that that decree had not been enforced in your Gau. But you said
that certain decrees had been in force. To what degree were restrictions
placed upon foreign workers in your district?

A. Solely, as I have already mentioned, that in the summer they had to
be home at 9 o'clock in the evening -- and in the winter at 8 o'clock.
Any other restrictions were not imposed on them, for when I was Mayor I
received directives from the Landrat to designate a special inn in the
community where the Poles and Ukraine farm workers could gather in the


Q. Could they have bicycles?

A. Yes, in Allgau it is even necessary to have a bicycle. A large part
of the fields and farmland lay at quite a distance from the farmhouse
and under these conditions it was not possible for the farmer and his
servants to ride bicycles while the Polish workers had to walk for
perhaps an hour. Most of the Polish workers . . .

Q. That is quite enough. Now you say that the only restrictions upon
them were that they had to be in at a certain time at night?

A. Yes, because other matters and other directives were simply not
carried through. Polish workers slept in the same rooms the Germans did,
they ate at the family table and they received much clothing from the
farmers themselves, for they arrived in rags.

Q. Who was it who decided where they had to be employed?

A. The Labouroffice.

Q. And whom did the Labouroffice communicate with?

A. The Labouroffice communicated with the Kreisbauernschaft and with the

Q. So that the Labouroffice communicated to you and to the

                                                              [Page 125]

A. In this matter chiefly with the Bauernfuehrer.

Q. Then the Bauernfuehrer told the Labouroffice how many labourers they
wanted, was that the wa it was done?

A. Yes, that is the way it was done.

Q. How did he allot them?

A. This allotment was left to the Bauernfuehrer. The farmers in the
district stated how many workers they needed and, depending on the
allotments, they were supplied with workers.

Q. Was the Bauernfuehrer subject to the orders of the Kreisleiter? Or
the Ortsgruppenleiter?

A. The Bauernfuehrer was subordinate only to the Reich Food
Administrator -- that is the Kreisbauernfuehrer.

Q. You mean that he was not at all under the orders of the

A. No.

Q. But directly under the Food Office, was he?

A. Yes, he was under the Food Administration, the Reichsnaehrstand.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.