Day ten of the trial, 4 January 1947.
(After a break)
Presiding judge: [Please call] Witness Machnicki.
Witness Jan Machnicki is sworn in, 60 years of age, resident of Warsaw, deputy director of a department at the Ministry of Provisions and Trade, no relationship to the parties.
Witness: Your Honors, I would like, in my professional capacity, to briefly comment on the institution’s set-up so as to provide the background for explaining the circumstances and the position I need to take in the case.
I was a member of the board of the Warsaw Mutual Aid Committee and chairman of the Social Services Council for the entire period from 1 September 1939 until the end, that is, until a few weeks after the Warsaw Uprising. The institution where I worked was founded with a decree published in the final prewar issue of “Monitor Polski” [Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland]. The decree stipulated the establishment of a nationwide committee in major cities and district committees in district capitals. The Warsaw Committee began operating in September, appointing the board during a great political convention presided over by mayor Starzyński. After the capitulation and the entry of German troops, the representative of the Ministry of Welfare took steps to legalize the National Mutual Aid Committee. Negotiations with the authorities were conducted by Łada-Bieńkowski, the then representative, partly in Poznań and Łódź since this is where the headquarters of the General Government were. Around the same time, the Hoover Institution’s representative, MacDonald, arrived in Warsaw. He asked the Polish Red Cross, the Warsaw Committee, and a number of activists – with whom he had forged personal ties when they had worked together in Poland during the previous war – to establish a body that would act on behalf of all voluntary welfare initiatives in their contacts with foreign countries. At that time, a rather substantial foreign aid was promised. MacDonald acted on behalf of five American institutions: the American Red Cross, the Central Jewish Committee, the Joint, the Hoover Institution, the Polish Committee for Aiding Poland, and the International Red Cross. During a great public meeting, presided over by the late Maciej Rataj, a commission was appointed whose task was to adopt and execute MacDonald’s proposal. A charter was drafted by Marian Borzęcki, who presently is also deceased. The commission went to Kraków and negotiated the ratification of the charter with the authorities of the General Government for four months. It was finally approved on 29 May, followed by big public meetings held in Warsaw and at other locations, during which the authorities of the Central Welfare Council [RGO] were appointed, while local councils were also formed in major cities, such as Warsaw. These are the origins of this institution. I took the liberty of making this brief commentary to explain that the institution was an American initiative and was based on American aid. This fact in a sense determined the attitude toward it on the part of the occupation authorities. The American delegate would come to Warsaw every couple of months to review welfare issues. In 1940 and 1941, it was still possible to rescue Polish citizens thanks to the rather substantial American aid.
The nature of my service on the Warsaw council meant that I had a duty to be in touch with the occupation authorities. Over these couple of years, I came across defendant Fischer several times, and I met defendant Leist once.
The Warsaw Council was a major institution. It employed upward of 4,500 people, including 1,500 salaried employees working on a permanent basis, while the rest were volunteers. It ran – or at least tried to run – large-scale operations. Let me emphasize that in 1940 the council took care of more than 200,000 people in some districts. Later, this number decreased slightly because some people migrated out of Warsaw, while others were absorbed by the developing peculiarities of commercial life. Toward the end of the war, still, as many as 80,000 people received help from the council. The needs of this institution were great. On the one hand, there were enclosed facilities for children, the elderly, or the sick, as well as preventoriums for children in danger of sickness, while on the other, there were kitchens issuing between thirty and forty thousand lunches daily, and all these required striving everyday for the means and the food. This was the field in which contacts between my institution and the occupation authorities took place.
In those hard, tragic days, one could not shirk responsibilities even if they were not directly in the purview of social services. Let me say that we never did anything without consulting the Polish administrative entities. As regards providing help or trying to obtain food, I will not be talking about these things. This was the everyday stuff, very difficult, and if it had not been for the uncommon dedication of the people, which testified to incredible social solidarity – and, having been involved in these issues, let me state that there is no other nation who can pride itself on similar generosity – we would not have been able to operate, not without this devotion of people who shared their last penny and last piece of bread.
As regards the attitude of the occupation authorities in Warsaw to the social services, initially, that is until 1942, it was neutral, and later more or less decent. Let me state with full responsibility that I experienced no personal injury on the part of the elements I was in contact with. However, when it came to attending to all these issues, naturally, the assistance was marginal. Let me reiterate that if it had not been for the help of the Polish people, we would not have been able to do our job.
Presiding judge: What was defendant Fischer’s attitude to this social services organization?
Witness: My first meeting with defendant Fischer was, I believe, in October or November 1940, soon after the council’s authorities were approved. This was a purely formal meeting and I do not recall discussing anything of substance. In 1941 and at the beginning of 1942, we had no opportunities to meet because Ausserwald, then head of the Civil and Welfare Department, prevented the council’s hierarchy from reaching the district governor, tried to see to things personally, and the outcomes were typically negative, unfortunately.
However, the situation changed, and from 1942 we had easier access to defendant Fischer. We could intervene with him as regards important issues.
With respect to other issues, such as arrests of our employees (during the war, we lost around 180 people, including most exceptional individuals), we always made interventions and the response was always the same: “Take it up with the Gestapo, we, civilians, are not interested in these matters”.
Later, from 15 July 1943, when a decree was published in the Verordnungsblat concerning the subordination of the police authorities to the administrative authorities, we took very active steps on that front. The results were rather insubstantial. I can only recall that after the famous roundup between 14 and 17 January, 28 council workers and a lot of workers of the Polish Red Cross and the Municipal Board were sent to Majdanek. We intervened and these people were then released. As regards other particular situations, I can only remember one case, from the end of 1943. Stanisław Kętrzyński, a famous professor and eminent historian from the Warsaw University, was arrested. The University’s president, Pieńkowski, and a number of top professors turned to us and we asked defendant Fischer to intervene. Then, Kętrzyński was removed from the list of hostages to be executed and sent to Auschwitz, where he managed to survive.
Presiding judge: Did the council intervene with the German administration concerning the ghetto?
Witness: This issue was outside the purview of our local council. We made numerous interventions as regards this matter. In the fall of 1941, we lodged a memo with the German administration in which we pointed to the state of social services for the Jews. Organizationally, we were closely connected to the Jewish Social Self-Help, since the ratified charter identified the so-called Main Welfare Council, which comprised three branches: the Polish one, represented by the Central Welfare Council, the Jewish one, represented by the Jewish Social Self-Help, and the Ukrainian one, that is the Ukrainian Central Committee. There was no contact with the latter. Over a few months, this organization turned political. We had the closest and most intensive contacts with the Jewish Social Self-Help. We often took steps as regards these issues. The outcomes – as we all know – were unfortunately negative.
Judge Rybczyński: You said you went to see Leist.
Witness: I went to see defendant Leist once. I never met him alone, our delegation was always two or three people strong. On that occasion, I was with Dr. Wachowiak, my deputy. This was at the beginning of 1941, in connection with our efforts to increase the subsidies for the city. It was a short conversation and he sent us to his deputy, Beckman, with whom we discussed in detail our plans and the budget implementation for the previous year, and stated reasons for the necessity to increase the subsidy. Later, we dealt with his deputies, Mr. Frywolin, and Dr. Kuntz, a low-level officer.
Judge: Director Machnicki, you said you went to see Fischer several times. What was the nature of these visits?
Witness: To discuss issues which were constantly nagging us, such as food supplies – these were crucial issues, we were trying to implement the provisions of the charter, to recruit members and secure standing donations to social services from salaried citizens.
Judge: Did he respond substantively to any of your requests?
Witness: Essentially, he created an impression that he was trying to adopt a positive stance.
Judge: And when it comes to the realization?
Witness: Maybe 20 percent of the desiderata we submitted were actually realized.
Presiding judge: You mentioned the terms of surrender. Did the RGO intervene with the occupation authorities in order to ensure that these terms be observed?
Witness: Your Honors, article ten of the terms of surrender stipulated that all items of everyday use, such as shoes, clothes, underwear, kitchen pots, etc. which had remained in the surrendering district would be secured for the purposes of social care institutions (it was not specified whether this would be the Red Cross, Municipal Social Welfare, or the RGO). This provision only held for the surrendering district of Warsaw, that is, the area stretching from Nowy Świat Street to Żelazna Street in the east, down Aleje Ujazdowskie to 6 sieprnia Street, and then in the south down Polna Street, bending in the direction of Starynkiewicza Square to Aleje Jerozolimskie. This was the surrendering district. The surrender was effected on 2 October. On 5 October, I was summoned to a conference presided over by Gen. Kraushar and attended by Dr. Fischer, head of the civil administration of the General Government, who came with a full entourage, and also by Dr. Kurzlicki, chairman of the RGO at that time. For two days, discussions were held concerning the implementation of the article ten provisions, which also stipulated the collection of so-called cultural goods, that is, works of art, archives, church goods, and items of special significance, such as mortgage registers and court documents. During this meeting, it was decided that the Warsaw Welfare Council, which was partly in exile in Pruszków and partly in the surrendering district, would undertake the task of collecting the remaining clothes. Unfortunately, two weeks had elapsed before this decision – made on 6 October – could be implemented. It was only on the night of 19 to 20 October that we could assemble a team, send it to Warsaw, and commence the operation. At that time, I was outside Warsaw and I was running this operation. Let me say that it was the most tragic function I have ever fulfilled. The things you could then witness in Warsaw… the pillage… A lot had been lost over these two weeks. Consequently, our efforts translated into 240 cubic tons. I had given a very great deal of thought to whether we should launch this operation under these circumstances. But the refugees concentrated around Warsaw, how utterly miserable they were… Between Warsaw and Grodzisk there were twenty-some hospitals, and in Milanówek alone there were 13. The thing about these hospitals was that, for example, in Tworki, where the local hospital was suited to serve a maximum of 800 patients, there were upward of 4,000 patients at times. Near Warsaw, we had around 50,000 children from all kinds of charitable facilities who had left the city. In light of all this, we decided to launch the operation, which was utter torment. Personally, I believe that neither myself nor the people I worked with had ever faced such dire working conditions.
Presiding judge: Were you familiar with the Pruszków situation?
Witness: I was not in Pruszków personally. The uprising caught me in the street. I did not have a clear passage home until the end. I spent the uprising in the Old Town. I could not make it home. After getting out of Warsaw, I was arrested by the Gestapo and detained at St. Lawrence’s church in Wolska Street for seven days, after which I was transferred to Sochaczew, and there I was released, allegedly thanks to defendant Fischer’s intervention.
Presiding judge: Have you been to Pruszków?
Witness: Not as a charge, so to speak, but I had an opportunity to visit Pruszków a couple of times.
Presiding judge: How would you describe the conditions there?
Witness: There were huge former industrial facilities, which had been dismantled. Concrete and steel. Hundreds of thousands of people camped on this concrete because whoever got out of Warsaw would go through Pruszków. Just a small number of people went through another Warsaw area camp, in Ursus. The camp fell short of the most basic sanitation and hygiene standards. The local committees did their utmost to get these wretched people a spoonful of soup, medications, etc. These people were in terrible condition. I myself took steps to get some of them released, and I partly succeeded. We all know what condition they were in when they were leaving Warsaw.
Presiding judge: Do the conditions you identified in Pruszków warrant any special gratitude toward the German authorities, especially to defendant Fischer? If I am getting this right, defendant Fischer claims that the RGO expressed their gratitude to him for the exceptional organization at the Pruszków camp.
Witness: Let me categorically state that there was no such case. This could not have happened because we never considered the events taking place at Pruszków to fall in the purview of the civilian authorities. This was the province of the Gestapo, of the so-called green wagon, where the fates of the entire camp were decided. I never saw a civilian officer there, and I have been to the camp several times.
Judge Grudziński: Director Machnicki, you were president of the Warsaw Municipal Committee, is that correct?
Witness: Yes.
Judge: Who did you contact for organizational purposes? You mentioned Leist and Fischer, but who did you have to contact formally, so to speak?
Witness: The district governor and the Stadthauptmann.
Judge: Both of them?
Witness: Yes.
Judge: What issues did you take up with Leist and what issues with Fischer?
Witness: With respect to issues falling in the purview of the Polish Municipal Board, I spoke to mayor Kulski, but later approval was required from a superior authority, that is, the Stadthauptmann.
Judge: Meaning Leist?
Witness: Yes.
Judge: So these were matters directly concerning Warsaw. And which affairs were referred to Fischer?
Witness: District-related affairs. At the same time, we served as the so-called Main Council delegates for the entire Warsaw district.
Judge: So you were under Leist’s jurisdiction when it comes to Warsaw. And if these were more global issues, you were under Fischer, is that correct?
Witness: Yes.
Judge: Were appeals against Leist’s orders referred to Fischer?
Witness: I do not recall such cases. Many issues were dealt with on the central level in Kraków.
Let me also describe the financial structure of the organization, in response to previous questions. Under article 48 of the Hague convention and the relevant article of the Brussels convention, the occupier was obliged to designate a certain sum from tax revenue to social services. These sums were globally transferred by the General Government to Kraków, to the RGO, which then distributed the money among the local councils according to a certain pattern. This was the only source. In the case of Warsaw, it amounted to one million zlotys a month (this sum was the same irrespective of prices fluctuations).
Judge: I am sorry to interrupt you, Director: was this a standing monthly subsidy?
Witness: That is correct, so it was 12 million zlotys per annum. This is what it looked like until 1941.
The second item was also one million zlotys, give or take, from the Warsaw municipality. Additionally, the Warsaw municipality gave the committee a number of special tasks, such as fighting tuberculosis among children. This entire operation was delegated to the committee. Then, we received special subsidies for feeding children at schools, for summer play centers, or summer camps. On average, the monthly subsidy from the municipality was around 1.2 or 1.3 million zlotys. This was the second item.
The third item was voluntary payments for the committee. Initially, in 1941, these were very small sums because we had been applying for a very long time to be granted permission for this scheme. Later, our efforts saw around 1.5 to 2 million zlotys monthly generated from this source. If we also count certain revenues from payments for services by people using shelters or dinners in kitchens for the poor, our monthly budget may be estimated at around 4 million zlotys.
Additionally, there was also welfare in kind received as part of allocations. Some allocations were issued directly by the General Government, also under international agreements.
There was also special welfare from the district and from the Stadthauptmann’s office, again as part of the allocations for the Warsaw municipality, distributed by the Polish municipal entities.
Judge: So out of the budget of 4 million zlotys, the subsidy received by Warsaw was 2 million?
Witness: Yes, the monetary subsidy.
Judge: And on this front you had contact with Leist?
Witness: No, on this front it was mostly with the district.
Judge: What other issues were dealt with by Leist’s office?
Witness: Sometimes there were special issues. For instance, there were affairs which caused unrest among the people of Warsaw, about which we also had to intervene, such as the monuments. One day, a story broke that eight Warsaw monuments, including the four biggest ones, which were most intimately connected with the city’s history and, on an emotional level, with each of us, were to be destroyed. We stepped in, and we were partly successful because the four major monuments, that is, of Mickiewicz, Poniatowski, Kopernik, and Saper, were saved. A number of conferences were held at that time, initially at the district offices and later at the Stadthauptmann ’s, and then I had no personal contact with Leist, dealing mostly with mayor Kulski and his deputy.
Judge: What issues did you take up with the district?
Witness: Expediting payments and increasing subsidies. Every little detail, from a potato to flour and fat, required contacts with the authorities and exerting pressure on them on a daily basis. To be sure, I did not deal with these issues personally: this was done by directors of bureaus, and sometimes by others employees, such as section heads, each of whom was responsible to ensure liquidity on his end.
Judge: You mentioned that starting in July 1943 there were political changes.
Witness: The act that I mentioned was adopted. Whether these changes came into effect at that point of earlier was never clear under the system then in place.
Judge: You mean that it translated into practice?
Witness: It did, in that formerly, when we raised the issues of arrests and round-ups, the response was, “We are not competent, this is the province of the police authorities”. Both we ourselves in Warsaw and other committees made interventions concerning things not necessarily connected with social services.
Judge: So at that time you were no longer told that this is outside their purview?
Witness: We were only told that it could not be done.
Judge: But you were not told that it was another jurisdiction?
Witness: No, we were not.
Judge: Do you know the background of Dr. Wyss’s visits?
Witness: There are two men by that name. One is a University professor [Zurich University, Max von Wyss?], an eminent doctor, serologist, chairman of the International Red Cross. And there is the other Wyss [Dr. Paul Wyss?]. Both had been to Warsaw. The former, the “Great Wyss”, as we called him, first came to Warsaw in 1943. Later, after the uprising, I had two meetings with the other Wyss, who was director of some department at the International Red Cross. I discussed the situation in detail with both. I spoke to them face to face, without the participations of the Germans.
Judge: What do you think their conclusions were after these visits?
Witness: Let me give a bit more detailed answer by referring to the visits of the Americans, who came here quite often. First, there was MacDonald’s visit in November 1939, when it was all just starting and it was hard to predict what turn it would take. With regard to all the other Americans who were coming later, contacts with them were problematic in that it was very difficult to find an opportunity to talk to them in private, but we tried various strategies to make it happen. We would slip notes with certain information into the pockets of their coats. I think they had a detailed knowledge of what was going on.
As regards Wyss, I had an opportunity to speak to him. Together with the director, I wrote him a very comprehensive note concerning the catastrophic, tragic situation that had befallen the people of Warsaw after the city was destroyed. We described the utterly abject circumstances and what needed to be done. Unfortunately, I think that aside from the nutrients for children and some limited medical supplies, the aid we were counting on, such as, first and foremost, thick blankets and clothes for children (we prioritized the needs) did not materialize until after the war, through different channels, such as the Swedish Red Cross and others.
Judge: Who made Dr. Wyss’s second visit happen? Did he come on his own initiative?
Witness: I cannot tell. It was on 19 October 1944. At that time, I was cut off from Warsaw, staying outside the city, in the town of Podkowa. The Polish Red Cross urged me to come to Pruszków because this delegation had arrived. I managed to do so and it was then that I spoke to him. The second time I saw him was, I believe, in Warsaw, at the end of November, or maybe at the beginning.
Judge: Was Dr. Wyss apprised of the situation?
Witness: He seemed to have been fully apprised.
Judge: By the German authorities?
Witness: It was rather by someone else. I was with him in the National Museum, in the office of director Lorentz, we held a conference. At one point, Dr. Wyss asked to be shown the Swiss legation because he wanted to photograph it. It was not yet in the condition in which it would be later, but in any case, it had already been bombarded. I left with him, the premises being almost across the street, and as we walked there and back, I had an opportunity to talk to him.
Judge: What did the German press report at that time?
Witness: I was cut off from my normal life so I cannot tell.
Judge: Do you recall intervening with Fischer concerning the alimentary situation in the General Government in 1940? Can you repeat this conversation?
Witness: It would be difficult to repeat it after so many years. We made lots of such interventions.
Judge: Did you describe to Fischer how utterly tragic the situation was?
Witness: Your honors! In 1941, in September, or maybe October, together with Białowiecki, the then director of the RGO (he died at Majdanek), I received an order or invitation to go with two experts to the ghetto to produce an evaluation report of the state of social services there. The situation in the ghetto was very clear at the time. The idea of the report originated with Dr. Auerbach. Unfortunately, I lost all the documents during the uprising. I believe that such a report may be found in Kraków. As regards the accounting side, two copies of these documents were made to be sent to Kraków. I do not know what Auerbach did with this document.
Judge: Did you go to see Fischer regarding this case?
Witness: I made such visits roughly every three months. As regards this memorandum, I most assuredly did not hear anything from my associate.
Judge: Did you take up the issue of alimentation with Fischer?
Witness: Many times.
Lay Judge Jodłowski: After your intervention, who made the decision to expunge Kętrzyński’s name from the list of hostages?
Witness: We intervened with Fischer, and after a couple of days, we learned that Kętrzyński’s name had been removed from the list.
Lay Judge: You were a member of the RGO during the previous occupation. Can you briefly compare the attitude of the German authorities to the issue of social services during the previous occupation and the current one?
Witness: It is two different worlds, different types of people. Back then, the Germans came to liberate us. Now, for anyone with eyes to see, it is apparent that we were threatened with extinction. There is no doubt that this was the goal. It is hard to say whether all those tasked with executing said goal realized that. In any case, such plans existed. Forgive me for putting it that way, but compared with the last six years, it was an idyll back then. During the first war, foreign aid was substantial, while presently it has not been as significant as we expected.
Prosecutor Siwierski: Aside from the request regarding Prof. Kętrzyński, did the social services committee also make some global intervention when public executions in Warsaw commenced?
Witness: It did.
Prosecutor: Who with?
Witness: With the governor.
Prosecutor: Did you personally participate in any such intervention?
Witness: Yes, I did.
Prosecutor: What was Fischer’s response on that occasion?
Witness: He created the impression that he was trying to do something, but his hands were tied.
Prosecutor: What was his response? Was it negative straightaway?
Witness: He said he needed to liaise with the SS and Oberpolizeiführer.
Prosecutor: In the period of public executions, aside from the case of Prof. Kętrzyński, who was sent to Auschwitz anyway, were there any other outcomes to your interventions?
Witness: This was the only one.
Prosecutor: Did you hold a conference at the Räumungskommando house at the end of Wolska Street, which was attended by Geibel and defendant Fischer? Would you please recount this meeting, preferably from memory, focusing on Fischer’s role? Did you present your requests to him, and what was his response?
Witness: As far as I can recall, the meeting was about the implementation of the provisions of article ten of the terms of surrender, which stipulated securing the so-called cultural goods. It was the end of October or the beginning of November. We intervened with governor Fischer, who operated out of Sochaczew, concerning the implementation of this provision, at the request of Prof. Lorentz, Prof. Suchodolski, and many other people, who, based on the intelligence reaching them from Warsaw, feared that the National Museum and many more buildings, such as the National Library, which had partly survived, were about to be blown up. Defendant Fischer organized a conference at the Räumungskommando in Wolska Street. The outcome of this meeting was the formation of a special commission within the committee, with Prof. Lorentz appointed its head and Prof. Suchodolski his deputy, which, using our financial and technical help, undertook the task of implementing article ten. I believe that a report on the outcomes was submitted to the Tribunal by director Lorentz.
Prosecutor: Did defendant Fischer issue any instructions or orders?
Witness: I do not remember if he did. I got an impression that he played a decisive part in making the operation possible.
Prosecutor: Did the operation actually yield results?
Witness: There were some results. I do not know exactly. On 28 October, the Warsaw committee dissolved itself. I functioned for a while, but I do not have numerical data. Some valuable things were saved thanks to that. It is hard to estimate what percentage of the total quota it was and what the value of the rescued things was. I think that Prof. Lorentz, as an expert heard before the Tribunal, presented his report concerning this case.
Prosecutor: During this conference, was it stated in no uncertain terms that Warsaw was facing annihilation?
Witness: Yes, I guess so.
Prosecutor: It was unsaid.
Witness: It was a periculum in mora situation.
Prosecutor: Did defendant Fischer explain that Warsaw was in danger?
Witness: I do not recall any such statements. I think I would have remembered them.
Prosecutor: Last thing: the Pruszków camp. What was the German welfare plan for the camp? Were there some payments or supplies, or was it a Polish welfare initiative?
Witness: It was exclusively a Polish effort. There was the Pruszków committee and other local committees, for example the Komorów committee showed great dedication. Incredible help was offered by the suburban population. I personally witnessed as people brought food, in one form or another, to the kitchen.
Prosecutor: Did the German authorities make any efforts to adapt the camp to accommodate a million people?
Witness: Absolutely not. That was absolutely not the case. The camp was a dismantled industrial building, without anything. People scuffled over thatch, over pallets. They lay on pallets, on stones.
Prosecutor: Did the German authorities make any efforts to provide hot meals and some dishes to serve it?
Witness: I was not there from the beginning. My first visit to Pruszków was on 16 September, because I had been in the Old Town and I was evacuated on 2 September. I do not know the genesis of the Pruszków camp. When I arrived, 50% of the evacuated population had already passed through the camp. After 2 October, people from the surrendering districts were coming in, and then there were transports of people from the right bank of the Vistula, who had somehow found themselves on the other side and ended up in Pruszków.
Prosecutor: As regards the “green wagon” that you mentioned, is this where Geibel’s people operated?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Sawicki: Are you familiar with the fact that an RGO delegation went to see Fischer about the hostages taken after the assassination of Igo Sym?
Witness: Yes, the committee made an intervention.
Prosecutor: Was it successful?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor: What did Fischer say?
Witness: He said it was outside his purview.
Prosecutor: Who signed the posters informing the public that hostages had been taken?
Witness: Defendant Fischer did.
Prosecutor: And when you went to see Fischer, he still evaded the responsibility, claiming it was not his province?
Witness: That is correct.
Prosecutor: You mentioned that there was a plan. I would like you to clarify the following: on the one hand, you knew there was a plan of annihilation, while on the other, you were receiving some subsidies; do you maybe think that these subsidies were about putting on a show for the international public?
Witness: Absolutely. I talked about the origins of the institution, its nature, and its foreign background to emphasize that otherwise its existence would have been impossible or much more difficult.
Prosecutor: Were these subsidies for show, so to speak, connected with the fact that the RGO had difficulties in obtaining clearance for public donations? You said that the RGO did not receive funding and that there were long-standing efforts. If the government aid had been for real, then there would have been nothing to prevent charity collection.
Witness: This was not just a local issue, but also a global one: it concerned the entire area of the RGO’s operations. These efforts were made in Kraków. The civilian administration always claimed they could not break the Gestapo’s resistance.
Prosecutor: Did you see anything to suggest that the Germans’ policy toward the Poles changed for the better in 1943, in connection with the situation on the eastern front?
Witness: Personally, I am of the opinion that the scheme for the extermination of the Polish nation had, since the very beginning, been constantly in motion. Not for one second was I under any illusions about it. Public opinion would very often say that the policy was tightening or that it was relaxing. I myself was under no illusions, unfortunately.
Prosecutor: Do you recall that in the fall of 1943, promises were made to improve the Polish alimentary conditions?
Witness: Yes, that happened from time to time.
Prosecutor: Was the sentiment in the RGO circles that this was in connection with the eastern front situation?
Witness: I do not remember it particularly well. Personally, I was always of the opinion that the plan of the extermination of the Poles was constantly in motion. We just saw it as our duty to save people to the best of our ability.
Prosecutor: Do you think that the claims of the German civilian authorities along the lines of “we want to, but the Gestapo won’t let us” were just an excuse? Did you maybe get an impression that the aim in such cases was to shift responsibility?
Witness: Yes, this is likely so.
Defense Attorney Chmurski: First of all, I would like to ask about the structure of the RGO, because you described the relations of the RGO to the municipal authorities and to the district authorities. I would like you to now discuss the relation of the Council to the central office in Kraków and to the General Government in Kraków. Although, as far as we remember, it was not a hierarchical relationship, it was a relation informed by circumstances and was of significance from an operational point of view.
Witness: The structure was as follows. There was a superordinate body, which, by the way, only existed on paper and did not actually operate, the so-called Main Welfare Council, which comprised three branches: the Polish Main Welfare Council, the Jewish Social Self-Help, and the Ukrainian Central Committee. As regards the Polish branch, the Central Welfare Council in Kraków had counterparts in all district capitals, and, more recently, in all municipalities. There was hardly a municipality in Poland – bar in the areas close to the frontline – with no RGO bureau operating.
Defense Attorney: What was the relationship between the Kraków RGO and the Warsaw RGO? Did you have any direct contacts?
Witness: Direct and also indirect. Out of the seven members of the RGO, two were members of the Warsaw Committee, including myself.
Defense Attorney: So the operations were coordinated?
Witness: Completely.
Defense Attorney: As regards general needs, am I to take it that the RGO in Kraków contacted the RGO in Warsaw?
Witness: That is correct.
Defense Attorney: So when it comes to the Warsaw situation, it cannot be considered separately but in the global context of welfare-related issues in the entire Government, is that correct?
Witness: I had the honor to discuss that already.
Defense Attorney: So with respect to alimentation, this was a global issue, not just one relevant for the district, right?
Witness: That is correct.
Defense Attorney: Was that also the case for the subsidies?
Witness: Yes, it was. Subsidies, issued under the relevant provisions of international agreements, were processed by the General Government and the RGO before they reached us.
Defense Attorney: And now a particular case: the Warsaw RGO budget was 4 million zlotys?
Witness: Yes, the monetary budget.
Defense Attorney: What part of this sum was a subvention from the district?
Witness: The district did not subsidize the committee directly. One million per month was a subvention for the Kraków RGO, from tax revenue. Here, in Warsaw, we received another million, plus an additional payment from the Warsaw municipality.
Defense Attorney: So this was a global issue of subsidies controlled by the district or the General Government?
Witness: The General Government. The district was an intermediary. When applying for a raise in the subvention, you needed the former’s approval.
Defense Attorney: Therefore, please tell us if the following conclusion is valid: administrative and financial matters were in the purview of the General Government, not of the district, is that correct?
Witness: It is with respect to financial backing. As regards food supplies, like I said, there were different categories: there were central allocations, district allocations, and municipal allocations.
Defense Attorney: Could district allocations be out of line with the General Government allocations?
Witness: They were independent.
Defense Attorney: Meaning they were contingent on local capabilities?
Witness: Yes, on local capabilities and on the willingness of particular elements.
Defense Attorney: As regards other issues of significance, you said that although they were outside the RGO’s purview, the council still dealt with, say, political matters.
Witness: Correct.
Defense Attorney: If you were unsuccessful with the municipal authorities, did you take up the issue with the General Government?
Witness: These matters were usually dealt with in a two-pronged way. We intervened simultaneously through the RGO and with the central authorities.
Defense Attorney: As regards the Warsaw municipal authorities, was a Polish mayor in place?
Witness: He was.
Defense Attorney: What were his relations to the RGO?
Witness: Intimate and exemplary. I am lost for words to describe my gratitude to mayor Kulski for all he did for the RGO.
Defense Attorney: I completely agree, but I need to ask about the things important from my point of view. Given mayor Kulski’s responsibilities and function, was he the person you turned to first, and was he the first official instance, with the German authorities consulted only later?
Witness: We turned to him always, except in some particular cases, such as the municipal subsidies.
Defense Attorney: If there was no success, did you turn to a higher authority, or was it done concurrently?
Witness: We applied to the district, or alternatively to the General Government.
Defense Attorney: Were you in direct contact with mayor Kulski?
Witness: All the time.
Defense Attorney: What was his opinion concerning the district’s attitude, which is what I am interested in? What was the district’s attitude to the RGO’s requests?
Witness: I do not understand.
Defense Attorney: The Central Welfare Council made numerous requests with German authorities other than the municipal authorities. Interventions on that front were made, or could be made, by mayor Kulski. He certainly intervened with the German authorities because that was part of his responsibilities as a mayor and as a citizen. At that time, you were in constant contact with the Polish mayor, Mr. Kulski. What was his opinion on the attitude of the district authorities toward requests and postulations?
Witness: I get the impression that he was in constant contact, and that the attitude toward the RGO was the same all the time.
Defense Attorney: Was this attitude toward requests rather critical?
Witness: The attitude was the same as to all of the RGO’s operations.
Defense Attorney: Did mayor Kulski talk to you about his impressions concerning this issue?
Witness: Many times.
Defense Attorney: Please describe it to us.
Witness: Frequently, Kulski would ask us to initiate some two-pronged efforts to achieve better results. He was not directly in touch with the General Government. We dealt with all the issues which concerned, at the same time, the municipal board and the committee bilaterally.
Defense Attorney: Director Machnicki, you mentioned your personal conference in Sochaczew with defendant Fischer. It concerned the release of Prof. Kętrzyński.
Witness: No, that was in Warsaw, in November 1943.
Defense Attorney: May I ask you to describe the course of this meeting?
Witness: I cannot give a detailed account of this meeting presently, it has faded in my memory. I can share my general impression. We presented the case and Fischer said that he would look into it.
Defense Attorney: Were the results immediate or delayed?
Witness: I think that after a couple of days we found out that Prof. Kętrzyński’s name had been removed from the list of hostages, but I do not remember this very well.
Defense Attorney: You were in Pruszków in September 1944. The evacuation of Warsaw, which was announced publicly, was on 5 October.
Witness: On 2 October.
Defense Attorney: Partially, but the main displacement took place on 5 October.
Witness: The surrender agreement was signed on the evening of 2 October. On 3 October, it was announced in Warsaw and in the suburbs that the act of surrender had been signed. Already on 4 October, the exodus of the Polish population from the surrendering districts began.
Defense Attorney: Sir, forgive me, but you are clearly mistaken. We have been through the 2 October capitulation of Warsaw and then the exodus. On 5 October, it was announced over the loudspeakers that the residents of Warsaw were to evacuate in two hours. I heard it myself.
Witness: I was not in Warsaw at that time.
Prosecutor Sawicki: I would like to point out that…
Defense Attorney Chmurski: Sir, forgive me, but I have not interrupted you once during these hearings.
Presiding Judge: The witness states that he was not in Warsaw. He knows what was happening in September. On 2 October, the main evacuation took place, while the previous ones were partial. Director Machnicki was not in Warsaw. In September, the RGO moved to Pruszków, until October.
Witness: Until 7 October.
Defense Attorney Chmurski: At that time, who acted on behalf of the RGO in Pruszków?
Witness: Dealing with whom?
Defense Attorney: In general.
Witness: The former Warsaw committee.
Defense Attorney: You were a member of the Warsaw committee. You said that the Pruszków issue was outside its purview, is that correct?
Witness: Between 16 September and 5 October, I was a private citizen and I did not act in any official capacity because part of the Warsaw committee had continued functioning in the surrendering district. A special board was even appointed to run the committee over that period. It was only transferred from Warsaw to Pruszków on 7 October (some remained in Warsaw until the end of October), and then I assumed my responsibilities.
Defense Attorney: When?
Witness: On 6 or 7 October.
Defense Attorney: Please describe, then, the issue of assisting the people of Warsaw, of whom there were a couple hundred thousand, in light of a sudden order to evacuate. Note that prior to October 5 the evacuation of Warsaw was carried out to a very limited extent because the people would not leave, as they were attached to Warsaw and preferred to die among the ruins. Nobody knew that the entire population of Warsaw was to be evacuated. How do we protect those people from hunger if on 5 October an order was issued over the loudspeakers that they were to evacuate in two hours? Was it possible, in common sense terms, to assist those people in every respect – People who were essentially martyrs?
Witness: It was not possible.
Defense Attorney: And is it possible to ascribe the responsibility to any other authority than the one who issued the order to evacuate?
Presiding Judge: This question is disallowed. The witness is not competent to decide on responsibility.
Defense Attorney Chmurski: The witness stated that the responsibility lies with the German authorities.
Witness: Asked by one of the judges what the Pruszków camp looked like, I said it looked like nothing at all. It was something unprepared.
Defense Attorney: But the RGO was appointed to provide food and accommodation. It could not do it, but could the district authorities have done anything?
Witness: As regards the very beginning, I believe that the Pruszków camp was set up, if I am not mistaken, at the end of August. Already on 2 September the entire Old Town and parts of downtown Warsaw were evacuated. The camp was then under the care of the local Pruszków committee. As regards the meals, the people coming from there said – which I also ascertained myself – that these soups were rather palatable.
Defense Attorney: They were excellent!
Judge Rybczyński: The overall tenor of your testimony suggests that the German authorities did, after all, feel somewhat responsible for the sanitary conditions of the Pruszków camp, did they not?
Witness: I would not say so.
Judge: Then please tell me if you know that the RGO representatives Jadwiga Kiełbasińska, Father Edward Tyszko, and others were asked to come and that they were given documents to sign that stated that the camp conditions were very decent…
Witness: I remember that such a statement appeared in the press, but these things met a very negative response, they were extorted.
Judge: But why were such statements extorted?
Witness: I have just remembered. This coincided with Mr. Wyss’s arrival in Warsaw. Ms. Kiełbasińska had nothing to do with this organization. Aside from the local voluntary organizations, a whole lot of people, whoever believed in God, wore these bands. This was problematic for us because these people often did things not quite in keeping with the intentions of our institution.
Judge: And was it not said that this declaration corresponded to the contents of [gap]?
Witness: I do not know.
Defense Attorney Śliwowski: Director Machnicki, you told the Tribunal that the Stadthauptmann and his office were positively disposed toward the RGO’s requests, but only 20 percent of these were actually realized. In your opinion, were the municipal authorities in a position to fulfill all these requests? Were they limited by some guidelines from higher authorities which they had to consider? I am bringing this up particularly in connection with your statements concerning the Gestapo.
Witness: It is hard to say. There was the hierarchy of the German authorities, which was so peculiar that it was difficult for a person watching from a distance to establish the boundaries between different jurisdictions. It is difficult for me to answer this question.
Defense Attorney: I am curious about one thing: you mentioned intervening regarding the monuments. Not all of the monuments were saved, some of them were destroyed. Did the committee embark on the operation of making gypsum casts of the monuments which were to be destroyed? Was this done in consultation with the German authorities?
Witness: In consultation. This cost a lot of money, in consultation with Polish mayor Kulski. The way this operation finished was that, when we were told that the four main monuments we were campaigning for would be preserved, we were ordered to produce an equivalent amount of metal. Then, mayor Kulski, not being able to officially assign any money from the budget, obtained the funds through a collection held among those well off. The money was given to two committee employees who bought the material on the black market and delivered it. This was a serious thing, around 200,000 zlotys. At that time, it was a major deal.
Defense Attorney: One last thing: was there any intervention regarding the retention of the Wilanów collection if it was in danger of being taken away?
Witness: This issue was in the purview of the district committee.
Defense Attorney Węgliński: Do you remember the first time that Warsaw received aid, in the form of commodities, from the Americans?
Witness: The first transport came in in May 1940. I recall that on 4 April – a date I remember for other reasons – with the participation of MacDonald (before the ratifying of the RGO charter, the RGO organizing committee operated) we met with the representatives of the Jews, Ukrainians, and other minorities to distribute these handouts. The first transport came in in May. It was a very significant transport. Thanks to it, we could run the kitchens on a decent level for more than a year and a half.
Defense Attorney: How were the goods distributed?
Witness: The situation was as follows. The first proposal, suggested by the representative of the German Foreign Ministry, who came with the American, was to distribute the goods according to the proportions of the citizens of each nationality. Then, the breakdown was 76.6% of Poles, 10.5% of Jews, and 7% of Ukrainians and other minorities. Then I suggested increasing the share for the Jews to 17% on the grounds that the Jews, as a non-agrarian population, would face greater difficulties to get by than the Poles would. Anyway, I did this in consultation with the Jewish self-help representatives. I have some documents from that period. We did increase the share to 17%.
Defense Attorney: And did it yield practical results?
Witness: Yes.
Judge Grudziński: Between 1939 and 1940, did you hear the name of Meisinger, head of the Security Police?
Witness: As regards that period, I had no contacts at all. I was at the Gestapo twice, but I do not know any names. It was in May 1941, when over one night the late professors Rybarski and Staniszkis and Gen. Szpakowski, RGO employees, were arrested. I went there because at the Government’s office I was told it was out of their hands. We intervened in Kraków and with the Warsaw Gestapo.
Prosecutor Sawicki: In connection with my previous question, I would like to ask if you remember that subsidies were issued to the Jewish population until its complete liquidation. Were the issuing of subsidies and biological extermination concurrent?
Witness: I know how it was done because until the last moment we were very much in contact with the Jewish committees in Kraków and Warsaw.
Prosecutor: How would you explain this two-way approach? Was it to keep up appearances?
Witness: I would guess that was the reason.
Prosecutor: You mentioned the subsidies amounting to 4 million zlotys.
Witness: This was a tiny fraction of the tax revenue.
Prosecutor: Speaking in absolute numbers, do you remember how much money was invested into social services before and during the war?
Witness: In 1942 or 1943 – but I think 1943 is more likely – the overall amount of subsidies granted to the RGO by the occupation authorities, including the provision of goods calculated at wholesale prices (quota prices would skew the picture), was 65 million zlotys per year.
Prosecutor: What percentage of the tax revenue was it?
Witness: I am not in a position to discuss that, I do not remember these figures. I could try and get them for you, should you wish.
Prosecutor: During such RGO interventions, was the issue of aiding the camps raised? Did the administration – in general, I am not talking about any particular branches – officially allow you to help the camps?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: So these authorities knew that there were such camps, right?
Witness: Of course. There were efforts to find out, in the first place, what camps operated in Germany and where exactly.
Prosecutor: I am interested in the camps located in the General Government.
Witness: Everybody knew about these.
Prosecutor: I am not interested in everybody but in these officers of the German administration. Did you submit reports which were passed to the authorities of the German administration?
Witness: Of course.
Prosecutor: And these reports specified the resources allotted to the camps in Treblinka, Majdanek, or Auschwitz?
Witness: Of course, they included very specific numbers.
Prosecutor: Can you state for the record that the report included specifics concerning the sums assigned to assisting the camps?
Witness: Absolutely.
Presiding judge: Are you perhaps in possession of the RGO charter?
Witness: I am not, but I can get it.
Presiding judge: Please mail it to us.
Defendant Fischer: I would like to ask the witness a few questions. Director, you said that the conduct of the German authorities toward yourself was decent.
Witness: Yes.
Defendant: Please tell me if I asked you, during all your interventions, to openly and candidly inform me about the current situation.
Witness: That is correct. It was at a conference on 24 December 1943, when our entire delegation was seen by defendant Fischer alone, with no participation of other persons with the administration.
Defendant: Following these talks between the gentlemen from the RGO and myself, did a certain sense of trust develop?
Witness: Yes.
Defendant: Did the RGO personnel not thank me for always keeping my word?
Witness: Maybe it happened during some conversation, but I do not remember that.
Defendant: You said that it was only when the police was subordinated to me, that is, in August 1943, or in July of that year, that I started to take action concerning your interventions with regard to releasing people. You gave an example that after the major arrests in January 1943, following your intervention with myself, a large number of your coworkers were released.
Witness: Yes, it happened the way I described it.
Defendant: But it was much earlier, before the police was subordinated to me.
Witness: Yes, that was in January 1943.
Defendant: Can you say who was responsible for implementing the provisions of the act of surrender on the part of the German side?
Witness: It is my understanding that it was General von dem Bach.
Defendant: Did you discuss the issue of extracting items of everyday use with me or with Geibel?
Witness: This was a conference in Pruszków, attended by defendant Fischer. I do not remember exactly if it was on the 5 and 6, or 6 and 7 October. A so-called civilian evacuation center was formed, headed by district officer Dr. Rodig, and then I finalized this issue with him.
Defendant: Let me say that the evacuation center began to operate much earlier.
Witness: It is possible, but I was isolated at that time.
Defendant: This center was subordinated to the SS and Polizeiführer Geibel.
Witness: That is possible.
Defendant: Do you remember that during that meeting at the beginning of October in Pruszków, I suggested that the entire population of Warsaw should be let into the city again to allow them to extract items of everyday use?
Witness: I know that this idea was discussed during the conference, but I do not remember who it originated with.
Defendant: Do you remember who proposed that Prof. Lorentz be appointed head?
Witness: Dr. Fischer, in consultation with us.
Defendant: Do you remember that during the second visit of Dr. Wyss a man from Sweden was also present?
Witness: I remember that. It was Mr. Jönstern, the Swedish consul in Gdynia.
Defendant: Did this meeting take place in my office in Sochaczew?
Witness: Yes.
Defendant: Do you remember that during the conversation Dr. Wyss suggested that the distribution of the Red Cross parcels should be supervised by the German authorities, and that I objected to this, saying that this is the business of the Poles?
Witness: I cannot recall that right now.
Defendant: During that conversation, did I state that the RGO’s cooperation with myself had always been close and characterized by full trust?
Witness: Yes, such statements were made frequently.
(There being no further questions, the witness is excused).
Prosecutor Sawicki: Since the defendant claims that in 1943 he had a conversation with the witness during which he urged him to speak to him openly about all affairs, I would like to submit a document dated 15 February 1943, a monthly report in which the defendant writes as follows: “The movie theaters and churches in Warsaw were surrounded by the police. All Poles were arrested and sent to the concentration camps”. The document is signed by the district director of propaganda. I submit this document as evidence that the defendant knew full well what was going on in Warsaw.