dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SEIDL: Yes. That will be Document Number Frank-7. I forego the quoting of the first points and proceed directly to Page 74 of the document book and I quote under Section 4: "Dr. Frank's fight against the exploitation and neglect of the Government General in favor of the Reich. Conflict with Berlin. "The first meeting with Dr. Frank occurred shortly after the establishment of the Government General in the autumn of 1939, in the Polish district capital Radom, where the 10 Kreis chiefs of this district had to report concerning the condition of the population in their administrative district and the problem of reconstructing, as quickly and effectively as possible, the general as well as the administrative and economic life. What struck one most was the keen awareness of Dr. Frank and his deep concern about the area entrusted to him. This found expression in the instructions not to consider or treat the Government General or allow it to be treated, as an object of exploitation or as a waste. area, but rather to consider it as a center of public order and an area of concentration at the back of the fighting German front and at the gates of the German homeland, forming a link between the two. Therefore the loyal native inhabitants of this country should have claim to the full protection of the German administration as citizens of the Government General. To this end the constant efforts of all authorities and economic agencies would be demanded by him, also constant control through supervisors, which would be personally superintended by him in periodical inspection trips with the participation of the specialized central offices. In this way, for instance, the two districts which were administered by me were inspected by him personally three times in 4 years. "In face of the demands of the Berlin central authorities, who believed it possible to import more from the Government General into the Reich than the former could afford, Dr.
DR. SEIDL: Frank asserted vigorously the political independence of the Government General as an 'adjunct of the Reich' and his own independence as being directly subordinated only to the Supreme Head of the State, and not to the Reich Government. He also instructed us on no account to comply with demands which might come to us on the basis of personal relations with the authorities by whom we were sent, or with the ministries concerned; and if by so doing we came into conflict with our loyalty to the Reich, which was equally expected of us, to report to him about it. This firm attitude brought Dr. Frank the displeasure of the Berlin government circles, and the Government General was dubbed 'Frankreich.' A campaign of calumny was initiated in the Reich against him and against the entire administration of the Government General by systematically generalizing and exaggerating regrettable ineptitudes and human weaknesses of individuals, at the same time attempting to belittle the actual constructive achievements." I should like to ask the Tribunal merely to take official notice of Section 5, also Section 6, and I will only quote from Section 7. "7) Dr. Frank as an opponent of acts of violence against the native population, especially as an opponent of the SS. "Besides the exploitation and the pauperization of the Government General, the accusation of the enslaving of the native population as well as deporting it to the Reich, and many atrocities of various kinds which have appeared in the newspaper reports on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, were interpreted as serious evidence against Dr. Frank. As far as atrocities are concerned, the guilt lies not with Dr. Frank but in some measure with the numerous non-German agitators and provocateurs who, with the growing pressure on the fighting German fronts, increased their underground activity; but more especially with the former State Secretary for Security in the Government General, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, and his agencies.
DR. SEIDL: My observations in this respect are sketchy, because of the strict secrecy of these offices. "On the other hand, Dr. Frank went so far in meeting the Polish population that this was frequently objected to by his German compatriots. That he did the correct thing by his stand for the just interests of the Polish population is proved, for example, by the impressive fact that barely a year and a half after the defeat of the Polish people in a campaign of 18 days, the concentration of German army masses against Russia in the Polish area took place without any disturbance worth mentioning, and that the Eastern railroad was able, with Polish personnel, to move the troop transports up to the most forward unloading points without being delayed by acts of sabotage." I quote the last paragraph on Page 79: "This humane attitude of Dr. Frank, which earned him respect and sympathy among considerable groups of the native population, led, on the other hand, to bitter conflicts with the SS, in whose ranks Himmler's statement, 'They shall not love us, but fear us,' was applied as the guiding principle of their thoughts and deeds. "At times it came to a complete break. I still recall quite clearly that during a government visit to the Carpathian areas in the summer of 1943 in the district center of Stanislav, when he took a wale alone with me and my wife in Zaremcze on the Prut; Dr. Frank complained most bitterly about the arbitrary acts of the SS, which quite frequently ran counter to the political line taken by him. At that time he called the SS the 'Black Plague'; and when he noticed our astonishment at hearing such criticism coming from his lips, he pointed out that if, for example, my wife were to be wrongfully arrested one day or night by agencies of the Gestapo and disappear, never to be seen again, without having been given the opportunity of defense in a court trial, absolutely nothing could be done about it.
DR. SEIDL: Some time afterwards he made a speech to the students in Heidelberg, which attracted much attention and was loudly applauded, about the necessity for the re-establishment of a German constitutional state such as had always met the real needs of the German people. When he wanted to repeat this speech in Berlin, he is said to have been forbidden by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, at Himmler's instigation, to make speeches for 3 months, as reported to me by a reliable, but unfortunately forgotten, source. The struggle against the methods of violence used by the SS led to Dr. Frank's having a nervous breakdown, and he had to take a fairly long sick leave. As far as I can remember this was in the winter of 1943-44." I ask the Court to take official notice of Section 8, and I pass on to Page 84 of the document book. That is an affidavit by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Erich Von dem Bach-Zelewski, of 21 February 1946. This affidavit becomes Document Frank-8.
THE PRESIDENT: Did this witness not give evidence?
DR. SEIDL: The witness was questioned here by the Prosecution, and I made the motion at that time that either I be allowed to interrogate the witness again or be granted the use of an affidavit. On 8 March 1946 the Tribunal made the decision, if I remember correctly, that I could use an affidavit from that witness but that the Prosecution would be free if they desired to question the witness again.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: I shall read the statements of the witness concerning this matter, and I quote: "1) Owing to the infiltration of Russian partisan groups over the line of the river Bug into the Government General in 1943, Himmler declared the Government General to be a 'guerrilla warfare territory.' Thus it became my duty as Chief of anti-partisan Units to travel about the Government General to collect information and get experience, and to submit reports and suggestions for fighting the partisans. "In the general information Himmler gave me, he called the Governor General Dr. Frank a traitor to his country, who was conspiring with the Poles and whom he would expose to the Fuehrer very shortly. I still remember two of the reproaches Himmler made against Frank: "a) At a lawyer's meeting in the Old Reich territory Frank is said to have stated that 'he preferred a bad constitutional state to the best conducted police state'; and "b) During a speech to a Polish delegation Frank had disavowed some of Himmler's measures and had disparaged, in front of the Poles, those charged with carrying them out, by calling them 'militant personalities.' "After having, oh a circular tour, personally obtained information on the spot about the situation in the Government General, I visited the higher SS and Police Fuehrer Krueger and the Governor General, Dr. Frank, in Krakow. "Krueger spoke very disapprovingly about Dr. Frank and blamed Frank's faltering and unstable policy towards the Poles for conditions in the Government General. He called for harsher and more ruthless measures and said that he would not rest until the traitor Frank was overthrown. I had the impression, from Krueger's statements, that personal motives also influenced his attitude, and that he himself would have liked to become Governor General. "After that I had a long discussion with Dr. Frank. I told him of my impressions; and he went into lengthy details about a new policy for Poland, which aimed at appeasing the Poles by means of concessions. In agreement with my personal impressions Dr.
DR. SEIDL: Frank considered the following factors responsible for the crisis in the Government General: "a) The ruthless resettlement action carried out now in the midst of war, especially the senseless and purposeless resettlement carried out by the SS and Police Fuehrer Globocznik in Lublin. "b) The insufficient food quota allotted to the Governor General. "Dr. Frank called Krueger and Globocznik declared enemies of any conciliatory policy, and said it was absolutely essential that they should be recalled. "Being convinced that if Dr. Frank failed, he would be succeeded only by a more ruthless and uncompromising person, I promised him my support. Having been assured of strictest secrecy I told Frank I shared his opinion that Krueger and Globocznik would have to disappear. He, Dr. Frank, knew however that Himmler hated him and that he was urging Hitler to have him removed. With such a state of affairs any request on Frank's part to have Krueger and Globocznik recalled would not only be rejected but would even strengthen their position with Himmler. Frank should give me a free hand, then I could promise him that both would be relieved of their posts within a short time. Dr. Frank agreed to that, and I then made use of the military mistakes that Krueger and Globocznik had committed in order to bring about their recall by Himmler. "3) The Warsaw revolt of l944..."
THE PRESIDENT: I must point out to you that you said you were going to be only 2 hours over five volumes. You have now been over an hour over one volume, and you are reading practically everything in these documents. It is not at all what the Tribunal has intended. You have been told that you may make short comments showing how the documents are connected with each other and how they are connected with all the evidence. That is not what you are doing at all.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of Paragraph 3 of the affidavit by Von dem Bach-Zelewski. Paragraph 3 deals with the Warsaw revolt in the year 1944 and the question as to whether the Governor General had anything to do with the crushing of that revolt. Then I pass on to Page 92.
THE PRESIDENT: As a matter of fact, does the Indictment charge anything in connection with the crushing of the Warsaw revolt in 1944?
DR. SEIDL: There is nothing in the Indictment itself about the part played by the Governor General in the crushing of that revolt. The Soviet Prosecution have, however, submitted a telegram which, while it is not clear whether it was sent, nevertheless connects the Defendant Dr. Frank in some way with the Warsaw revolt. But I shall not go into details about that now. I pass on to Page 92 of the document book. This is an affidavit by the witness Wilhelm Ernst von Palezieux, in whose case the Tribunal has approved an interrogatory. But I was told by the Tribunal that in place of an interrogatory I could submit an affidavit. I quote only the two main paragraphs as follows: "The art treasures stored in the castle in Krakow, from the spring of 1943, were under official and legal supervision there. When speaking to me Dr. Frank always referred to these art treasures as state property of the Government General. Catalogues of the existing art treasures had already been made before I came to Poland. The list of the first selection had been printed in book form as a catalogue with descriptions and statements of origin, and had been ordered by the Governor General."
THE PRESIDENT: Now you are reading the affidavit all over again. We do not want that sort of . ..
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I assumed that in those cases where a witness does not appear before the Tribunal in person, it is admissible that either the interrogatory or the affidavit be read, because otherwise the contents of his testimony would not become part of the record nor, therefore, part of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: That rule was in order that the defendants and their counsel should have the document before them in German; that is the reason for reading the documents through the earphones. The Tribunal will adjourn now, but I want to tell you that you must shorten your presentation of this documentary evidence. We have already been a good deal more than an hour over one book and we have four more books to deal with, and it does not do your case any good to read all these long passages because we have some more weeks of the trial. It is only necessary for you to give such connecting statements as make the documents intelligible, and to correlate them with the oral evidence that is being given. [The Tribunal adjourned until 24 April 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I left off yesterday at the last document of Volume I. It is the affidavit of the witness Ernst von Palezieux, and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. The affidavit is given the document number Frank-9, and that completes the first volume.
THE PRESIDENT: The first volume, what page?
DR. SEIDL: That was Page 92 of the first volume, Document Frank-9.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That is the end of the first volume, isn't it?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is the end of the first volume. Volumes II, III, and IV of the document book comprise extracts from the diary of the Defendant Dr. Frank. I do not propose to number all these extracts individually, but I ask the Tribunal to accept the whole diary as Document Frank-10 (Document 2233-PS), and I propose to quote only a few short extracts. For example Pages 1 to 27, Mr. President, are extracts from the diary which have already been submitted by the Prosecution. I have put the extracts submitted by the Prosecution into a more extensive context, and by quoting the entire passages I have attempted to prove that some of these extracts do not represent the true and essential content of the diary. Those are Exhibits USA-173, on Page 1 of the document book, USSR-223 on Page 3, USA-271 on Page 8, USA-611 on Page 11 of the document book. On Page 14 of the document book there appears to be a misprint. The USA number is not 016 but 613.
THE PRESIDENT: It begins on Page 13 in my copy, doesn't it?
DR. SEIDL: No, it is on Page 14. It is an entry dated 25 January 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the document that I have and which I think you are referring to, is Document 2233 (aa)-PS, Exhibit USA-613. That is on Page 13. I don't think it makes any difference.
DR. SEIDL: In that case it must be an error by the Translation Department. At any rate I do not think it is important, I mean this quotation. I now turn to Page 20 of the document book, a quotation by the Soviet Prosecution. On Page 22 there is a quotation by the Soviet Prosecution. Page 24 of the document book contains quotations by the Prosecution of both the United States and of the Soviet Union. Exhibit USA-295. Perhaps I may point out that these extracts are only a few examples merely to show that in a number of cases the impression obtained is different if one reads either the entire speech or at least a portion of it. I then turn to Page 32 of the document book, an entry dated 10 October 1939, in which the Defendant Dr. Frank gives instructions for negotiations with the Reich Food Ministry regarding the delivery of 5,000 tons of grain per week-Page 32 of the document book. On Page 34 there is an entry of 8 March 1940, and I quote the first three lines. The Governor General states: "In close connection therewith is the actual governing of Poland. The Fuehrer has ordered me to regard the Government General as the home of the Polish people. Accordingly, no Germanization policy of any kind is possible." I now pass on to Page 41 of the document book; an entry dated 19 January 1940. I quote the first five lines: "Dr. Walbaum (Chief of the Health Department): The state of health in the Government General is satisfactory. Much has already been accomplished in this field. In Warsaw alone 700,000 typhus injections have been given. This is a huge total, even for German standards; it is actually a record." The next quotation is on Page 50 of the document book, an entry dated 19 February 1940: "The Governor General is further of the opinion that the need for official interpretation of Polish law may become greater. We should probably have to come to some form of Polish government or regency, and the head of the Polish legal system would then be competent for such a task."
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid there seems to have been some slight difference in the paging and therefore if you would give us carefully and somewhat more slowly the actual date of the document we should be able to find it perhaps for ourselves. The pages do not seem to correspond.
DR. SEIDL: The last quotation which I read was dated 19 February 1940. I now turn to a quotation, that is, an entry of 26 February 1940, and I quote "In this connection the Governor General expresses.." This is on Page 51 in my book. The entry is of 26 February 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 40 in ours.
DR. SEIDL: "In this connection the Governor General expresses the wish of Field Marshal Goering that the German administration should be built up in such a way that the Polish mode of living as such is assured. It should not give the impression that Warsaw is a fallen city which is becoming germanized, but rather that Warsaw, according to the Fuehrer's will, is to be one of the cities which would continue to exist as a Polish community in the intended reduced Polish state." A further entry, dated 26 February 1940, deals with the question of higher education. I quote: "The Governor General points out in this connection that the universities and high schools have been closed. However, in the long run it would be an impossible state of affairs, for instance, to discontinue medical education. The Polish system of technical schools should also be revived and with the participation of the city." The next quotation is on Page 56 of my document book. An entry of 1 March 1940. "The Governor General announces in this connection that the directive has now been issued to give free rein to Polish development as far as it is possible within the interests of the German Reich. The attitude now to be adopted is that the Government General is the home of the Polish people." A further entry deals with the question of workers in the Reich territory. Page 60 of my document book, entry of 19 September 1940-I beg your pardon, 12 September 1940. I quote:
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment. You mean the first of September, do you?
DR.SEIDL: 12 September-no, it should be 12 March; there is obviously a misprint; 12 March 1940, Page 197 of the diary. I quote: "Governor General Dr. Frank emphasizes that one could actually collect an adequate number of workers by force following the methods of the slave trade, by using a sufficient number of police, and by procuring sufficient means of transportation; but that, for a number of reasons, however, the use of propaganda deserves preference under all circumstances." The next quotation is on Page 68 in my document book; an entry of 23 April 1940. I quote the last five lines. The Governor General states: "The Governor General is merely attempting to offer the Polish nation protection in an economic respect as well. He was almost inclined to think that one could achieve better results with Poles than with these autocratic trustees...." I now turn to Page 71 of my document book, an entry dated 25 May 1940. Here the Governor General gives an explanation to the President of the Polish Court of Appeal, Bronschinski. I quote the last four lines: "We do not wish to carry on a war of extermination here against a people. The protection of the Polish people by the Reich in the German zone of interest gives you the possibility of continuing your development according to your national traditions." I turn to Page 77 of my document book, an entry from Volume III, July to September, Page 692. I quote: "The Governor General then spoke of the food difficulties still existing in the Government General"-this was to Generaloberst von Kuechler-"and asked the general to see to it that the provisioning and other requirements of new troops arriving should be as light a burden as possible on the food situation of the Government General. Above all, no confiscation whatsoever should take place." I turn to Pages 85 and 86; entries in Volume III, July to September 1940, Page 819 of the diary. This entry deals with the establishment of the medical academy which was planned by the Governor General. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this fact.
DR.SEIDL: The next quotation is on Page 95 of the document book, an entry dated 9 October 1940, from the speech of the Governor General on the occasion of the opening of the autumn trade fair at Radom. I quote Line 5. "It is clear that we. . . "
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the important things for us are the page in the diary and the date. We seem to have the pages in the diary and the dates, so if you will tell us them that will be of the greatest help to us.
DR. SEIDL: The date Is 9 October 1940; Pages 966-967 of the diary, I quote Line 6: "It is clear that we do not wish to denationalize, nor shall we germanize." The next quotation...
THE PRESIDENT: The translation in our book of that sentence is: "It is clear that we neither want to denationalize nor degermanize."
DR.SEIDL: That is apparently an error in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: In which translation? In the one I have just read out?
DR.SEIDL: In the English translation. I shall now quote literally "It is clear that we neither wish to denationalize nor shall we germanize." The other makes no sense.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I read. Well, it is right in our book anyhow.