dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it will not be so.
THE PRESIDENT: That last document which you just put in as Exhibit Number 4 is shown in the book to be Exhibit Number 14, which is a mistake. It is Document Number 14, but not Exhibit Number 14.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Number 14 of the document book, Exhibit Number Frick-4 (Document Number Frick-4).
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Dealing with the same subject I have entered in Number 15, Exhibit Number Frick-5 (Document Number 3358-PS), a decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior of 24 February 1933, which also deals with the question of the work of the League for Germans Abroad. It states, and I quote...
THE PRESIDENT: Has that not already been put in? I see it has a PS number.
DR. PANNENBECKER: It has a PS number, but it was not then submitted as evidence by the Prosecution. Therefore I quote: "The suffering and misery of the times, the lack of work and food within Germany, cannot divert attention from the fact that about 30 million Germans, living outside of the present contracted borders of the Reich, are an integral part of the entire German people; an integral part, which the Reich Government is not able to help economically but to which it considers itself under an obligation to offer cultural support through the organization primarily concerned with this task- the League of Germans Abroad." In the documents from Number 16 to 24 inclusive of the document book, which I need not read in detail, I have placed together the legal decrees which deal with the competence of the Reich Ministry of the Interior as a central office for certain occupied territories. The tasks of this central office, which had no authority to issue orders and no executive authority in any occupied territories, have already been described by the witness Dr. Lammers; and these tasks are specially entered in Number 24 of the document book. I do not need to submit it in evidence. It is an official publication of the Reichsgesetzblatt and has, in addition, already been submitted as 3082-PS. In accordance with the fact that the central office had no authority to issue orders in the occupied territories, there is in the diary of Dr. Frank a confirmation that the Governor General alone had authority to issue orders for the administration of his territory. I do not need to quote this passage as it has already been submitted to the Tribunal. Police authority in the occupied territories was transferred to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler; but Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with this either, since that authority was vested exclusively in Himmler in his capacity as Reichsfuehrer SS. That can be seen from Number 26 of the document book, which also already has been submitted as Exhibit USA-319 (Document Number 1997-PS).
DR. PANNENBECKER: The Prosecution further considers the Defendant Frick responsible for the crimes committed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia since August 1943, on the grounds that Frick had been Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia since August 1943. In this connection, I refer to Numbers 28 and 29 of the document book (Documents Number 1366-PS and 3443-PS), from which it is evident that, at the time that Frick was appointed, the former powers of the Reich Protector had been subdivided between a so-called German State Minister in Bohemia and Moravia-who, under the immediate supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, had to manage all government affairs-and the Reich Protector Frick who was given some special powers and in principle had the right to grant reprieves on sentences passed by the local courts. Frick has also been accused of being responsible for the Political Police, that is, the Secret State Police, and the concentration camps. Until 1936 police matters were the affair of the individual states in Germany; consequently in Prussia, Goering as Prussian Prime Minister, and Prussian Minister of the Interior, built up the Political Police and established the concentration camps. Frick, therefore, as Reich Minister of the Interior, had no connection with these things. In the spring of 1934 Frick also became Prussian Minister of the Interior. Previously, however, Goering had by a special law taken the affairs of the Political Police out of the jurisdiction of the office of the Prussian Minister of the Interior and placed it under the immediate supervision of the Prime Minister, an office which Goering retained for himself. The corresponding decrees have already been submitted by the Prosecution as Documents Number 2104-PS, 2105-PS, and 2113-PS. The same is evident from Document Number 30 in the document book, which has also been submitted as Exhibit USA-233 (Document Number 2344-PS). Thus, in the Political Police sphere, Frick, until 1936, had only a general right of supervision, such as the Reich had over the individual states.
DR. PANNENBECKER: He had, however, no special right of command in individual cases, only the authority to issue general directives; and in Numbers 31-33 of the document book I have entered a few of these directives issued by Frick. I quote Number 31, which will be Exhibit Frick-6 (Document Number 779-PS): "In order to correct the abuses resulting from the decree for protective custody, the Reich Minister of the Interior, in his directives of 12 April 1934 to the Land governments and Reichsstatthalter anent the promulgation and execution of decrees for protective custody, has determined that protective custody may be ordered only: (a) for the protection of the arrested person; (b) if the arrested person by his behavior, and especially by activities directed against the State, has directly endangered public security and order. Therefore, protective custody is not permissible when the above-mentioned cases do not apply, especially (a) for persons who merely exercise their public and civil rights; (b) for lawyers for representing the interests of their clients; (c) in the case of personal matters, as for instance, insults; (d) because of economic measures (questions of salary, dismissal of employees, and similar cases). "Furthermore, protective custody is not permissible as a countermeasure for punishable actions, for the courts are competent to deal with those cases."
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that?
DR. PANNENBECKER: It is a document which the Prosecution has submitted as 779-PS and which was taken from the files of the ministry. There is no date on the document but it must have been in the spring of 1934, as can be seen from the first sentence of the document. The Voelkischer Beobachter mentions the same decree in its issue of 14 April 1934. I have included that as Number 32 in the document book; it will be Exhibit Frick-7 (Document Number Frick-7).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, are you offering that as an exhibit or has it already been put in evidence?
DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it has not, as yet, been submitted. I offer it as Exhibit Number Frick-7.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told the date is April 12.
DR. PANNENBECKER: In the spring of 1934, yes, shortly after.
THE PRESIDENT: 12th of April, 1934.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. The Volkischer Beobachter also mentions this decree in its issue of 14 April 1934. We are concerned with Document 32 of the document book, which will be Exhibit Number Frick-7. I do not need to read it in detail. The same is evident from Number 33 of the book, which will be Exhibit Number Frick-8 (Document Number I-302). Number 34 of the book-which will be Exhibit Number Frick-9 (Document Number 775-PS) shows that the Gestapo actually did not adhere to Frick's directives, and that Frick was powerless in that connection. Nevertheless, the document appears important to me because it shows that Frick tried repeatedly with great pains to counteract the abuses of the Gestapo, whim, however, with the support of Himmler, was stronger than he-especially since Himmler enjoyed the direct confidence of the Fuehrer. On 17 June 1936, the affairs of the Political Police came under the jurisdiction of the Reich. Himmler was appointed Chief of the German Police and, though formally attached to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, he functioned, in fact, as an independent Police Ministry under the immediate authority of Hitler; and, as a minister, he was privileged to look after his affairs in the Reich Cabinet himself. This can be seen from Document Number- 35 of the document book-an excerpt from the Reichsgesetzblatt which has been submitted as 2073-PS. I do not believe that I have to give it an exhibit number; it is an official announcement in the Reichsgesetzblatt . In this connection the Prosecution has submitted Document 1723-PS as Exhibit USA-206. I have entered an extract from this document as Number 36 in the document book in order to correct an error. The document is an extract from a book written by Dr. Ley in his capacity as Reich Organization Leader. In that book Dr. Ley gives directives to the Party offices regarding co-operation with the Gestapo, and at the end of the extract Ley reprinted a decree by Frick which shows how Frick attempted to counteract the arbitrary measures of the Gestapo.
DR. PANNENBECKER: However, in presenting evidence on the morning of 13 December 1945, the Prosecution read the entire document as an order by Frick. I should therefore like to correct that error. Since Himmler and the chiefs of the Gestapo did not heed Frick's general directives, Frick tried, at least in individual cases, to alleviate conditions in concentration camps; but generally he was not successful. To quote an example, I have included-under Number 37 of the document book-a letter by the former Reichstag Delegate Wulle, which he sent to me of his own accord. This letter will be Exhibit Number Frick-10 (Document Number Frick-10). The letter states, and I quote: "He"-Frick-"as my former counsel told me, has at various times tried to persuade Hitler to release me; but without success as it was Himmler who made all decisions regarding concentration camps. However, I owe it to him that I have been treated in a comparatively decent manner at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp. . . He stood out from among the Nazi demagogues because of his impartiality and reserve; he was a man who by nature disapproved of any act of violence... Since the spring of 1925 I have been involved in a sharp struggle against Hitler and his party. I consider it even more to Frick's credit that despite this antagonism and his comparatively powerless position with respect to Himmler, he tried in every way to help my wife and me during the bitter years of my imprisonment in the concentration camp . . ." The Prosecution has asserted, on the basis of the statements made by the witness Blaha before this Tribunal, that Frick knew of the conditions in the Dachau concentration camp through having visited it in the first half of the year 1944. Therefore, with the permission of the Tribunal I submitted an interrogatory to the witness Gillhuber, who accompanied Frick on all his trips and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment, Dr. Pannenbecker. The Tribunal considers that it cannot entertain an affidavit upon oath from the Defendant Frick, who is not going into the witness box to give evidence on oath, unless he is offered as a witness, in which case he may be cross-examined.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, but the last document was not an affidavit by Frick, but by Gillhuber, a witness, who has received an interrogatory. It is Number 40 of the document book. I am just informed that by an oversight this exhibit has not been included in the book; I shall have to submit it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well! Tell us what it is.
DR. PANNENBECKER: It is an interrogatory of, and the answers by, the witness Gillhuber. Gillhuber, for the personal protection of the Defendant Frick, accompanied him on all his official travels. In answering the interrogatory, he confirmed the fact that Frick had never visited the camp. The interrogatory, with the answers, has still to be submitted in translation. It is contained in my book.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read the interrogatory, unless the Prosecution has any objection to its admissibility, or the terms of it, because the interrogatory has already been provisionally allowed.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I read, then, from Number 40 of the Frick document book, which becomes Exhibit Frick-11 (Document Number Frick-11), the following: "Question: From when until when, and in what capacity, were you working for the Defendant Frick? "Answer: From the 18 March 1936 until the arrival of the Allied Troops on 29 or 30 April 1945, as an employee of the Reich Security Service, as guard and escort. "Question: Did you always accompany him on his travels for his personal protection? "Answer: From 1936 until January 1942 only intermittently, but from January 1942 as office chief, I accompanied him on all his trips and flights. "Question: Do you know whether the Defendant Frick visited the concentration camp of Dachau during the first six months of 1944? "Answer: To my knowledge, Frick did not visit the Dachau concentration camp. "Question: Would you have known it had that been the case, and why would you have known it? "Answer: I would have had to know it had that been the case. I was always close to him; and my employees would have reported it if he had left during my absence. "Question: Do you still have the log book of the trips you made, and can you produce it now? "Answer: From about 1941 log books were no longer kept. Instead of that, monthly reports of trips were sent to the Reich Security Service in Berlin. The copies which were kept in my office were, according to orders, burned with all the rest of the material in April 1945. "Question: Do you know whether the Defendant Frick ever visited the Dachau camp? "Answer: To my knowledge Frick never visited the Dachau Camp. "Moosburg, 23 March 1946".-Signed-"Max Gillhuber"- Signed-"Leonard N. Dunkel, Lieutenant Colonel, Infantry." To comment on the question whether an official visitor to a concentration camp could always get a correct picture of the actual conditions existing there, I ask permission to read an unsolicited letter which I received a few days ago from a Catholic priest, Bernard Ketzlick. This letter which I have submitted as Supplement Frick Number...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, the Prosecution makes objection to this because it is a character of evidence that there is no way of testing. I have a basket of such correspondence making charges against these defendants, which I would not think the Tribunal would want to receive. If the door is open to this kind of evidence, there is no end to it. This witness has none of the sanctions, of course, that assure the verity of testimony, and I think it is objectionable to go into letters received from unknown persons.
DR. PANNENBECKER: May I say just one word on this subject? I received the letter so late that I did not have an opportunity to ask the person concerned to send me an affidavit. Of course, I am prepared to submit such an affidavit later, if such an affidavit should have greater probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that the letter cannot be admitted, but an application can be made in the ordinary way for leave to put in an affidavit or to call the witness.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. Then, at a later date, I shall submit a written request. I shall not read Number 38 of the document book since it concerns a statement made by Frick; and I refer, finally, to an excerpt from the book Inside Europe by John Gunther which will be submitted as Exhibit Frick-12 (Document Number Frick-12). The excerpt is contained under Number 39 in the document book I quote-it concerns a book which appeared originally in the English language, and I therefore quote it in English: "Born in the Palatinate in 1877, Frick studied law and became a Beamter, an official. He is a bureaucrat through and through. Hitler is not intimate with him, but he respects him. He became Minister of the Interior because he was the only important Nazi with civil service training. Precise, obedient, uninspired, he turned out to be a faithful executive; he has been called the 'only honest Nazi.' " As the last document, may I be permitted to refer to an extract from the book To the Bitter End by Gisevius. I believe I do not need to quote these passages individually, since the witness himself will be questioned. The extract will be Exhibit Number Frick-13 (Document Number Frick-13). There are still left two answers to interrogatories by the witnesses Messersmith and Seger. I ask to be permitted to read these answers later, as soon as the answers have been submitted to me. That concludes the presentation of documents. I believe there would be no purpose in calling the witnesses now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Are you prepared to call your witness, Dr. Pannenbecker?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Mr. President, that is my request. I now ask permission to call the witness Gisevius. He is the sole witness in Frick's case. I have especially selected witness Gisevius to clarify the question of the state of the police authority in Germany, as he, from the very beginning, has been on the side of the opposition and is best qualified to give a picture of the state of that authority in Germany at that time. [The witness Gisevius took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
HANS BERND GISEVIUS (Witness): Hans Bernd Gisevius.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, were you a member of the NSDAP or one of its affiliated organizations?
GISEVIUS: No.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Is it correct that you personally participated in the events of 20 July 1944, and that you were also present in the OKW at that time?
GISEVIUS: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: How did you get into the police service?
GISEVIUS: In July 1933 I passed the state examination in law. As a descendant of an old family of civil servants I applied for a civil service appointment in the Prussian administration. I belonged, at that time, to the German National People's Party and to the Stahlhelm, and by the standards of that day I was considered politically reliable. Consequently, at the first stage of my training as a civil servant I was assigned to the Political Police, which meant my entry into the newly created Secret State Police. In those days I was very glad to have been assigned to the police service. I had already at that time heard that abominations of all kinds were going on in Germany. I was inclined to consider these as the final outburst of the situation, akin to civil war, which we were experiencing at the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933. So I hoped to contribute to the re-establishment of a proper executive organization which would provide for law, decency, and order. But this happiness was doomed to be short-lived. I had scarcely been 2 days in this new police office, when I discovered that incredible conditions existed there. These were not police who took action against riots, murder, illegal detention, and robbery; these were police who protected those guilty of such crimes. It was not the guilty persons who were arrested, but rather those who asked the police for help. These were not police who took action against the crime, but police whose task seemed to be to hush it up or, even worse, to sponsor it; for those SA and SS Kommandos who played at being police in private were encouraged by this so-called Secret State Police and were given all possible aid. The most terrible and, even for a newcomer, most obvious thing was that a system of unlawful detention was gaining more and more ground-a worse and more dreadful system than which could not be conceived. The offices of the new State Police were in a huge building which was, however, not large enough to take all the prisoners.
GISEVIUS: Special concentration camps for the Gestapo were established, and their names will go down in history as a mark of infamy. These were Oranienburg and the Gestapo's private prison in Papestrasse, Columbia House, or, as it was cynically nicknamed, "Columbia Hall." I should like to make it quite clear that this was certainly rather amateurish compared with what all of us experienced later. But so it started, and I can only convey my personal impression by describing a brief incident I remember. After only 2 days I asked one of my colleagues, who was also a professional civil servant-he had been taken over from the old Political Police into the new one, and he was one of those officials who were forced into it -- I asked him "Tell me, am I in a police office here or in a robber's den?" The answer I received was, "You are in a robber's den and you can expect to see much more yet."
DR. PANNENBECKER: Under whom was the Political Police at that time and who was the superior authority?
GISEVIUS: The Political Police was under one Rudolf Diels. He too, came from the old Prussian Political Police. He was a professional civil servant, and one might have expected him still to retain the ideas of law and decency: but in a brutal and cynical way he set his mind on making the new rulers forget his political past as a democrat and on ingratiating himself with his superior, the Prussia Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Goering. It was Diels who created the Gestapo office; he suggested to Goering the issue of the first decree for making that office independent. It was Diels who let the SA and the SS enter that office; he legalized the actions of these civil Kommandos. But soon it became evident to me that such a bourgeois renegade could not do so much wrong quite by himself. Some very important person must have been backing him; in fact, I very quickly saw also that somebody was taking a daily interest in everything that happened in that office. Reports were written; telephone inquiries were received. Diels went several times daily to give reports, and it was the Prussian Minister of the Interior Goering who considered this Secret State Police as his special preserve. During those months nothing happened in this office which was not known or ordered by Goering personally. I want to stress this, because in the course of years the public formed a different idea of Goering because he noticeably retired from his official functions. At that time, it was not yet the Goering who finally suffocated in his Karinhall. It was the Goering who looked after everything personally and had not yet begun to busy himself with the building of Karinhall or to don all sorts of uniforms and decorations. It was Goering still in civilian clothes, who was the real chief of an office, who inspired it, and who attached importance to being the "iron" Goering.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, I believe you can describe some points more concisely. As to what you have just said, do you know this from your own experience, or where did you learn of it?