dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): In actual fact the work of the academy was done almost exclusively in its numerous committees, which had been established by the defendant. Acceptance into the academy was not dependent on membership in the Party. Most of the members of the academy were legal scholars and eminent legal practitioners who were not Party members. Moreover, it is well known that the Academy for German Law kept up close relations with similar establishments abroad and that numerous foreign scholars gave lectures in the academy. These facts entirely exclude the assumption that the academy could have played any important part in the common plan alleged by the Prosecution. The same is true of the position of the Defendant Frank as leader of the National Socialist Lawyers Association. Adolf Hitler's attitude toward the conception of a State founded on law, insofar as any doubt could still have been entertained about it, has become perfectly clear through the evidence presented at this Trial. Hitler was a revolutionary and a man of violence. He looked on law as an impeding and disturbing factor in the realization of his plans in the realm of power politics. Incidentally, he left no doubt about this attitude of his and discussed the subject of the State founded on law in a number of speeches. He was always very reserved in his dealings with lawyers, and for this reason alone it was impossible from the outset that any close association could have developed between him and the Defendant Frank. The Defendant Frank considered it his life's work to see the conception of the State founded on law realized in the National Socialist Reich and, above all, to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. The Defendant Frank proclaimed these principles as late as 1939, before the outbreak of war, in a great speech he made before 25,000 lawyers at the final meeting of the Congress of German Law at Leipzig. Among other things he declared on that occasion: "First, no one should be sentenced who has not had an opportunity of defending himself.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): "Second, no one shall be deprived of his property, provided that he uses it unobjectionably from the point of view of the community, except by judicial sentence. Legal properties in this sense include honor, freedom, life, and earnings. "Third, an accused person, no matter under what procedure, must be enabled to procure someone to defend him who is capable of making legal statements on his behalf; and he must have an impartial hearing according to law. If these principles are applied to their full extent, then the Germanic ideal of law will be fulfilled." These principles constitute a definite repudiation of all methods employed in a police-ruled State and imply, moreover, the definite rejection of the system of concentration camps. The Defendant Frank had actually spoken against the establishment of concentration camps before the date indicated. The evidence has shown that in the year 1933, in his capacity as Bavarian Minister of Justice, he was opposed to the concentration camp at Dachau, that he urged the application of the so-called legality principle, that is, the prosecution of all offenses by the State, even in these camps, and that, over and above this, he demanded the dissolution of the concentration camp at Dachau. That this last point is a fact is shown by the evidence given by the witness Dr. Stepp, who was questioned elsewhere. The Prosecution also appears to see in the sentence, "Right is what benefits the people," an indication of the participation of the Defendant Frank in the alleged common plan. Such a conclusion could only be drawn in complete misapprehension of the idea which the Defendant Frank wished to express by means of this sentence. This was merely a challenge to the exaggeratedly individualistic legal idea. In the same way as by the phrase, "The common good before one's own," the sentence quoted is intended to express the demand for a legal system which, to a greater extent than in previous years, should take account of common law and socialist tendencies.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): It is in reality nothing more than a different way of saying: Salus publica suprema lex. These material differences alone would have been sufficient to make it unthinkable that the Defendant Frank could have belonged to the inner circle of Hitler's collaborators. The differences of outlook in regard to the functions of law were bound to become more pronounced in the course of the war. It could therefore cause no surprise that after the death of the former Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guarantor, it was not the Defendant Frank who was appointed his successor, but the President of the Peoples' Court, Dr. Thierack. Summing up, it may be said that there is no factual foundation for the assumption that the Defendant Frank participated in a common plan, a common plan which had as its object the waging of an aggressive war and in connection therewith the commission of crimes against the rules of war. Before I turn to the points of accusation brought against the Defendant Frank within the framework of his career as Governor General, I will refer shortly to his responsibility under penal law as a member of the organizations accused of criminality. So far as Frank's responsibility as member of the Reich Government is under investigation, I can here in the main refer to the statements which I shall later make in the case of the Defendant Hess. The only difference lies in the fact that whereas Hess, too, was only Reich Minister without Portfolio, he had-as the Fuehrer's Deputy under the Fuehrer's decree of 27 July 1934- a considerable influence on the preparation of laws. That, however, was not the case with the Defendant Frank. Frank had hardly any influence at all on the legislation of the Reich. That is why he was cosignatory of so extraordinarily few Reich laws. With the exception of the law of 16 March 1935, by which general conscription was reintroduced, his name is to be found under none of the laws which the Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal as relevant to the proof of the criminal nature of the Reich Government as an organization.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): The Defendant Frank, in his capacity as Reichsleiter and Leader of the Reich Law Department, was also a member of the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. An investigation of this point of accusation seems all the less called for since in this respect no act can be attributed to the Defendant Frank which fulfills the requirements of any penal law. For the rest, here too I can refer to my statements in the case of the Defendant Hess. In Appendix A to the Indictment it is alleged that the Defendant Frank was a general of the SS. The evidence has shown that Frank at no time belonged to the SS and that he did not even have the honorary rank of a general of the SS. On the other hand, he was an Obergruppenfuehrer in the SA. With respect to the application made by the Prosecution to declare that organization as criminal, too, the same may be said as in the case of the application to declare the Leadership Corps criminal. The Charter and the Prosecution here again depart from the principle which hitherto has been considered an indispensable component of any modern criminal law practice, namely, that no punishment is admissible unless guilt has been established in every individual case. I now pass to the points of accusation in connection with the career of the Defendant Frank as Governor General. When the Polish Government had left the country after Poland's military collapse, the German occupying forces were faced with the task of building up an administration without the help of any parliamentary representation or any representatives of the former Polish State. The difficulties arising out of this situation were bound to be all the greater because, in spite of the comparatively short time that the war had lasted, the war damage, especially to the communications system, was not inconsiderable. Above all, however, the establishment of an orderly administration was rendered more difficult by the fact that the homogeneous economic area of the former Polish State was divided into three parts.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): Of the 388,000 square kilometers which made up the territory of the former Polish State, about 200,000 were taken over by the Soviet Union and 97,000 formed the Government General, while the rest was incorporated in the German Reich. A change came on 1 August 1941. On that date Galicia was annexed to the Government General as a new district, whereby the territory of the Government General was increased to an area of approximately 150,000 square kilometers with about 18 million inhabitants. This frontier delimitation made it all the more difficult for the administration, as the agricultural excess production all went to the Soviet Union, while on the other hand important industrial cities such as Lodz, and above all the coal fields of Dombrowa, fell to the Reich. Directly after the military collapse of Poland, a military government was set up to cover the four military districts of East Prussia, Posen, Lodz, and Krakow, Commander Von Rundstedt being placed at the head of that government. The Defendant Frank became Supreme Chief of Administration (Oberverwaltungschef). The military government ended on 26 October 1939 with the coming into force of the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the administration of the occupied Polish territories under. the date of 12 October 1939. Under this decree the Defendant Frank was appointed Governor General for the occupied Polish territories which were not incorporated in the Reich and which shortly afterward became known as the Government General. As the time at my disposal is short, I will not go into detail on the question as to whether the administration of the territories of the former Polish State, jointly designated as the Government General, should have conformed to the principle of occupatio bellica (occupation of enemy territory), or whether it should not rather be assumed that the principles of debellatio (complete subjection and incorporation in a foreign state) were applicable in that case.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): I come now to the question of the powers vested in the Defendant Frank by virtue of his office of Governor General. According to Article 3 of the Fuehrer's decree of 12 October 1939 the Governor General was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer. The same provision placed all branches of the administration in the hands of the Governor General. In actual fact, however, the Governor General had by no means such wide powers as it would seem at first sight. The Fuehrer's decree itself provided in Article 5 that the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich could also make laws for the territory of the Government General. The Delegate for the Four Year Plan had the same power. Article 6 provided that, moreover, all supreme Reich authorities could issue decrees necessary for planning within the German living space and economic area and that these would be effective also for the Government General. Apart from this limitation of the authority of the Governor General as provided in the Fuehrerdecree of 12 October 1939, other powers were conferred at a later date which no less impaired the principle of uniform administration. That is particularly true of the position of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. I refer at this point to the appropriate documents presented by the Prosecution and the Defense, in particular to the Fuehrer's decree of 21 March 1942, in which it is expressly provided that the powers of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor extend to the territory of the Government General. The whole armament industry in the Government General was at first in the hands of the OKW, but after the establishment of the Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production it came under the jurisdiction of the latter. The evidence has shown that in other directions, too, the principle of uniform administration was extensively infringed upon. For this I refer to the statements of the witnesses Dr. Lammers and Dr. Bubler and to the content of the documents submitted by me, especially Document USA-135.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): This deals with the directives in "special matters concerning instructions Number 21 (Case Barbarossa)," in which it is expressly provided that the commander-in-chief of the Army shall be entitled "to order such measures in the Government General as are necessary for the execution of his military duties and for safeguarding the troops" and in which the commander-in-chief is empowered to delegate his authority to the army groups and armies. All these infringements of the principle of a uniform administration of all special powers, however, pale beside the special position allotted to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler also in respect of the territory of the Government General. The evidence, and particularly the testimony of Dr. Bilfinger, Oberregierungsrat in the RSHA, shows that as early as in 1939 when the defendant was appointed Governor General, a secret decree was issued in which it was provided that the Higher SS and Police Leader, East was to receive his instructions direct from the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Himmler. Similarly, it is provided in the decree-of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor for the Preservation of German Nationality that the ReichsFuehrer SS shall be directly empowered to effect the planning of new German settlement areas by means of resettlements. These two decrees conferred on the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler powers which, from the very first day of the existence of the Government General, tended to confront its administration with almost insurmountable difficulties. It was very soon evident that the general administration under the Governor General had at its disposal no executive organs, in the true meaning of the term. Since the Higher SS and Police Leader, East received his instructions and orders direct from Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and refused to carry out instructions emanating from the Governor General, it was very soon seen that in reality there were two separate authorities ruling over the Government General.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): The difficulties which thus arose were bound to become all the greater, as Higher SS and Police Leader Kruger, who for no less than 4 years was Himmler's direct representative in the Government General, did not even inform the administration of the Government General before carrying out police measures. It is a well-known experience in the life of any state that an administration lacking executive police organs is in the long run not capable of carrying out its appointed functions. This is true even under normal conditions, but it must be all the more pronounced in the administration of occupied territory. If we remember, moreover, that not only did the ReichsFuehrer SS Himmler issue his instructions direct to the Higher SS and Police Leader, ignoring the Governor General, but that over and above this the Offices III, IV, V, and VI of the RSHA also gave direct orders to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Krakow, we can well assess the difficulties with which the civil administration of the Government General had to wrestle day by day. Under these circumstances the Governor General had no choice but to make every attempt to reach some form of co-operation with the Security Police, unless he was prepared to relinquish any hope of building up a civil administration in the Government General. And in fact the history of the administration of the Government General-which lasted for over 5 years-is for the greater part nothing but a chronicle of uninterrupted struggles between the Governor General and the administration on the one hand, and the Security Police with the SD as represented by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and the Higher SS and Police Leader, East, on the other. The same applies to the activity of Himmler and his organs in the field of resettlement. As Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality, Himmler and his organs carried out resettlement measures without even establishing previous contact with the administration of the Government General or informing the Governor General.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): The numerous protests of the Governor General, addressed to Dr. Lammers, the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, with regard to the measures taken by the ReichsFuehrer and the Higher SS and Police Leader, East, and the difficulties they put in the way of the administration of that territory, have been established by the evidence. These protests led in the year 1942 to an attempt at redirecting the relationship between the 'administration and the Police. In retrospect, it can be said today as a result of the evidence that even this attempt was only utilized by Himmler and the Security Police to undermine internally and externally the position of the Governor General and his civil administration. By a decree of the Fuehrer dated 7 May 1942 a State Secretariat for Security was established in the Government General, and the Higher SS and Police Leader was appointed State Secretary. According to Article II of this decree, the State Secretary for Security also became the representative of the Reichsfuehrer SS in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality. The decisive provision of this decree is contained in Article IV, in which it is stated verbatim: "The Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police issue direct instructions to the State Secretary for Security in matters pertaining to security and the preservation of German nationality." Herewith, the contents of the secret decree issued in 1939 on the establishment of the Government General-which also provided that the Higher SS and Police Leader, East was to receive his instructions direct from the Berlin central offices and particularly from the Reichsfuehrer SS in person-was expressly, and now publicly, confirmed. It is true that Article V of the Fuehrer decree of 7 Slay 1942 provided that in cases of difference of opinion between the Governor General and the ReichsFuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police the Fuehrer's decision was to be obtained through the Reich Minister and Chief of the Chancellery.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): The Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, was interrogated on this subject when he appeared as a witness before this Tribunal. He testified that insofar as he found it possible at all to gain the Fuehrer's ear in these matters, the latter on principle invariably approved Himmler's view. This is not surprising if we remember Himmler's position in the German governmental system, particularly during the later war years. This deprived the Defendant Frank of the last possibility of influencing in any way the measures taken by Himmler and the Higher SS and Police Leader, East. In consequence of Article I, Paragraph 3, of the Fuehrer decree of 7 May 1942 the scope of duties of the State Secretary for Security had to be newly defined. Both the Higher SS and Police Leader and, backing him, the Reichsfuehrer SS attempted to bring as wide a field as possible under their jurisdiction in connection with the new regulation of the competence of the State Secretariat; on the other hand, the Governor General, in the interest of the maintenance of some sort of order in the administration, naturally tried to obtain control of at least certain departments of the Regular Police and the Administration Police. There is no doubt at all that it was the Police that emerged the victor in these struggles. On 3 June 1942 the Governor General was obliged-in a decree concerning the delegation of duties to the State Secretary for Security-to declare himself willing to transfer to the State Secretary all the departments of the Security Police and the Regular Police. I have submitted this decree to the Tribunal (together with its two Appendices A and B) in the course of the evidence as Exhibit Number Frank-4. The two appendices list all the functions of the Regular and Security Police that have ever existed in the German police system.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): In Appendix A, which covers the departments of the Regular Police, there are 26 headings in which not only all the departments of the Regular Police are transferred to the State Secretary for Security, but over and above that, almost all the departmental functions of the so-called Administration Police. I will only mention Heading 18 as one example among many. This transfers to the Regular Police, and thereby to the Higher SS and Police Leader, all matters connected with price control. What is true of the Regular Police applies in even greater measure to the departments of the Security Police. No change as compared with the earlier situation was brought about by placing under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader the whole of the Political and Criminal Police, political intelligence, Jewish affairs, and similar departments; these competencies were already his as leader of the Security Police and the SD, and were made entirely independent of the administration of the Government General under the secret decree of 1939. Departments were also transferred to the State Secretary for Security which had only the remotest connection with the tasks of the Security Police, for example, matters such as the regulation of holidays and so on. Of considerable importance are the two last headings in the Appendices A and B. in which it is expressly provided that at conferences and meetings, particularly with the central Reich authorities, on all matters pertaining to the Regular and Security Police, the Government General-not the Governor-should be represented by the Higher SS and Police Leader. Therewith any competency possessed by the Governor General, even in regard to comparatively unimportant branches of the Administration Police, was transferred to the organs of Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, and the Government General was thus deprived of even the last remnants of an executive of its own.