dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR.SEIDL: I quote the last paragraph on Page 75, Page 5 of the diary: "The Governor General does not, as a matter of principle, oppose the training of the younger generation for the priesthood because, if courses for doctors, et cetera , are arranged, similar opportunities must also be created in the field of religion." Page 77 deals with an order by the Governor General prohibiting the evacuation of the population, or a part of it, which was in the fighting zone near Lublin. On Page 80 is an entry dated 12 April 1944. I quote the second paragraph: "In this connection President Gerteis spoke of the treatment of the Poles in the Reich. This treatment, said to be worse than that of any other foreign workers, had led to the result that practically no Poles would volunteer any more for work in Germany. "There were 21 points on which the Polish workers in the Reich were more badly treated than any other foreign workers. The Governor General requested President Gerteis to acquaint him with these 21 points which he would certainly attempt to have abolished." I now ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 100 of the document book. It concerns a conference on 6 June 1944 regarding a large-scale action against the partisans in the Bilgoraje Forest. I quote Page 101, Page 4 of the diary: "The Governor General wants to be quite sure that protection is given to the harmless population, which is itself suffering under the partisan terror." Page 102 deals with the views of the Governor General on concentration camps. It is an entry dated 6 June 1944. I quote the last paragraph: "The Governor General declared that he would never sign such a decree, since it meant sending the person concerned to a concentration camp. He stated that he had always protested with the utmost vigor against the system of concentration camps, for it was the greatest offense against the sense of justice. He had thought there would be no concentration camps for such matters, but they had apparently been silently put into operation.
DR.SEIDL: It could only be handled in such a manner that the persons condemned would be pardoned to jail or prison for a certain number of years. He pointed out that prison sentences, for instance, were imposed and examined by state institutions. He therefore requested that State Secretary Dr. Buehler should be informed that he, the Governor General, would not sign such decrees. He did not wish concentration camps to be officially sanctioned. He went on to say that there was no pardon which would commute a sentence into commitment to a concentration camp. The courts-martial are state legal organs of a special character and consist of police units; actually they should normally be staffed by members of the Wehrmacht."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, can you explain the translation of the words at the bottom of Page 102 which are in English, "It only could be handled in such a manner that the persons would be pardoned to jail or prison for a certain number of years." Can you explain that from the point of view of meaning?
DR. SEIDL: The meaning of the words becomes clear from the statement made by President Wille in the previous paragraph where, among others, you will find the following statement. It is the tenth line from the top. "The Reprieve Commission had asked the representative of the Chief of the Security Police, who was present at the session, in what form this pardon was to be effected. As far as he knew, remittance of a sentence had been allowed in one case only. In all other cases it was customary to couple Security Police measures with the remittance of a sentence. It was feared that otherwise these people might disappear." Now the Governor General was of the opinion that, for example, to transmute a death sentence to a term in prison or penitentiary was possible but that he would have to refuse direct commutation of a death penalty into a suspended prison penalty if the Police in that event were to impose security measures.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it meant that pardon from a death sentence might be made by a reprieve for a sentence in prison for a certain number of years, but not by sending to a concentration camp, which would be for an indefinite period and under police methods?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is the sense of it. I now turn to Page 104 of the document book. This quotation also deals with the general question of treatment of the population in the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have been very much longer than you said, and the Tribunal thinks you might be able to cut down a great deal of this. It is all very much on the same lines.
DR.SEIDL: Yes. In that case, I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 112 of the document book, an entry dated 10 July 1944. This entry deals with the official control of art treasures. I quote the second paragraph: "The Governor General instructs the expert Palezieux to have a complete index made of these art treasures."
THE PRESIDENT: You have already told us and given us some evidence to support the view that the Defendant Frank was preserving the art treasures and was wishing them to be preserved in Poland, and it is not necessary under those circumstances to go reading passages about it.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. Then I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that entry; and if the Tribunal agrees, I shall merely give you the pages of the documents in the document book which appear important to me. That is page... [The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the interpreting system.] Gentlemen of the Tribunal, if the Court is agreeable I should like to give only the numbers of the pages of Volume IV of the document book which seem particularly important to me. These are the Pages 115, 121, 123, 134, 139, 152, and 182. That concludes Volume IV of the document book and I come to the last volume of the document book which will be finished considerably faster. Volume V deals exclusively with the accusations made by the Prosecution of the United States against the Defendant Frank concerning his activity as President of the Academy for German Law, as President of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association, and similar positions. Page 1 is a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution, 1391-PS. It still has no USA number and will be Exhibit Number Frank-11. It is the law regarding the Academy for German Law with the necessary statutes and the tasks resulting therefrom. I turn to page 25 of the document book. This quotation becomes Exhibit Frank-12 (Document Number Frank-12). It deals with a sentence which has been ascribed to the defendant: "Right is that which is good for the people." This quotation should prove only that the Defendant Dr. Frank wanted to express nothing more than that which is implied in the Roman sentence: Salus publica suprema lex (The supreme law is the welfare of the people). I ask the Court to take cognizance of this and turn to Page 26 of the document book, an excerpt from the magazine of the Academy for German Law of 1938. That will be Exhibit Frank-13 (Document Number Frank-13).
DR. SEIDL: This quotation also deals with the afore-mentioned sentence: "Right is that which is good for the people." Page 30 is an excerpt from Exhibit USA-670 (Document Number 3459-PS) and deals with the closing celebration of the "Congress of German Law 1939" at Leipzig, where the Defendant Dr. Frank made the concluding speech before 25,000 lawyers. I quote on Page 31, Line 10 from the bottom: "Only by applying legal security methods, by administering true justice, and by clearly following the legislative ideal of law can the national community continue to exist. This legal method which permanently ensures the fulfillment of the tasks of the community has been assigned to you, fellow guardians of the law, as your mission. Ancient Germanic principles have come down to us through the centuries. "1) No one shall be judged who has not had the opportunity to defend himself. "2) No one shall be deprived of the incontestable rights which he enjoys as a member of the national community, except by decision of the judge. Honor, liberty, life, the profits of labor are among those rights. "3) Regardless of the nature of the proceedings, the reasons for the indictment, or the law which is applied, everyone who is under indictment must be given the opportunity to have a defense counsel who can make legal statements for him; he must be given a legal and impartial hearing." I turn to Page 35 of the document book, which deals with a speech, an address by the Defendant Dr. Frank, made at a meeting of the heads of the departments of the National Socialist Lawyer's Association on 19 November 1941. The speech-that is, the excerpt- becomes Exhibit Number Frank-14 (Document Number Frank-14). I quote only a few sentences at the top of Page 37. "Therefore, it is a very serious task which we have imposed upon ourselves and we must always bear in mind that it can be fulfilled only with courage and absolute readiness for self-sacrifice. I observe the developments with great attention.
DR. SEIDL: I watch every anti-juridical tendency I know only too well from history-as you all do-of the attempts made to gain ever-increasing power in general directions because one has weapons with which one can shoot, and authority on the basis of which one can make people who have been arrested disappear. In the first place, I mean by this not only the attempts made by the SS, the SD, and by the police headquarters, but the attempts of many other offices of the State and the Reich to exclude themselves from general jurisdiction." I turn to-I would like to quote the last five lines on Page 41. Those were the last words spoken during that session: "One cannot debase law to an article of merchandise; one cannot sell it; it exists or it does not exist. Law is not an exchange commodity. If justice is not supported, the State loses its moral foundation; it sinks into the abyss of darkness and horror." The next document is on Page 42. It is the first address which the Defendant Dr. Frank made in Berlin at the university on 8 June 1942. It will be Exhibit Number Frank-15 (Document Number Frank-15). I quote Page 44, second paragraph, seventh line: "On the other hand, however, a member of the community cannot be deprived of honor, liberty, life, and property; he cannot be expelled and condemned without first being able to defend himself against the charges brought against him. The Armed Forces serve us as a model in this respect. There everyone is a free, honored member of the community, with equal rights, until a judge-standing independently above him -has weighed and judged between indictment and defense." I then turn to Page 49 of the document book, the second of these four long speeches. It was held in Vienna, and will become Exhibit Number Frank-15.
DIE PRESIDENT: We have already had Exhibit Frank-15 on Page 41.
DR.SEIDL: No, I beg your pardon, Mr. President; it will be Frank-16 (Document Number Frank-16). I quote only one sentence on Page 51. "I shall continue to repeat with all the strength of my conviction that it would be an evil thing if ideals advocating a police state were to be presented as distinct National Socialist ideals, while old Germanic ideals of law fell entirely into the background." Now I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 57 of the document book to the speech made by the Defendant Dr. Frank at the University of Munich, on 20 July 1942. This will be Exhibit Frank-17 (Document Number Frank-17). I quote on Page 58, Line 16: "It is, however, impossible to talk about a national community and still regard the servants of the law as excluded from this national community, and throw mud at them in the midst of the war. The Fuehrer has transferred the tasks of the Reich Leader of the Reich Legal Office and that of the leader of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association to me, and therefore it is my duty to state that it is detrimental to the German national community if in the 'Black Corps' lawyers are called 'sewer-rats.' " I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 67 of the document book. That is the speech which he made at Heidelberg on 21 July 1942. That will be Exhibit Frank-18 (Document Number Frank-18). I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of that speech. On Page 69 I quote only one sentence: "But never must there be a police state, never. That I oppose." I now come to the last document which the Prosecution of the United States has already submitted under Exhibit Number USA-607 (Document Number 2233(x)-PS), an excerpt from the diary: "Concluding reflections on the events of the last three months." In these reflections Dr. Frank once more definitely states his attitude towards the concept of the legal state, and I ask the Tribunal to take cognizance particularly of his basic assumptions on Pages 74 and 75 of the document book. Here, Dr. Frank again formulated the prerequisites which he considered necessary for the existence of any legal state.
DR.SEIDL: I quote only a few lines from Page 74: "1) No fellow German can be convicted without regular court procedure, and only on the basis of a law in effect before the act was committed. "2) The proceedings must carry full guarantee that the accused will be interrogated on all pertaining to the indictment, and that he will be able to speak freely. "3) The accused must have the opportunity, at all stages of the trial, to avail himself of the services of defense counsel acquainted with the law. "4) The defense counsel must have complete freedom of action and independence in carrying out his office in order to strike an even balance between the State prosecutor and the defendant. "5) The judge or the court must make his or its decision quite independently-that is, the verdict must not be influenced by any irrelevant factors-in logical consideration of the subject matter and in just application of the purport of the law. "6) When the penalty imposed by the sentence has been paid, the act has been expiated. "7) Measures for protective custody and security custody may not be undertaken or carried out by police organs, nor may measures for the punishment of concentration camp inmates, except from this aspect, that is, after confirmation of the intended measures by regular, independent judges. "8) In the same manner, the administration of justice for fellow Germans must guarantee full safeguarding of individual interests in all relations pertaining to civil suits proper."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, are there any passages in these documents which express the opinion that the same principles ought to be applied to others than fellow Germans?
DR. SEIDL: In this last quotation the Defendant Dr. Frank dealt basically with questions of law without making any difference here between Germans and people of foreign nationality. However, in his capacity as Governor General he also fundamentally objected at all times to the transfer of Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews to concentration camps. This can be seen from a whole series of entries in the diary. With this I have come to the end of my evidence for Dr. Frank. There are left only the answers to interrogatories by witnesses whose interrogation before a commission has been approved by the Court. At a later date I shall compile these interrogations in a small document book and submit the translation thereof to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of interrogatories where you have not yet got the answers; is that right?
DR.SEIDL: These are interrogatories to which the answers have not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, as soon as you have received them you will furnish them to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): In presenting evidence for the Defendant Frick, I shall forego calling the defendant himself as a witness. The questions which require an explanation deal mainly with problems relating to formal authority and also with problems which differentiate between formal authority and actual responsibility. These are problems, part of which have already been elucidated by the interrogation of Dr. Lammers and the rest of which will be cleared up by the submission of documents. One special field, however, cannot be entirely clarified by documents; and that is the question of the actual distribution of authority within the sphere of the Police; but for that special field I have named the witness Dr. Gisevius. He is the only witness whose interrogation seems to be necessary for the presentation of evidence in the case of Frick. Therefore, in the meantime, I have dispensed with other witnesses. I ask the Court to decide whether I should call the witness Dr. Gisevius first or whether I should submit my documents first. If documents are to be presented first, I believe that I could finish by the midday recess.
THE PRESIDENT: You can finish your documents before the adjournment, do you mean?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. I believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: Until 1:00 o'clock?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you indifferent whether you call the witness first or whether you present the documents first?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that perhaps it would be more convenient to give the documents first. They hope that you will be able to finish them reasonably quickly.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the document book (Documents Number 386-PS, W79, and 3726-PS) deal with evidence concerning the question of whether the members of the Reich Cabinet knew about Hitler's preparation for aggressive war. I need not read the documents; they have already been submitted, and they show that Hitler gave information of his plans for aggression only to those of his assistants who had to know of these plans for their own work, but did not inform Frick who, as Minister of the Interior, was responsible for the internal policy. Within the scope of the war preparation, Frick was made Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration by the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, which has already been submitted, Exhibit Number USA-36 (Document Number 2194-PS). This law does not indicate that this position had anything to do with the known preparation of an aggressive war; it shows only the participation of the Administration of the Interior in a general preparation and organization in the event of a future war. I have therefore included in the document book an excerpt from this law under Number 4 of the document book, in order to correct an error. The Defendant Frick himself stated in an affidavit on 14 November 1945, that he had held the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration from 21 May 1935. This is the date of the first Reich Defense Law, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USA-24 (Document 2261-PS). The first Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935, however, does not provide for the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration; that is contained only in the second law of 4 September 1938. This second law has been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-36. Following this erroneous statement which the Defendant Frick made without having the two laws on hand, the Prosecution has also stated that Frick held the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration from 21 May 1935, while actually he held it only from 4 September 1938, that is, the date of the second law.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Numbers 5 and 6 of the document book have already been submitted by the Prosecution. They also prove nothing except the participation of the Defendant Frick in the establishment of civil administration with a view to a possible future war. It is not necessary to read this either. The Prosecution considers Hitler's aggressive intentions to be so well known and so obvious as to require no further proof. The Prosecution on that assumption came to the conclusion that participation in the National Socialist Government, in any field whatsoever, would in itself imply the conscious support of aggressive war. In opposition to that I have referred to evidence in documents from Number 7 to 10 inclusive of the Frick document book (Documents Number 2288-PS, 2292-PS, 2289-PS, and 3729-PS) which have already been submitted by the Prosecution and which show that Hitler in public, as well as in private conversations, from the time he came into power followed a definite policy of declaring his peaceful intentions-a policy, therefore, which for considered reasons, declared to all that to keep peace was right. I believe that these documents, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal, must also be considered in order to decide whether or not Hitler's official policy, since his coming to power, indicated that he had intentions of waging aggressive war. As evidence in that direction, I should like to submit Number 11 and Number 12 of the document book, which have not been presented until now, and which I will submit as Documents Frick-1 and -2. The first is a telegram of 8 March 1936 from Cardinal Archbishop Schulte to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. The second document is a solemn declaration by the Austrian bishops occasioned by the annexation of Austria in March 1938.
DR. PANNENBECKER: The first document states, and I quote: "Cardinal Archbishop Schulte has sent to General Von Blomberg, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, a telegram in which, at the memorable hour when the Armed Forces of the Reich are re-entering the German Rhineland as the guardians of peace and order, he greets the soldiers of our nation with deep emotion mindful of the magnificent example of self-sacrificing love of fatherland, stern manly discipline, and upright fear of God, which our Army has always given to the world." I particularly selected these two documents because the Catholic Church is not suspected of sanctioning aggressive wars, or of approving of Hitler's criminal intentions in any other way. These statements would have been unthinkable if the accusations of the Prosecution were true, namely, that the criminal aims of Hitler and particularly his aggressive intentions had been known.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, the Tribunal would like to know what is the source of this telegram from the Archbishop, Number Frick-11.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I took the telegram, Number Frick-11, from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 9 March 1936.
THE PRESIDENT: And the other one?
DR. PANNENBECKER: The other document is from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 28 March 1938. Number 13 of the document book contains only one sentence, taken from a speech made by Frick, from which it is evident that Frick shared the same opinion. He states in this speech, and I quote: "The national revolution is the expression of the will to eliminate by legal means every form of external and internal foreign domination."
THE PRESIDENT: You gave that the number 13, did you?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. That should be 3.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, that is what I wanted to say. I submit it as Document Number Frick-3.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: The Defendant Frick has been accused particularly of working for the League for Germans Abroad. The Prosecution saw in this activity a contribution by the Defendant Frick to the preparation of aggressive wars. Frick's actual attitude regarding the aims of the League for Germans Abroad can be seen from Number 14, which will be Document Number Frick-4. In a speech made by Frick, it states, and I quote: "The VDA (League for Germans Abroad) has nothing to do with political aims or with frontier questions; it is, and is intended to be, nothing more than a rallying point for German cultural activities . . . the world over." In Number 15, which is Exhibit Frick-5 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, I perhaps ought to say that in the index of this document book it looks as though the exhibit numbers were the numbers of the documents in the order in which they are put in the book, but that will not be so.