dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 13 April I made a written motion to be permitted to submit a documentary supplement as Exhibit Hess-17. I submitted six copies of this document with the request to have it translated. The following documents are included: 1) The German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 23 August 1939 , which was already submitted by the Prosecution under Exhibit GB-145; 2) the related supplementary protocol of the same date ; 3) the German-Soviet Friendship and Border Pact of 28 September 1939 ; 4) the secret supplementary protocol of the same date which is related to it ; and 5) the second affidavit by Ambassador Dr. Gaus, mentioned before. Furthermore, on 15 April I made the motion to call the witness Dr. Gaus-who is in Nuremberg-here before this Court if the Tribunal do not consider the affidavit sufficient. I ask the Tribunal to make its decision about these motions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. Now, with reference to Von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is an application for a witness Dieckhoff, in regard to whom interrogatories have already been granted. As I understand, the reason is that the witness Tschirschky has been found to have retired from the German Foreign Of lice some 18 months earlier than was thought. Baron Von Ludinghausen has suggested that, to balance the calling of Dieckhoff as a witness, he will give up the calling of the witness Zimmermann and have an affidavit or interrogatory instead. My Lord, that seems to the Prosecution a very reasonable suggestion, and we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, no objection to Dieckhoff as a witness and Zimmermann for an affidavit or interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is all with regard to the Defendant Von Neurath.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, with regard to the Defendant Schacht, it is only the petition of the witness Huelse; and the Prosecution do not really mind whether Dr. Dix calls him or puts in an affidavit. I think that it is only a question of whether the witness will be available to come here from Hamburg; and, if he is available, we have no objection to him being called as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, My Lord, the next one on the list is an application on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel: Withdrawal of interrogatories for Mende granted on 23 March, as the prospective witness is not located; and interrogatories for Marenbach in place of Mende, who can give the same testimony. Dr. Servatius believes that Marenbach is located at the Garmisch internment camp. The Prosecution have no objection to that. My Lord, I think there was a formal one from Dr. Thoma with regard to the use of the sworn statement by Professor Denker, but there is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already allowed that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have already allowed that; this is only the formal application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will consider those matters. There are a number of documents for the production of which the Defendant Sauckel's counsel is applying.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been suggested to us that counsel for the Defendant Sauckel and Counsel for the Prosecution could help us over that matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my friend, Mr. Roberts, has been dealing with Dr. Servatius upon this point; so, perhaps he could help the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, will it take a long time for that or hot?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think so. The Tribunal, I understand . . .
COL. POKROVSKY: I should like to inform the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution did not receive any documents which the British Prosecutor has just mentioned, and we ask that these documents not be discussed until the moment when we shall have the opportunity to get acquainted with them.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that these documents have not been translated yet. The question really is the preliminary one of which documents should be translated, and we were only going through the documents in order to see which documents were sufficiently relevant to be translated; so that it would not be...
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the Tribunal-I understand-have made a preliminary order of just striking out the documents which Dr. Servatius and I agree should not be presented. My Lord, that leaves a very large number of documents, of which I think the Tribunal has a list. My Lord, the first 68 documents-or rather from documents 6 to 68-are regulations dealing with the conditions of the employment of labor in Germany. My Lord, I have seen Dr. Servatius' proposed document book, and he has marked certain passages which he would desire to read, and which would have to be translated, My Lord; and that does cut down the bulk of the documents very considerably.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, we have not read all these documents yet, and they are not translated. Can you indicate to us whether you have any objection to them being translated?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think I could object to those first documents from 6 to 68-the passages marked "being translated," because from their description they appear to be relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 6 to 68.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the passages which are actually marked?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then will you go on?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: 69 to 79 he has already struck out.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, 80 and 81 I object to. They are documents making allegations of breach of the Hague Regulations by the Soviet nation. My Lord, I submit that that is not relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: The allegations of illegal acts by the Soviet Government with reference to individuals?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, I submit that that could not be relevant at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and 82 to 89; you do not object to these?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not object to these-the passages as marked.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius promised, as far as he could, to cut down the passages which were going to be marked. My Lord, 90 and 91 I object to. Dr. Servatius wants to put in, under the description of documents, a large number of affidavits, the number of which I think is not yet ascertained-affidavits by various persons as to the conditions of labor and the conditions under which foreign workers were employed. My Lord, the Defendant Sauckel has been allowed a certain number of witnesses and also affidavits or interrogatories from other people. My Lord, I submit that this application under 90 and 91-two files of affidavits-is not really an application for documents at all, and it should be disallowed. My Lord, Number 92...
THE PRESIDENT: Number 92 he has struck out.
MR. ROBERTS: 92 has been struck out. My Lord, Number 93 is, in fact, a book which was referred to by the French prosecutor; and, therefore, of course, Dr. Servatius would be entitled to refer to it in his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the passages marked in that or not?
MR. ROBERTS: Well, he has not marked any yet. There are some pictures, My Lord, of...
THE PRESIDENT: He only wants the pictures?
MR. ROBERTS: I think so, My Lord, showing the cherubic happiness of the foreign workers in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 94 is an affidavit of Sauckel's son. It is only required, I understand, if one of three other witnesses who have been allowed is not available. My Lord, it is to deal with the allegation that Sauckel ordered the evacuation of Buchenwald; and, My Lord, I cannot object to this very short affidavit, if Dr. Servatius cannot produce one of the three witnesses who have been allowed to him. My Lord, 95 is Sauckel's speeches, and Dr. Servatius again has promised to cut down the passages which he has marked. It is difficult to object to that in view of the allegation of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 96 and 97 are books in which there are very short extracts which have been marked, and, again, as it deals with a relevant period of the alleged conspiracy, My Lord, I do not see how I can object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: In the same category, yes. Does that meet with your views, Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I discussed the matter with a representative of the Prosecution and that represents in principle the result. I would like to add, however, something with reference to a few document namely, Documents 80 and 81. One is the photostat copy of a deportation order in the city of Gels, the other an affidavit concerning forced labor in Saaz. I need the first document in order to prove that the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare was obsolete- that is to say, that before the armistice, while fighting was still going on, the population of the Eastern German provinces was sent to Russia for forced labor. I supplemented the motion orally at that time, because I considered the proof for the deportation of a large part of the population for forced labor, obtained by questioning the mayors of cities from Upper Silesia to East Prussia, as insufficient. I believe that this is of great importance for the defense of. my client, as it proves that the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare was considered nonexistent in the East. Document 81 deals with the state of affairs after the armistice- but which appears as only a continuation of what previously occurred in the Eastern territories-and confirms the fact that, under the occupation of the Soviet Army, such conditions generally continued to exist-namely, the recruitment of the population for work not in the sense of the Hague Convention for the repair of local roads, for instance, but rather for the purpose of working in industry and for activities outside the framework of the Hague Convention and for work outside the country. I do not believe that I should be refused this evidence. Now as to Documents Number 90 and 91, their contents have already been presented. They are two folders with a collection of affidavits. The attempt is made to bring evidence in refutation of a government investigation such as we have met up with here.
DR. SERVATIUS: We have received reports from the Soviet and French Prosecution; we have received reports from Czechs; all of which constitute a huge quantity of material of mosaic like patterns that can only be dealt with in this manner. I once before explained that I do not have a government at my disposal which could prepare such a report, and so I suggest bringing a collection of affidavits. Now I do not intend to read every one of these affidavits here. My motion is that the Court appoint a deputy who would study that folder and prepare a brief report about it for presentation to the Tribunal. A similar problem will arise later when questions concerning the political organizations are dealt with-namely, the problem as to how these immense quantities of material can be presented to the Tribunal. If I bring one witness, one witness only, it will be said, "Well, one witness cannot, of course, cover the entire ground." On the other hand, I cannot have a hundred or more witnesses. So this would be a middle way: That a person appointed by the Tribunal study these affidavits and then give a report. That is the content of these two folders.
THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you in mind or have you obtained?
DR. SERVATIUS: So far I have received very little. It proves that those who could give information are very reticent, because they are afraid that they might be prosecuted on that account. I hope, however, to be able to make a selection of reasonable statements, which I believe will amount to about 20 or 30 affidavits. I would limit it to that, because I do not care to take up the Court's time with unnecessary work dealing with these affidavits. Judging from the present state of my collection, I may even have to consider withdrawing my motion altogether, because I have to admit myself that the amount of material reaching me is very small; but I ask to be given another chance, and at the appropriate moment I shall present the case to the Court again.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Is that all you want to say?
DR. SERVATIUS: There is still Document Number 93, the illustrated booklet, Europe Works in Germany. I should like...
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Prosecution object?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, the Prosecution does not object. I should like to project some pictures on the screen for the purpose of showing particularly under what conditions these people from the East arrived and what their condition was later, insofar as it can be shown from a propaganda pamphlet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
MR. ROBERTS: There was one other point which I ought to mention. Perhaps Dr. Servatius would be good enough to listen. My Lord, Dr. Servatius has applied in writing to the Tribunal, by letter dated 5 March 1946, for all medical reports of Dr. Jager, who was a chief camp doctor at Krupp-Essen; secondly, all monthly reports of a man called Groene, who was a colleague of Dr. Jager; thirdly, all minutes of monthly conferences which the chief camp leader held with his subordinate camp leaders at Krupps. My Lord the position is this: That the French put in-oh, I think our American colleagues put in-an affidavit of Dr. Jager, and Dr. Jager himself has been granted as a witness for Sauckel, and so he will be seen in the witness box. My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Jager being asked, I suppose, to bring his reports with him if they are available. We do not have them, and I do not think we know where they are.
THE PRESIDENT: But the witness is being called.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have received a portion of these documents already, and I assume that the rest may also reach me. I believe the material which I have now is sufficient for my purposes so that the Prosecution need not take further pains.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean we need make no order?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 18 April 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): Dr. Seidl.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hans Frank): Mr. President, Members of the Tribunal, on 9 April of this year, deviating from the rule made by the Tribunal, I made the application that I should first be allowed to present the documents, then call the witnesses, and then at the end examine the defendant as a witness. I do not know whether the Tribunal is already in possession of the document books. I have ascertained that Volume I of the document book was translated by 8 April Volume II and III on 11 April, and Volume IV and V a few days later. At any rate, I have not yet received any document books myself, for the reason that the office concerned has not yet received permission to bind the books.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought I asked about this, not yesterday, but the day before yesterday-yes; and you said you were perfectly ready to go on.
DR. SEIDL: I had been told that the books had been translated, and I naturally assumed that these books would also be bound. Yesterday I discovered that this is not the case. At any rate, the fault is not mine.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not suggesting that there was any fault on your part.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): In the first place, we did not have much to go over with Dr. Seidl. The agreement was reached with him the night before last about 6 o'clock or a little afterwards. Thereafter the materials were put into the process of preparation, and there are 500 pages. They have just not been completed, and it is not so that the people did not receive authority to go ahead. They have not been able to complete their work and there will be some delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you can go on with your witnesses. You have the defendant himself to call and several other witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And the documents will no doubt be ready by then. We are rising this evening at half past four, and by the time that the Tribunal reassembles, by Tuesday morning, no doubt all the documents will be ready. As to your application, the Tribunal has considered the application and sees no reason to depart from its ordinary rule that the defendant should be called first; that is to say, if you intend to call the defendant.
DR.SEIDL: Oh yes, I intend to examine the defendant; but in the interests of accelerating the proceedings, I suggested that the other witnesses should be heard first so that the examination of the defendant might be as short as possible. It is possible that he can then answer a number of questions merely by saying "yes" or "no." Another reason why I consider this procedure to be the most expedient is because a proper examination of the defendant is only possible if I have the document books at hand at the same time. That necessity does not apply to the other witnesses. I should, therefore, beg the Tribunal to give me permission so that I can first examine the witnesses who are already in the witnesses' room.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents are all, or nearly all, I imagine, in German and can be put to the defendant in the course of his examination; and the Tribunal think, as they have already said, that calling the defendant first is in the interests of expedition; and they, therefore, feel they must adhere to their rule.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the Defendant Dr. Hans Frank to the witness stand. [The Defendant Frank took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give your full name?
HANS FRANK (Defendant): Mans Frank.
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.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you sit down, please.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, when and where were you born?
FRANK: I was born on 23 May 1900 at Karlsruhe, in Baden.
DR. SEIDL: Will you please give the Tribunal a brief outline of your education?
FRANK: In 1919 I finished my studies at the Gymnasium, and in 1926 I passed the final state law examination, which completed my legal training.
DR. SEIDL: And what profession did you follow after that?
FRANK: I had several legal posts. I worked as a lawyer; as a member of the teaching staff: of a technical college; and then I worked principally as legal adviser to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party.
DR. SEIDL: Since when have you been a member of the NSDAP?
FRANK: I joined the German Labor Party, which was the forerunner of the National Socialist German Workers Party, in 1919, but did not join the newly formed National Socialist Workers Party at the time. In 1923 I joined the Movement in Munich as a member of the SA; and eventually, so to speak, I joined the NSDAP for the first time in 1927.
DR. SEIDL: Were you ever a member of the SS?
FRANK: I have never been a member of the SS.
DR. SEIDL: That means you have never had a rank of an SS Obergruppenfuehrer or General of the SS?
FRANK: I never had the rank of an SS Obergruppenfuehrer or SS General.
DR. SEIDL: Not even honorary?
FRANK: No, not even honorary.
DR. SEIDL: You were a member of the SA. What was the last position you held in that?
FRANK: I was Obergruppenfuehrer in the SA at the end, and this was an honorary position.
DR. SEIDL: What posts did you hold in the NSDAP during the various periods, and what functions did you exercise?
FRANK: In 1929 I became the head of the legal department of the Supreme Party Directorate of the NSDAP. In that capacity I was appointed Reichsleiter of the NSDAP by Adolf Hitler in 1931. 1 held this position until I was recalled in 1942. These are the principal offices I have held in the Party.
DR.SEIDL: Until the seizure of power you concerned yourself mainly with legal questions within the Party, did you not?
FRANK: I dealt with legal questions in the interest of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP and its members during the difficult years of struggle for the victory of the Movement.
DR. SEIDL: What were your basic ideas regarding the concept of a state controlled by a legal system?
FRANK: That idea, as far as I was concerned, was contained in Point 19 of the Party program, which speaks of German common law to be created. In the interest of accelerating the proceedings, I do not wish to present my ideas in detail. My first endeavor was to save the core of the German system of justice: the independent judiciary. My idea was that even in a highly developed Fuehrer State, even under a dictatorship, the danger to the community and to the legal rights of the individual is at least lessened if judges who do not depend on the State Leadership can still administer justice in the community. That means, to my mind, that the question of a state ruled by law is to all intents and purposes identical with the question of the existence of the independent administration of law. Most of my struggles and discussions with Hitler, Himmler, and Bormann during these years were more and more focused on this particular subject. Only after the independent judiciary in the National Socialist Reich had been definitely done away with did I give up my work and my efforts as hopeless.
DR. SEIDL: You were also a member of the Reichstag?
FRANK: In 1930 I became a member of the Reichstag.
DR. SEIDL: What posts did you hold after 1933?
FRANK: First, I was Bavarian State Minister of Justice, and after the ministries of justice in the various states were dissolved I became Reich Minister without portfolio. In 1933 I became the President of the Academy of German Law, which I had founded. I was the Reich Leader of the National Socialist Jurists Association, which was later on given the name of "Rechtswahrerbund." In 1933 and 1934 I was Reich Commissioner for Justice, and in 1939 I became Governor General of the Government General in Krakow.
DR. SEIDL: What were the aims of the Academy of German Law of which you were the founder?
FRANK: These aims are written down in the Reich Law regarding the Academy of German Law. The main task, the central task, of that Academy was to carry out Point 19 of the Party program to bring German Common Law into line with our national culture.
DR. SEIDL: Did the Academy of German Law have definite functions, or could it act only in an advisory capacity?
FRANK: The Academy of German Law was the meeting place of the most prominent legal minds in Germany in the theoretical and practical fields. Right from the beginning I attached no importance to the question whether the members were members of the Party or not. Ninety percent of the members of the Academy of German Law were not members of the Party. Their task was to prepare laws, and they worked somewhat on the lines of an advisory committee in a well-organized parliament. It was also my idea that the advisory committees of the Academy should replace the legal committees of the German Reichstag, which was gradually fading into the background in the Reich. In the main the Academy helped to frame only laws of an economic or social nature, since owing to the development of the totalitarian regime it became more and more impossible to cooperate in other spheres.
DR. SEIDL: If I understand you correctly, then the governmental administration of law was solely in the hands of the Reich Minister of Justice, and that was not you.
FRANK: No, I was not Reich Minister of Justice. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, was, however, not competent for the entire field of legislation but merely for those laws which came within the scope of his ministry. Legislation in the Reich, in accordance with the Enabling Act, was in the hands of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor and the Reich Government as a body. Consequently my name appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt at the bottom of one law only, and that is the law regarding the Reintroduction of Compulsory Military Service. However, I am proud that my name stands at the end of that law.
DR. SEIDL: You have stated earlier that during 1933 and 1934 you were Bavarian Minister of Justice.
FRANK: Yes.
DR.SEIDL: In that capacity did you have an opportunity of voicing your opinion on the question of concentration camps, and what were the circumstances?