The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-112.10

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-112.10
Last-Modified: 2000/01/23

THE PRESIDENT: I had thought that your extracts were going
to be brief. But you have now read from Page 53 to Page 65.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, this document is the only one of
this kind which is available to me and in view of the fact
that the prosecution has only quoted in full those passages
which the defendant, Dr. Frank, himself criticized most
severely, I consider it my duty now to read a number of
passages, to quote them, in order to give the entire picture
correctly and to show what the defendant, Dr. Frank, really
intended to achieve with this document. I shall only quote a
few more lines and then I will pass to another document.

THE PRESIDENT: I had hoped that one or two extracts from
that document would show what the defendant Frank was
putting forward, one or two paragraphs.

DR. SEIDL: I go on to the next document, Mr. President, that
is on Page 68, the affidavit by the witness Dr. Buehler,
which I presented to the witness today and which has been
given the number Exhibit Frank-1, Page 68 in the document

On Page 70 there appears Exhibit USA-473. If I remember
correctly this document has already been read in full by the
prosecution and I would like to ask the Tribunal to take
judicial notice of that also in the defence of Dr. Frank.

On Page 72 of the document book is an affidavit of the
former Kreishauptmann, Dr. Albrecht. To be exact I have to
state that this is not really an affidavit in the true sense
of the word. It is only a letter which Kreishauptmann Dr.
Albrecht has sent to me through the General Secretary of the
Tribunal. I then returned the letter in order to have it
sworn to by the witness, but I have to say that until now
that sworn statement has not been returned, so that for the
time being, this exhibit would only have the material value
of a letter. Therefore I ask the Tribunal to decide whether
that document can be accepted by the Tribunal as an exhibit
in the form of a letter.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal did consider that matter
before when your application was before it. They will accept
the document for what it is worth. If you get the document
in affidavit form you will no doubt put it in.

DR. SEIDL: Yes. That will be Exhibit Frank-7. I forgo the
quoting of the first points and proceed direct to Page 74 of
the document book and I
quote under No. 4:-

  "Dr. Frank's fight against the exploitation and neglect
  of the Government General in favour of the Reich.
  Conflict with Berlin.

                                                  [Page 183]
  The first meeting with Dr. Frank occurred shortly after
  the establishment of the Government General in the autumn
  of 1939 in the Polish district-capital, Radom, where the
  10 Kreis chiefs of this district had to report concerning
  the condition of the population in their administrative
  district, and the problem of reconstructing as quickly
  and effectively as possible the general, as well as the
  administrative and economic life. What struck one most
  was the keen awareness of Dr. Frank and his deep concern
  about the area entrusted to him. This found expression in
  the instructions not to consider or treat the Government
  General, or allow it to be used, as an organisation for
  exploitation or as a useless area, but rather to consider
  it as a centre of public order and an area of
  concentration at the back of the fighting German front
  and at the gates of the German homeland, forming a link
  between the two. Also to consider that the loyal native
  inhabitants of this country had claim to the full
  protection of the German administration as citizens of
  the Government General. To this end the constant efforts
  of all authorities and economic agencies would be
  demanded by him, and, by means of constant control
  through supervisors, would be personally superintended by
  him by periodical inspection trips, with the
  participation of the specialised central offices. In this
  way, for instance, the two districts which were
  administered by me were inspected by him personally three
  times in four years.
  In face of the demands of the Berlin central authorities,
  who believed it possible to import more from the
  Government General into the Reich than was advisable, Dr.
  Frank asserted vigorously the political independence of
  the Government General as an 'adjunct of Germany'
  (Nebenland des Reiches), and his own independence as
  being directly subordinated only to the Supreme Head of
  the State, but not to the Reich Government. He also
  instructed us on no account to comply with demands which
  might come to us on the basis of personal relations with
  the authorities by whom we were sent, or with the
  Ministries concerned, and if by so doing we came into
  conflict with such authorities or Ministries, to report
  to him about it. This firm attitude gained Dr. Frank the
  displeasure of the Berlin government circles, and the
  Government General was dubbed 'Frankreich.' A campaign of
  calumny was initiated in the Reich against him and
  against the entire administration of the Government
  General by systematically generalising and exaggerating
  regrettable ineptitudes and human weaknesses of
  individuals, at the same time by attempting to belittle
  the actual constructive achievements."

I should like to ask the Tribunal to take official notice of
number 5, also number 6, and I will only quote from number

  "(7) Dr. Frank as an Opponent of Acts of Violence against
  the Native Population, especially as an Opponent of the
  Besides the exploitation and the pauperisation of the
  Government General, the accusation of the enslaving of
  the native population as well as deporting it to the
  Reich, and many atrocities of various kinds have appeared
  in the newspaper reports on the Nuremberg War Crimes
  Trial and were interpreted as serious evidence against
  Dr. Frank. As far as atrocities are concerned, the guilt
  does not lie with Dr. Frank but in some measure with the
  numerous non-German agitators and provocateurs who, with
  the growing pressure on the fighting German fronts,
  increased their underground activity, but more especially
  with the former State Secretary for the Security
  Organisation in the Government General, S.S.
  Obergruppenfuehrer Kruger and his agencies. My
  observations in this respect are sketchy, because of the
  strict secrecy of these offices.
  On the other hand, Dr. Frank went so far in meeting the
  needs of the Polish population that this was frequently
  objected to by his German

                                                  [Page 184]
  compatriots. That he did the correct thing by his stand
  for the just interests of the Polish population is
  proven, for example, by the impressive fact that barely a
  year and a half after the defeat of the Polish people in
  a campaign of eighteen days, the concentration of German
  Army masses against Russia in the Polish area took place
  without any disturbances worth mentioning, and that the
  Eastern railroad was able to move the troop transports
  with Polish personnel up to the most forward unloading
  points without being delayed by sabotage."
  I quote the last paragraph on Page 79:
  "This humane attitude of Dr. Frank, which earned him
  respect and sympathy among considerable groups of the
  native population, led, on the other hand, to bitter
  conflicts with the S.S., in whose ranks Himmler's
  statement, 'They shall not love us, but fear us,' was
  applied as the guiding principle of their attitude and
  At times it came to a complete break. I still recall
  quite clearly that Dr. Frank, during a governmental visit
  to the District (Kreishauptmannschaft) of Stanislau in
  the Carpathian areas in the summer of 1943, when he took
  a walk alone with me and my wife in Jaremtsche on the
  Prutz, complained most bitterly about the arbitrary acts
  of the S.S., which quite frequently ran counter to the
  political line taken by him. At that time he called the
  S.S. the 'Black Plague,' and pointed out, when he noticed
  our astonishment at hearing such criticism coming from
  his lips, that if, for example, my wife were to be
  wrongfully arrested one day or night by agencies of the
  Gestapo and disappear, never to be seen again, without
  having been given the opportunity of defence in a court
  trial, absolutely nothing could be done about it. Some
  time afterwards he made a speech to the students in
  Heidelberg, which attracted much attention and was loudly
  applauded, about the necessity for the re-establishment
  of a German constitutional State (Rechtsstaat) such as
  would do justice to the real  needs of the German people.
  When he wanted to repeat this speech in Berlin, he is
  said to have been forbidden by the Fuehrer and Reich
  Chancellor, at Himmler's instigation, to make speeches
  for three months, as reported to me by a reliable, but
  unfortunately forgotten source. The struggle against the
  methods of violence used by the S.S. led to Dr. Frank
  having a nervous breakdown and he had to take a fairly
  long sick-leave. As far as I can remember this was in the
  winter of 1943/44."

I ask the Court to take official notice of number 8, and I
pass on to Page 84 of the document book. That is an
affidavit by S.S. Obergruppenfuehrer Erich von dem Bach-
Zelewski, of 21 February, 1946. This affidavit becomes Frank
Exhibit No. 8.

THE PRESIDENT: Didn't this witness give evidence?

DR. SEIDL: The witness was questioned here by the
prosecution and I made the motion at that time that either I
be allowed to interrogate the witness again or be granted
the use of an affidavit. On 8 March, 1946, the Tribunal made
the decision, if I remember correctly, that I could use an
affidavit from that witness, but that the prosecution would
be free to do so, if they desired, to question the witness


DR. SEIDL: I shall read the statements of the witness
concerning this matter, and I quote:

  "(1) Owing to the infiltration of Russian partisan groups
  over the line of the river Bug into the Government
  General in 1943, Himmler declared the Government General
  to be a 'guerrilla warfare territory.' Thus it became my
  duty, as 'Chief of the guerrilla warfare units,' to
  travel about the Government General to collect
  information and get experience, and to submit reports and
  suggestions for fighting the partisans.
                                                  [Page 185]
  In the general information Himmler gave me, he called the
  Governor General, Dr. Frank, a traitor to his country,
  who was conspiring with the Poles, and whom he would
  expose to the Fuehrer very shortly. I still remember two
  of the reproaches Himmler used against Frank:
  (a)At a lawyer's meeting in the Old Reich territory Frank
  is said to have stated that 'he preferred a bad
  constitutional state to the best conducted police state,'
  (b) During a speech to a Polish delegation Frank had
  disavowed some of Himmler's measures and had disparaged,
  in front of the Poles, those charged with carrying them
  out, but calling them 'militant personalities.'
  After having, on a circular tour, personally obtained
  information on the spot about the situation in the
  Government General, I visited the higher S.S. and Police-
  Fuehrer Kruger and the Governor General, Dr. Frank, in
  Kruger spoke very disapprovingly about Dr. Frank and
  blamed Frank's faltering and unstable policy towards the
  Poles for conditions in the Government General. He called
  for harsher and more ruthless measures and said that he
  would not rest until the traitor Frank was overthrown. I
  had the impression, from Kruger's statements, that
  personal motives also influenced his attitude and that he
  himself would have liked to become Governor General.
  After that I had a long discussion with Dr. Frank. I told
  him of my impressions, and he went into lengthy details
  about a new policy for Poland which aimed at appeasing
  the Poles by means of concessions. In agreement with my
  personal impressions, Dr. Frank considered the following
  factors responsible for the crisis in the Government
  (a) The ruthless resettlement action carried out now in
  the midst of war, especially the senseless and
  purposeless resettlement carried out by the S.S. and
  Police-Fuehrer Globoznik in Lublin.
  (b) The insufficient food quota allotted to the
  Government General. Dr. Frank called Kruger and Globoznik
  declared enemies of any conciliatory policy, and said it
  was absolutely essential that they should be recalled.
  Being convinced that if Dr. Frank failed, he would only
  be succeeded by a more ruthless and uncompromising
  person, I promised him my support. Having been assured of
  strictest secrecy, I told Frank I shared his opinion that
  Kruger and Globoznik would have to disappear. He, Dr.
  Frank, knew however that Himmler hated him and that he
  was urging Hitter to have him removed. With such a state
  of affairs, any request on Frank's part to have Kruger
  and Globoznik recalled would not only be rejected, but
  would even strengthen their position with Himmler. Frank,
  therefore, should give me a free hand, then I could
  promise him that both would be relieved of their posts
  within a short time. Dr. Frank agreed to that, and I then
  made use of the military mistakes that Kruger and
  Globoznik had committed in order to bring about their
  recall by Himmler.
  (3) The Warsaw revolt of 1944 - "

THE PRESIDENT: I must point out to you that you said you
were going to be only two hours over five volumes. You have
now been over an hour over one volume, and you are reading
practically everything in these documents. It isn't at all
what the Tribunal has intended. You have been told that you
may make short comments showing how the documents are
connected with each other and how they are connected with
all the evidence. That is not what you are doing at all.

DR. SEIDL: In that case I ask the Tribunal to take judicial
notice of paragraph 3 of the affidavit by von dem Bach-
Zelewski. Paragraph 3 deals with the Warsaw revolt in the
year 1944 and the question

                                                  [Page 186]

as to whether the Governor General had anything to do with
the crushing of that revolt.

Then I pass on to Page 92.

THE PRESIDENT: As a matter of fact, does the indictment
charge anything in connection with the crushing of the
Warsaw revolt in 1944?

DR. SEIDL: There is nothing in the Indictment itself about
the part played by the Governor General in the crushing of
that revolt. However, the Soviet Prosecution has submitted a
telegram which puts the defendant Dr. Frank in some relation
to the Warsaw revolt. But I shall not go into details about
that now.

I pass on to Page 92 of the document book.

This is an affidavit by the witness Wilhelm Ernst von
Palizieux, in whose case the Tribunal has approved an
interrogatory. But I was told by the Tribunal that in place
of an interrogatory I could submit an affidavit. I quote
only the two main paragraphs as follows:

  "The art treasures stored in the castle in Cracow since
  the spring of 1943 were under official and legal
  supervision there. When speaking to me Dr. Frank always
  referred to these art treasures as State property of the
  Government General.
  Catalogues of the existing art treasures had already been
  made before I came to Poland; the list of the first
  selection had been printed in book form as a catalogue,
  with descriptions and statement of origin and had been
  ordered by the Governor General."

THE PRESIDENT: Now you are reading the affidavit all over
again. We don't want that sort of -

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I assumed that in those cases
where a witness does not appear before the Tribunal in
person, it is admissible that either the interrogatory or
the affidavit be read, because otherwise the contents of his
testimony would not become part of the record and therefore
part of the proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: That rule was in order that the defendants
and their counsel should have the document before them in
German; that is the reason for reading the documents through
the earphones. The Tribunal will adjourn now. But I want to
tell you that you must shorten your presentation of this
documentary evidence. We have already been a good deal more
than an hour over one book and we have four more books to
deal with, and it doesn't do your case any good to read all
these long passages and it is only necessary for you to give
such connecting statements as make the documents
intelligible and to correlate them with the oral evidence
that is being given.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 April, 1946, at 10.00 hours.)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.