The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-176.09

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-176.09
Last-Modified: 2000/09/19


I have in mind Document 2523-PS, Exhibit No. 235, which
contains an excerpt from a speech which Frick allegedly made
in the year 1927 - but the excerpt of this speech is taken
from a provincial Social Democrat newspaper, a small paper
opposed to Frick, the reporter of which thus had no
authentic copy of the speech at his disposal - and we all
know what mistakes and misunderstandings are often contained
in such short reports, the wording of which cannot be
checked by the speaker himself. Thus this document,
according to which Frick is said to have stated that history
is written not only with the ballot, but with blood and
iron, is not a reliable source.

The prosecution refers to conferences concerning the
expropriation of land in order to extend the grounds of the
Auschwitz concentration camp. The general domestic
administration is competent for expropriation, and for this
reason an official from the Ministry of the Interior was
called into the negotiations, who stated, however - Page 2
of the English translation of the document - that he was not
authorized to dispose of the ownership of the land. Thus one
can also not construe from this document any Political
Police activity on the part of the defendant or an approval
of the concentration camp system. Finally, in this
connection the prosecution states that the defendant Frick
personally visited the Oranienburg and Dachau concentration

The defendant does not deny the visit to Oranienburg in the
year 1938, about which witness Hoess testified.

At that time, as witness Hoess himself testifies, the
external framework of the camps was still generally that of
a military training area.

In any case, an official visitor to a camp at that time
could not notice any indication of murder, ill-treatment or
similar crimes, so that the visit is not a decisive argument
for knowledge of crimes in the concentration camps.

On the other hand, Frick never visited the Dachau
concentration camp, contrary to the testimony of the witness

I refer to the testimony of Gillhuber in regard to this who,
as Frick's bodyguard, must have known about such a visit if
it had taken place.

I take the liberty of pointing out also that the two other
bodyguards of Frick were also mentioned by me as witnesses,
but in agreement with the prosecution were considered by the
Tribunal as unnecessary on the grounds that one of the
bodyguards would be sufficient as a witness.

                                                  [Page 314]

At the conclusion of this chapter, I still have to go into
the matter of an allusion made by the prosecution which
described Frick at one time as the chief of the Reich
Security Main Office.

I beg to refer to the testimony of the witness Ohlendorf who
stated to the Tribunal that the Reich Security Main Office
(RSHA) was a creation of Himmler, who combined in this
office his State Police tasks and his functions as
Reichsfuehrer SS, with which Frick had no connection of any
kind and even less authority to command. The chief of this
office was thus Himmler himself alone.

I must go further into the charges which are made against
the defendant Frick in respect of the persecution of members
of the Jewish race.

Frick collaborated in the legal measures, particularly the
Nuremberg Laws, and in administrative measures which he
regarded as an expression of a National Socialist racial

On the other hand, there is no proof that Frick himself
shared in or knew of the measures of physical extermination
which, on Hitler's direct orders, were carried out by
Himmler and his organizations, and were kept absolutely
secret from those who had no part in these frightful events.
Further, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, the
defendant is also accused of collaboration in the killing of
the sick and insane.

Hitler's basic order is contained in Document 630-PS,
Exhibit USA 342.

This document shows that Hitler did not give an order for
this to any government office, but - quite outside the
ministries' government order system - to two single persons,
namely Bouhler and Dr. Brandt. Moreover, contrary to all
rules, Hitler did not sign this order himself in an official
capacity as Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, but used private
stationery with the heading "Adolf Hitler." This shows what
the witness Lammers has confirmed, that Hitler did not give
an order for these measures to the Ministry of the Interior
or some other government office, but to two of his Party
comrades, and the Party emblem is the only sign on this

On the other hand, the documents submitted by the
prosecution prove that complaints were made which also
reached the Ministry of the Interior, but they do not prove
that, in contradiction to Document 630-PS, Frick personally
had a share in the measures for the killings or that he
could have prevented them.

After his departure from the Ministry of the Interior, on
20th August, 1943, Frick was appointed Reich Protector of
Bohemia and Moravia. Here he was given a task which, from
the start, was unequivocally limited in its competence. I
refer to Document 3443-PS (Exhibit USSR 60), No. 29 in the
Frick document book, and Document 1366-PS, submitted by me
as Frick Exhibit 5a. Furthermore, I refer to the testimony
of the witness Lammers. The office of the Reich Protector
was originally the unified representation of Reich authority
in the Protectorate. In actual practice, however, its
authority passed more and more to Frank, the Reich
Protector's State Secretary at that time.

With the appointment of Frick in August, 1943, through a
Fuehrer decree which was not made public, the executive
authority was now formally transferred to Frank, who from
that time on received the official title of "The German
Minister of State in Bohemia and Moravia." From that time on
the Reich Protector retained essentially the right of
representation and the right to pardon, the improper use of
which by Frick has neither been maintained nor proved by the
prosecution On the other hand, Frank, as "German Minister of
State" according to the above mentioned Fuehrer decree,
derived his executive authority directly from Hitler by whom
he had been directly appointed and from whom he received his
instructions without Frick's interpolation, Frick being in
no way competent to exercise any influence thereon.

Considering this state of affairs, the defendant Frick
cannot be incriminated by Document 3589-PS, Exhibit USA 720.

I now come to the prosecution's charge that Frick, by his
membership in certain organizations, is responsible for
certain criminal actions.

                                                  [Page 315]

The SS was one of these organizations mentioned by the
prosecution, to which, however, Frick never belonged. Thus
he was never a general in the SS, as stated by the
prosecution. I would assume this to be merely an error on
the part of the prosecution. In any case, the prosecution
did not submit any form of proof. Frick was likewise never a
member of the SA as shown - probably by mistake - in the
chart indicating Frick's membership in various
organizations. For this, too, there is no proof.

The prosecution has further charged Frick with being the
supreme head of the Gestapo, and therefore designated him as
a member of this organization, with the argument that since
the appointment of Himmler in 1936 as Chief of the German
Police, the Gestapo has been formally incorporated into the
Reich Ministry of the Interior. But the Gestapo had its own
Chief in the person of Himmler, from whom alone it took
orders, and Himmler's formal subordination to the Minister
of the Interior does not make the latter a member of the
organization which was exclusively under Himmler's orders.

The defendant Frick is further charged, in his capacity as
Reichsleiter, with membership in the Political Leadership
Corps. My colleague charged with the defence of this
organization will, in his turn, deal with its character. As
to the defendant Frick, I have only to point out that he
held the formal position of a Reichsleiter in his role as
Chairman of the Reichstag faction of the NSDAP. The
Reichstag itself having lost all political importance after
1933, which needs no further explanation, this position of
Frick's was in practice equally unimportant and could not be
compared with the position of Reichsleiter who administered
important political departments.

Finally, Frick, as Reich Minister, was a member of the Reich
Cabinet. Also with regard to the character and the authority
of this organization, I refer primarily to the statements
which are yet to follow of my colleague who has been
appointed defence counsel of this organization.

I will only refer here to the testimony of Lammers and
Gisevius, and further to the excerpt from the book of this
witness, which I have submitted as Exhibit Frick 13, as
evidence of the position and authority which the Reich
Cabinet maintained with respect to the dictatorial practices
of Hitler.

From all this, the defendant Frick appears as a person who
certainly took action politically to bring Hitler to power,
and who exerted temporarily a decisive influence on internal
policy after this goal had been achieved.

All his measures, however, had domestic-political aims; they
were not intended to have anything to do with the foreign
policy's aim of a war of aggression, and especially not with
crimes against the peace or against the rules of warfare-and
only in such cases would this court have jurisdiction
according to Article 6 of the Charter, as has been stated by
the prosecution itself.

When Frick realised later that the policy was taking a
course of which he could no longer approve, he tried to
exert all his influence to bring about a change. But he had
perforce to see more and more that Hitler would not listen
to his remonstrances and complaints. On the contrary, he was
forced to realize that these complaints destroyed Hitler's
confidence in him, as Hitler preferred to be advised by
Himmler and similarly minded persons, so that finally, after
the year 1937, Frick was no longer received by Hitler when
he wanted to present complaints. Frick then gave up such
hopeless attempts to bring about a change in the situation.
Things would not have been altered by his resignation
either, which the evidence has shown he repeatedly tendered
in vain.

So, his tragedy lies in his entanglement in a system, in the
first steps of which he had participated enthusiastically
and the development of which he had imagined would be quite

In any case, it appears important to me in judging his
personality and his actions, that even this presentation of
evidence which has gone on for months has not given any
proof of the personal participation of the defendant in any

                                                  [Page 316]
It is not without reason that John Gunther in the book
Inside Europe, which I have presented to the Tribunal as
evidence, describes exactly the defendant Frick as "the only
honest Nazi" and as a "bureaucrat through and through."
Hitler himself always called him repeatedly the "pen pusher"
("paragraphenschuster") because Frick - which was typical of
him - did not meet him at any public assembly, but in his
office in the police department in Munich in the year 1919.

This man felt enthusiasm for Hitler's inciting power, so
lacking in himself, a Hitler, who, with big words, appealed
to his heart, his honour and his patriotism. It was Hitler
who made him proud of being able to participate in the
reconstruction of a German nation which, through strong
armed forces, was to be in a position to play a peaceful but
yet active role in world politics.

However, it was also Hitler, who knew so well how to make
his programme appear to the simple official Frick as the
only way to prevent Bolshevist rule in Germany - who by this
argument and all the superficial truths, twisted statements,
and devices of propaganda which fooled so many people who
let themselves be carried along by the inciting power of
Hitler, and who did not realize in time that they had
subordinated themselves to the hypnotic will of a criminal,
one who was prepared to overthrow the pillars of
civilisation for his aims and who finally would bring
Germany to spiritual and material ruin. I pray that this
trial may contribute to the nation's reconstruction through
a sentence in accordance with law and justice.


DR. MARX (for the defendant Streicher): Gentlemen of the
Tribunal, Mr. President.

I begin with the speech for the defence of Julius Streicher.

When in May of the past year the final battles of the
greatest and most horrible war of all times came to an end,
the Germans were slow to rise again from the stupor in which
they had, for the most part, spent the last months of the
war. Like all the peoples of Europe, they had suffered
unspeakably for years. The last months in particular, with
their hail of bombs, had brought so much misery to both the
country and the people that it almost surpassed human
endurance. This terror was increased by the knowledge that
the war was lost and by the fear of the uncertain fate which
the occupation period would bring. And when finally the
period of first anxiety had passed, when the German people
were slowly beginning to breathe again, paralysing horror
spread once more.

Through the Press and radio, and motion pictures, knowledge
was spread of the atrocities which had taken place in the
East, in the steppes, and in the concentration camps.
Germany learned that people, men of its own blood, had
slaughtered and destroyed millions and millions of innocent
Jewish people. Most people felt instinctively that these
deeds would necessarily be the greatest of all the
accusations the world must make against Germany. The
question of whether the German people in its totality had
known and approved of these actions was and is the really
fateful question. It is the touchstone by which the decision
must be made as to whether or not Germany will ever be able
to return again as a nation with equal rights into the
common cultural and spiritual spheres of the world. As in
every case of guilt, there immediately arose here also the
question as to who was responsible and the search for that
individual. Who had ordered these atrocities, who had
carried them out, and how could such inconceivable things
have happened at all, the like of which cannot be found in
history even of earliest times?

During all this asking and guessing, the news arrived that
the former Gauleiter of Franconia and publisher of Der
Sturmer, the present defendant Julius Streicher, had fallen
into the hands of the American troops. From the echo this
news aroused in the Press, which was exclusively directed
and published by the occupying Power, as well as in the
radio news, it was to be gathered that the world was of the
opinion that in the person of Julius Streicher, not only had
one of the numerous

                                                  [Page 317]

anti-Semitic propaganda agents of the Third Reich been taken
prisoner, but in short; enemy No. 1 of the Jews.

In the rest of the world it was evidently the prevailing
opinion that in Julius Streicher they had seized not only
the most active propaganda agent for the persecution and
extermination of the Jews, but the man who had also
participated to the highest degree in carrying out these
acts of extermination. He was said to have been, as one
heard, not only the greatest hater of the Jews and the
greatest preacher of extermination of the Jews, but also the
person to whose direct influence one could trace back the
extermination of European Jewry.

It is only from this angle that it can be explained why the
defendant Streicher sits here in the dock, together with the
other defendants, among the chief responsible persons of the
National Socialist system. For neither by virtue of his
personality, nor measured by his offices and positions, does
he belong to the circle of leaders of the NSDAP or to the
Party's decisive personalities. This opinion, which was
probably also held in the beginning by the prosecution, was
abandoned by it, however, at an early stage, for even the
written Indictment no longer charged the defendant Streicher
with any personal and direct part in the abominable mass
murders. Rather, it stated that there was less evidence to
offer regarding him than regarding any of the other
defendants to show direct and personal guilt. Only his
propaganda, his effective use of both the written and spoken
word, was made the subject of the accusation against him.

As far as particulars are concerned, the counts of the
Indictment against the defendant Streicher were summed up as

  I. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the
  power of the NSDAP after its entry into the Government.
  II. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda aimed at
  the persecution of the Jews.
  III. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education
  to encourage hatred against the Jews,

     (a) in the German people,
     (b) in the German youth, and
     (c) in the active annihilators of Jewry.

Without Julius Streicher, no Auschwitz, no Mauthausen, no
Maidanek, no Lublin; thus may the Indictment be summed up

As far as Count I of the Indictment is concerned, the
defendant does not deny that as regards the Party's later
seizure of power, he supported and promoted it with all his
might from its earliest inception. His support went to the
extent of placing a whole movement, which he had built up
personally in Franconia, at the disposal of Adolf Hitler's
Party, which was small after the First World War, as one can
imagine, and limited to southern Bavaria only. Furthermore,
after Hitler's release from the fortress of Landsberg, he
immediately joined him again and subsequently championed his
ideas and goals with the greatest determination.

THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a good time to break off. The
Tribunal will adjourn.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 12th July, 1946.)

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.