What criminally degenerate persons practised as alleged national-socialism cannot be laid to the charge of Rosenberg. Moreover, Rosenberg's speeches in three tomes, which express what he taught during the course of 8 years, bear witness to the honorable nature of his endeavors.
Thus if we give up the false conception of uniformity: One party, one philosophy, one ideology, one crime, then in view of the indisputable fact that Rosenberg himself never pursued a policy of extermination,destruction and enslavement in the East, we shall have to admit that the facts of the terrible central executive orders and of Rosenberg's philosophy are not identical and on these grounds alone the conclusions of the prosecuting authority are invalid. are conditioned by themore casual play of materialistic forces. Whether Marx acknowledges the independent influence of man and ideas in history is at least doubtful. On the contrary, Rosenberg stresses emphatically the influence and the necessity of the highest ideas in the history of peoples. But Rosenberg does not overlook the fact that every event in history is the result of a totality of acting forces. The will, the passions and the intelligence of the people involved work together to form a historical process which cannot be calculated in human terms. It has already been pointed out, that just as little as Voltaire's and Rousseau's ideas can be recognized as the causes of the French revolution, and the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity be taken as the cause of the Jacobine terror, as little as one can say Mirabeau and Sieze had wanted or plotted such blood-thirstiness, just as little can one ascribe to Rosenberg as moral or even criminal guilt what became of National-Socialism during its development through the decades. In other words, I believe it is as unjust as it is unhistorical to ascribe today, in retrospect, the negative aspects of National-Socialism which were connected with the terrible collapse to a plan which had been desired from the beginning, a plan which also originated in Rosenberg's ideas.
Therefore, in considering Rosenberg's work the mistake of a standardization which does not correspond to reality is added to the further mistake of mechanization; there is neither a mechanical man nor mechanical history. And, finally, the construction of the indictment is also an absolutely negative one; it views the defendant from the standpoint of political polemics and is impressed by the excitement of people in these most excited times. I must briefly take exception to this distortion of the defendant's mental traits. of the preceding period which gave birth to the defendant's ideas are known to all of us only too well: the mental-psychic uprooting of man by the technical age, his hunger and thirst for a new spirit and a new soul; liberty was the slogan and a new beginning the impulse which directed the will of youth. Its longing and enthusiasm were aimed at nature. The thoughts and wishes of this generation were led into political paths by the contrast between rich and poor, which youth considered unjust and which youth sought to bridge through Socialism and the fellowship of the people. In Germany the development on political lines was further enhanced by the national misfortune of 1918/19 and the Treaty of Versailles, which was likewise felt to be unjust. The idea of a future building of German history through the union of nationalism and socialism, glowed unconsciously in the hearts of millions as the undisputed, tremendous success of National-Socialism proves. The psychic foundation was the will for self-preservation and love for one's fellow countrymen and for the people itself, a people which had already had to suffer so much torment and misery in history.
necessity after the intent based upon Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The word "Lebrasraum" was no principle of hate directed at other peoples, but a reference to the fact -- due to the hand of fate -- that for centuries the German people had been crowding against the frontiers and had never found sufficient outlet for its strength.
The will for self-preservation and love for one's own people together with the whole complex of National-Socialist ideas then developed in an inexplicable manner into a furious conflagration, the most primitive considerations of common sense were eliminated just as in a delirium; in complete delusion everything was put at stake and lost. Rosenberg may know that he is innocent of any human, personal guilt in this drama which was caused and committed by the guilt of others. time and time again, are whether he could have done more for what he thought and upheld as just and worthy, where he neglected essential things, where he fell she of requirements, what negative events, in so far as he had knowledge of then, he should have attended to with more effort. Can such questions which every person asks when he is crushed by disaster, be considered a evidence for his objective guilg? I do not think so. On 17 January 1946 (transcript p. 2765/66 the French chief prosecutor, Mr. de Menthon stated the following which I quote:
"We are rather facing systematic criminality which directly and necessarily derives from a monstrous doctrine with the full will of the leaders of NaziGermany. The crime against peace which was undertaken immediately is derived from the National-Socialist doctrine."
To refute this assertion I must briefly present this doctrine. I have classified the National-Socialist ideology -- in full accord with scientific opinions -- under the so-called new romanticism. This tendency of the time which was grounded in fate and the necessities of history had gone through the whole civilized world since the turn of the century as a reaction against rationalism and the technical age. It differs from the old romanticism in that it adopts the naturalistic and biological consideration of man and history.
the whole of reality. It does not glorify feeling and the intellect, but the innermost workings of man -- his heart, will, and faith. This philosophy receives its National-Socialist stamp through the emphasis which is placed upon the mysterious importance of peoples and races for all human experience and work. It is in the people, in the common possession of blood, history, and culture that we find the real roots of strength. Only by participating in the movements of a people and its strength does the individual serve himself and his generation.
Rosenberg's scientific contribution to the racial ideology consists in his description of the rise and fall of great historical figures, who were born of races and peoples who set up definite standards in all fields of language, custom, art, religion, philosophy, and polities. According to Rosenberg the efforts of the 20th century to establish a form for itself are a struggle for the independance of the human personality. In Rosenberg's opinion, then, essence is the consciousness of honor. The myth of national honor is at the same time the myth of blood and race; the race produces and supports the maximum value of honor. Therefore, the struggle for the maximum value of honor is also a spiritual struggle with other systems and their maximum values. Thus, intuition stands against intuition, will against will.
Rosenberg expresses this thought in the following manner in his "Myth", Introduction, pages 1 and 2: "History and the task of the future no longer means a struggle between classes, it will no longer be a struggle between church dogma and dogma, but the dispute between blood and blood, race and race, people and people. And this means: A struggle between psychic value and psychic value". Lemkin opines in "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", page 81, where he ends the above quotation after the words "rade and race, people and people", but he believed in a struggle between psychic value and psychic value, in other words, spiritual controversy. National-Socialism that political considerations born of the intellect often gave way before the pathos of will and faith. In Rosenberg's case this danger did not appear so much. In making everything revolve around the "soil", i.e. the fatherland, and its history and peasantry as the life-growing forces from which spring the essence of a race, he remains in the sphere of life's realities.
Perhaps, unaware of it himself, he was, nevertheless, borne upwards by the current. political demands. After the Treaty of Versailles the political demands of Germany were aimed at recovering freedom and equality among the peoples for her great power which was everywhere hemmed in. This had been the objective of German statesmen even before Hitler. The other great powers had certain misgivings about recognizing Germany again as a great power. Rosenberg fought to do away with these misgivings. His weapon was his pen. The Tribunal allowed me to present in evidence an excerpt of Rosenberg's speeches and writings. I submitted it in my Document Book I, Volume 2. In view of the quantity of material and of my intention to submit only the most important matter, because of lack of time, I depend on the Court's being familiar with my document book.
In the first place I wish to call attention to the effects which these bo* had on German youth. I may recall the witness von Schirach's testimony. I repeat verbally: "At conventions of youth-leaders at which he spoke once a yea Rosenberg chiefly chose educational, character-building subjects. I remember he spoke for instance on loneliness and comradeship, personality and honor and so forth. At these conventions of leaders he did not deliver speeches against Jews. As far as I remember, he did not touch either on the confessional prob of youth, in any case to the best of my memory. Mostly I heard him talk on such subjects as I have just mentioned." power. Idleness, the root of all evil, had ceased and had been replaced by work, the fulfilment of duty, the aiming at ideals, patriotism and the will to ahead. It was a fatality here too, that through Hitler's policy these values were used in the wrong manner.
conspiracy against peace, of racial hatred, the elimination of human rights, of tyranny, a rule of horror, violence, and illegality, of a wild nationalism and militarism, of a German master race, I could already refute by pointing to the excerpts from the "Myth of the 20th Century" which the Prosecution itself has submitted as evidence for the truth of its assertions. In reply to this, in order to refute this assertion by the Prosecution, I want to point in particular to the following facts:
To prove Rosenberg's honest struggle for a peaceful living together of the people I wish to refer to his speech in Rome in November 1933 before the Royal Academy, which was printed in "Blood and Honor"; Document No. Ro. 7b, page 150. In his speech in Rome, Rosenberg pointed to the fateful significance of the four great powers and proclaimed -- I quote his words:
"Therefore he who strives in earnest to create a Europe which shall be an organic unit with a pronounced multiplicity of form and not merely a crude summation, must acknowledge the four great nationalisms as given to us by fate and must, therefore, seek to give fulfillment to the force radiating from their core. The destruction of one of these centers by any power would not result in a 'Europe' but would bring about chaos in which the other centers of culture would also have to perish. In reverse, it is only the triumph of the radiations in those directions where the four great forces do not come into conflict with each other which would result in the most dynamic force of creative thinking and organic peace, not an explosive, forced situation such as prevails today, but it would then guarantee the small nations more security than appears possible today in the struggle against elementary force". remained true. Unfortunately, he could only work for it through his word. No witness could confirm in this court room that Rosenberg had any influence on the actual foreign policy, whether it was directed by Neurath, Ribbentrop, Goering or Hitler himself. Neither in the Austrian, nor in the Czech, nor in the Polish nor in the Russian complex hashis name been mentioned in connection with the charge of participation in aggressive wars. Everywhere he was placed before accomplished facts. In the war against the Soviet-Union he received his orders only when the war against Russia had already been declared an acute possibility.
He did not stir up the Norwegian campaign, but passed on personal information in accordance with his duty.
Now, as regards Rosenberg's speeches and writings on the problems of general foreign politics he advocated the Anschluss of the Austrians who had been forcibly excluded from the Reich as a demand born of the right to selfdetermination which had been proclaimed by the Allies themselves. The revision of Versailles was a postulate of justice against a violation of the treaty of 11 November 1918. To advocate a German Wehrmacht was, in view of the nondisarmament of the other powers, a defense of the solemnly promised equality of rights. told Rosenberg -- it is not the affair of other nations to especially champion the living rights of the German people but it is the duty of the German nation itself. For this purpose it needed to establish a firm unity, and to overcome the social strife which made everything unsafe, and it needed a Wehrmacht, and these things all together, would only then make the Reich reacy for alliances again.
I shall now take up the race question. Rosenberg's opinions in regard to the race question were the result of racial research of international scientists. Rosenberg repeatedly asserts (I refer again to the opinions stated in Document Book I, Volume 2) that the purpose of his racial political demands is not contempt of a race, but respect for it. "The leading moral idea of an approach to world history based on the laws of heredity belongs to our times and to our generation, being in full accord with the true spirit of the modern eugenics movement in regard to patriotism, i.e. the upholding and expansion of the spiritually, morally, intellectually and physically best hereditary forces for our fatherland; only in such way can we preserve our institutions for all future times." These words are the leading idea of his demands, though their originator was not Rosenberg, but Henry Fairfield Osborn, Professor at Columbia University who wrote them about the work of his colleague in science, Madis Grand: "The Decline of a Great Race". This research led long before the existence of the Third Reich to eugenic legislation in other countries, in particular to the American immigration law of 26 May 1924 which was aimed at a strong reduction of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe while favoring those from the North and West of Europe.
to be taken up here. With this measure, too, Rosenberg did not have the slightest connection. of the German nation, indeed of the Aryan race. He would like to have his ideology considered in that light, above all his "Myth of the 20th Century". His preaching of the significance of race in history did not call -- I remark it again -- for race contempt, but for consideration and respect of the race and demanded the acknowledgment of the racial idea only of the German people, and not of other nations.
He considered the Aryan nations as the leading ones in history. And in doing so he somewhat underestimated the value of other races, as Semitic ones, he, in his praise of Aryan races did not think of the German nation alone, but of the European nations in general. I point out his speech in Rome of November 1932. fact that anti-Judaism is not an invention of National Socialism. For thousands of years the Jewish question has been the minority problem of the world. It has an irrational character which humanly cannot be understood. Rosenberg was a convinced anti-Semite, who in writing and speech gave expression to his convictions and their cause. I have already mentioned that even such different personalities as von Papen, von Neurath, Raeder still are of the opinion that the predominance of the Jewish element in the entire public life had reached such proportions that a change was bound to come. The concrete result of that predominance and the fact that the Jews in Germany when attacked knew how to repay in kind, sharpened the anti-Semitic fight before the accession to power. on the national feelings at that time, but the Tribunal ruled my application out as irrelevant; as these writings were not introduced as evidence I cannot speak about them. It is, however, an injustice to Rosenberg to assert that blind hatred of the Jewish race had driven him into that controversy.
He had before his eyes concrete facts of the seditious activities of Jews. law for aliens would be realized.
It is true that Goebbels at that time called for a day's boycotting of Jewish stores.
Rosenberg, however, declared in has speech of 28 Jun 1932, on the anniversary of the Vers ailles Treaty, in the assembly hall of the Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House, that is was no longer necessary that in the capital of the Reich 74% of all lawyers should be Jews and that 80 to 90 percent of the physicians in Berlin hospitals should be Jewish; about 30 percent of Jewish lawyers in Berlin would amply do. In his speech on the Partietag in September 1933, Rosenberg stated in addition, and I quote: "In the most chivalrous way, the German Government has excluded from the percentage stipulations those Jews who have fought for Germany at the front or who have lost a son or a father in the war". (Document Book I, p. 153a). In his speech at the Kroll Opera House, Rosenberg Gave the reason for this measure, saying that an entire nation should not be discriminated against, but that it was necessary for our younger German generation, who for years had to starve or beg, to now be able to obtain bread and work too.. want the "extermination" of Judaism, but advocated as the nearest goal the political expatriation of Jews, i.e. by placing them under a law and protection for aliens. In addition, he granted to the Jews a percentage access to non-political professions which still by far exceeded the actual percentage of Jews in the German population. Of course, his final goal was the total emigration of the Jews from Aryan nations. He had no understanding and appreciation of what great a loss to the Aryan nations themselves such an emigration would be in cultural, economic and political respects. But one must admit that he meant that such emigration would prove useful for the Jews themselves, first, because they would be free from anti-Semitic attacks, and then because in their own settlement they might live unhampered according to their own ways.
The dreadful development which the Jewish question took under Hitler, and which was justified by him as being a reaction against the policy pursued by the emigrants, was never more regretted by anyone than by Rosenberg himself, who blames himself for not having protested against the attitude of Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels, as much as he protested against Koch's influence in the Ukraine.
Rosenberg also does not hesitate to admit that his suggestion to Hitler to shoot Jews instead of Frenchmen after the recurring murders of German soldiers was an injustice born under a momentary fooling--despite his belief-in its formal admissibility--because, from the purely human standpoint, the real basis for such a suggestion was lacking, namely the active participation of these Jews. I am mentioning this event again, as it is the only instance where Rosenberg wanted retribution by the death of Jews. On the other hand, one must insist with the greatest emphasis that there is no proof of Rosenberg's being aware of the extermination of five million Jews. The prosecution is blaming him for making preparations for an anti-Semitic congress as late as 1944, which did not take place only because of the course of the war. What sense could such a congress have had when Rosenberg knew that the majority of the Jews in Europe had been already exterminated? G ermany a split into numerous parties and a constant change of government, making finally the formation of an efficient government quite impossible. Another reason for his not having faith in democracy was that non-German democratic powers did not stand by their democratic principles in some cases when they could have been of benefit to Germany, for instance in 1919 when Austria was willing to be annexed to Germany and later on at the referendum in Upper Sileasia. But Rosenberg did not turn towards tyranny for that reason. To paragraph 25 of the party program he siad in his comments on page 46: "The central power--in this c a se the Fuehrer's power is mean--should have as advisors representatives of the people as well as trade chambers grown out of organic life" (Document Book III, page 6). And in his speech in Marienburg on 30 April 1934, "The Order of the German State", he said:
"the national socialist state, must be a monarchy on a republican foundation. From that standpoint the state will not become a deified purpose in itself, neither will its leader become a Caesar, a God or a substitue for God". (Document Book I, page 131) In his speech "G erman Law of 18 December 1934, Rosenberg stressed:
"in our eyes the Fuehrer is never a tyrannical commander". (Document Book I, page 135). Only in such expressions was a protest against the development of tyranny possible. Rosenberg himself learned it while being Minister for the East, Rosenberg was an idealist, but he was not the unscupulous man who inspired the state and the Fuehrer to commit crimes. I believe, therefore, that he should not be included in Mr. Jackson's accusation (page 8), that Rosenberg belongs to those mean in Germany, who have been "the very symbols of race hatred, of the rule of terror and violence, of arrogance and cruel power".
In looking over Rosenberg's writings, one more often finds statements and expressions which give a decided impression of tolerance.
He says, for example, in his "Myth", page 610 of the national church: " German church cannot pronounce compulsory dogmas which every one of its followers is compelled to believe, oven at the risk of losing his everlasting salvation. In his speech "Ideology and Dogmatics", on November 5 1938, in the University of Halle-Witteberg, he demanded tolerance toward all denominations with the demand of "inner respect for every real denomination". In his speech "On German Intellectual Freedom" of July G 1935, he also spoke up for the freedom of conscience. There was no document presented which contained a proposal by Rosenberg for criminal persecution against one of his numerous ideological opponents, although he may have been prompted to do so by their sharp attacks on his opinions.
exaggerated respect for the soldier. Rosenberg was indeed an admirerer of the soldier's life and his heroic attitude toward life, but he also admired the peasant's standards as the basis of the national character. He promoted the creation of a peopleple's army, first as the outward expression of Germany's unity and at home for the purpose of strengthening and educating the people. However, he denies that in this connection he thought of world conquest. On this point I can refer to his speech, "Germany's Position in the World", of October 30 1933. There he offered peace to Russia on the occasion of the German withdrawal from the League of Nations. (Document Book I, page 147). I shall quote this part for it proves also that National Socialism did not want to interfere in the affairs of other countries: "We are ready at any time, to maintain absolutely correct relations with Soviet Russia, because we, of course, do not necessarily want to change the valves of an ideology in the cield of foreign police and foreign relation". ideology, which he calls ethnology, it "not menat to be a lecture on racial hatred, but a lecture on racial respect". (Book, "Blood and Honor", page 377).
Mr. Jackson called Rosenberg's nationalism "wild" one. Rosenberg was passionate, but he wnated thereby to overcome the class-conflict among the people which threatened their life. For a clearer understanding of the facts It may also be said-
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like you to finish your speech before lunch, if you could possibly summarize some parts of it. I don't know whether that is possible.
DR. THOMA: I shall try to do that, Mr. President.
I shall once more refer to Mr. Jackson's statement that Rosenberg's "nationalism" was a wild one. In this connection I Should like to refer only to the fact that such a nationalsim was a compensatory symptom, which is usually found in a con-quered country.
is something which I have already mentioned, and I should just like to refer to it.
I have already mentioned the words "Master Race", and in that connection I refer to the documents of Rosenberg. I wish to mention the fact that those words are not found in the documents at all.
Concerning the Party program. I stated that Rosenberg did not draft this, but rather supplied only a commentary. Also, we are not concerned with the things contained in the Party program, but rather, how the party program was re alized. action and his forst program as Minister of Economy, he did not refer to the Party program, but rather, that his program was democratic and liberal.
The government was carried on just as it was in other states on the basis of emergencies and necessities. Rosenberg was the delegate of the Fuehrer for the supervision of the entire education and spiritual life under the NSDAP. In reading the affidavit of Dr. Eppert, I refer to the fact that Rosenberg as head of his office had no executive power in that capacity and that Rosenberg interpreted the duties of his office in such a way that he published magazines on cultural and scientific topics, and the contents, after 1933, always favored cultural subjects. is not in accordance with the fact that Rosenberg had used his opinion for any secret purpose. After 1933 he was very generous in his efforts to deal with political documents. I have said in addition that this foreign political office concentrated in such a way as to regulate all cultural values as they appeared, and to regulate them nobly. morality as the basis of the accusation. I should like to ask the High Tribunal, even though I do not read this topic of moral law, tat it consider this topic as having been read by me. In this connection, I should like to refer to Pages 82-a through 82-g, and I should like to ask the High Tribunal for permission not to read this matter and yet to have this matter considered as having been submitted and read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, all the speech will be taken as being presented to the Tribunal. By your summarizing it, you are not excluding it from the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take note of it all.
DR. THOMA: Thank you very much, Mr. President. following. Rosenberg was caught up in the destiny of his nation in a period of heavy foreign political opporession and internal dissension. He struggled for cultural purity, social justice and national dignity and rejected all the movements prompted by passion which did not admit these high values or which consciously attacked them in an irreverent manner. With respect to foreign policy he stood for an agreement, especially between the four central powers of the European continent, under recognition of the heavy consequences of a lost war.
a political shape and increasing power to his ideas. After the political victory at here, Rosenberg advocated the overcoming of the polemics and other aspects of the period of struggle. He stood for a chivalrous solution of the existing Jewish problem, for a large scale spiritual cultural instruction of the party, and, contrary to the statements of the prosecution, he refused any religious persecution. He cannot be blamed for emphasizing a definite religious-philosophical conviction of his own. The practical utilization of many of his views was accepted by authoritative agencies of the party but they were disregarded in a steadily increasing proportion, especially after the beginning of the war. Finally as has been discovered now, they were often turned into the opposite of what Rosenberg fought for. state legislation. his speeches and writings come within the scope of unofficial journalistic activity which every politician and writer must admittedly be at freedom to engage in, a freedom which the Tribunal has fundamentally acknowledged with regard to all utterances by the statesmen of all other countries during the unofficial period of their career. It seems to have all the more importance that Rosenberg as a private citizen did not make any appeals in favor of a war or any inhumane or violent act. consideration the comprehensible national and cultural aspirations of the Eastern European peoples. He fought for this conception as long as it had some prospects. Ultimately realising that Hitler refused to be persuaded, he requested his dismissal. The fact that he could not prevent many outrages from happening in the East cannot be brought a panel charge against him. Neither the Wehrmacht for the Police nor the Labor conscription were subject to his authority. Whenever injustices or excesses came to his knowledge, he did everything he could to counteract them. recruiting on a voluntary basis. When several age classes were later called, he protested against every abuse by the executives and always demanded redressing measures.
Quite apart from the legitimate requirements of the occupation power, his labor legislation for the Eastern territories was necessary for the establishment of order and the repression of despotism as well as of dangerous idleness, growing sabotage and increasing murderous actions. It was wartime and it was a war area, not a post-armistice period or by any means a period subsequent to a definite capitulation. berg fought for his good conviction. The fact that adverse powers were stronger cannot be brought as a charge against him. One cannot punish offenses and at the same time punish those who revolted against them. With regard to the terrible extermination orders which have now been disclosed, it is certainly possible to raise the point whether Rosenberg could not have exerted a much stronger opposition. Such a demand would, however, suppose an earlier knowledge of things which he only learned after the collapse. Should he be incriminated with any carelessness it must not be forgotten that he felt the duty of serving the German Reich and engaged in the struggle for its existence and that terrible injuries were also inflicted upon the German nation, injuries which Rosenberg was unable to accept as war necessities. Staff West and East, were carried out by Rosenberg in preserving his personal integrity. The seizure of artistic and cultural goods he always carried out provisionally, subject to final decision of supreme headquarters and, as far as it was possible in any way, subject to agreement with the proprietor. Moreover, for the use of stray furniture for the benefit of air raid victims in Germany, provisions were made for the subsequent indemnification of the proprietors based upon a precise inventory. belief and love for an ideal of social justice allied to national dignity. He has fought for it openly and honorably, he has gone to prison and risked his life for it. He did not only step in when National Socialism afforded the opportunity to begin a career but at a time when it was dangerous and only cost the life of victims. In his speeches after 1933, he took his stand in favor Of a deeper spiritual formation, a new cultural education, personality values and respect for every form of honest work.
He accepted the sombre days of that time as unfortunate but inevitable, accompanying phenomena of a revolution without bloodshed without having in fact been aware of the secret details. over these as well as other human imperfections. In the war, he was conscientiously at the service of the Reich. through the revolution and the events of the war. He had to experience with deep sorrow how a great idea in the hands of those possessed with the lust for power was gradually abused, and in 1944, at a party reunion, he protested again this abuse of power entrusted to its holders. He had to see at the court proceeding, to his disgust and horr, the evidence of the degeneration of his life ideal, but he knows that his aspirations and the aspirations of many millions of other Germans have been honorable and decent. Today indeed he stands up for his honorable, honest and humanly irreproachable conduct and, full of sorrow for the wounds inflicted upon all nations and for the downfall of the Reich, he awaits the sentence of a just Tribunal.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 July 1946, at 1000 hours).
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at four o'clock to sit in closed session.
Dr. Seidl , will you present the case of the defendant Frank? Mr. President, my Lords, The defendant Dr. Hans Frank is accused in the Indictment of having utilized his posts in Party and State, his personal influence and his relations with the Fuehrer for the purpose of supporting the seizure of power by the National Socialists and the consolidation of their control over Germany.
He is also accused of having approved, led and taken part in the war crimes mentioned in Count 3 of the Indictment, as well as in the crimes against humanity mentioned in Count 4, particularly in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the course of the administration of occupied territories. the Indictment fails to adduce any facts in substantiation of these accusations. It is similar in the case of the defendant Frank; here again the Indictment contains no statement of factual details to substantiate the accusations. having taken part in a common plan which is alleged to have had as its object the planning and waging of wars of aggression and the commission in the course of these wars of crimes which infringe upon the laws and customs of war. National Socialist arty in the year 1928. Both before and after the assumption of power by the National Socialists he was concerned almost exclusively with legal questions. The Reich Law Department was under his control as Reichsleiter of the Party, until the year 1942. After Adolf Hitler's appoint ment as Chancellor, Frank become the Bavarian Minister of Justice.
In the same year he was appointed Reich Commissioner for the political coordination of legal institutions. This task consisted in the main of transferring to the Reich Ministry of Justice the functions of the administrative legal departments of the component States of the Reich. That was completed in the year 1934. When the affairs of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice had been transferred to the Reich, the office of the defendant Frank as Bavarian Minister of Justice came to an end. In December 1934 he was appointed Reich Minister without portfolio. In addition he became, from 1934, onward, President of the Academy for Germany Law, which he himself had founded, and President of the International Chamber of Law. Finally, he was the Leader of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association. and State would alone be sufficient to show that his work was almost exclusively concerned with legal matters. His tasks were in the main confined to the execution of Point 19 of the Party Programme, which demanded a German Common Law. And in actual face almost all speeches and publications by the defendant Frank, both before and after the assumption of power by the National Socialist, dealt with legal questions in the widest sense of the term.