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.
testified that he had done everything he could to bring Adolf Hitler to power and to carry out the ideas and the program of the National Socialist party. But whatever the defendant undertook in this respect was done openly. of the defendant Hess. The aim of the National Socialists before they assumed power can be expressed in a few words : ty; elimination of the huge mass of unemployment which had arisen in consequen ce of that Treaty, and of the unreasonnable Reparations policy of Germany's former enemies; elimination of the signs of degenaracy - political, economic, social and moral -connected with that unemployment; and finally, the restoration of the sovereignty of the German Reich in all spheres.
revision of the Versailles Treaty was, if necessary, to be carried out by violent means and by war. The political, military and economic situation in which Germany found herself before the assumption of power - a situation in which it could only be a question of eliminating, the terrible consequences of the economic collapse and of enabling seven million unemployed again to play their part in the economic process - necessarily made any serious thought of a war of aggression appear futile. common plan, the evidence and, in particular, the testimony given by the witness Dr. Lammers and the defendant himself in the witness box, has show in the contrary that Frank did not belong to the circle of Hitler's closer collaborators. The Prosecution was unable to present to the Tribunal a single document dealing with important political or military decisions with which the defendant Frank was connected. In particular, the defendant Frank was not present at any conference with Hitler which the Prosecution considered especially important for proving the alleged common plan, the minutes of which con ferences the Prosecution has submitted as Exh ibits USA numbers 25 to 34. ning the re-introdution of General Conscription of March 16, 1935. I have already explained in detail what led to the promulgation of that law and why it cannot be looked upon as an infringement of the Versailles Treaty.
The defendant Frank signed that law in his capacity as Reich Minister, as did all the other members of the Reich Government. That law, which had as its object the restoration-at least in the military sphere- of the sovereignty of the German Reich, did not harm to any other nation. Nor did the content of that law, or the circumstances which led to its enactment, allow the conclusion that it was part of a common plan whose object was the launching of a war of aggression. seventeen years, that the voice of a nation without military power, and in particular a nation in Germany's geographical and military situation, cannot make itself heard in the concert of nations if it has not at tis disposal adequate instruments of power.
The Government of the German Reich faced the consequences of this realization, after equality of rights had been promised the German people over and over again for fourteen years and that promise had not been kept, and in particular after it had become clear in the years 1933 and 1934 that the Disarmament Conference would not be capable of fulfilling its appointed functions. that law. of opwer and up to the beginning of the war, was confined almost exclusively to the execution of tasks connected with the leadership of the Academy for German Law and the National Socialist Lawyers' Association. concerning its establishment of July 11, 1933. It was intended to encourage the reform of German legal processes and, in close and constant cooperation with the appropriate legislative authorities, to put the National Socialist program into practice in the whole sphere of law. The Academy was under the supervision of the Reich Minister of Justice and the Reich Minister of the Interior. The function of the Academy was to prepare draft of statutes. Legislation itself was exclusively a matter for the appropriate Reich Ministries for the various departments.
Legal properties in this sense are honor, freedom, life and carnings from work. bled to procure someone to defend him who is capable of making legal statements on his behalf and he must have an impartial hearing according to law. If these principles are applied to their full extent, then the Germanic ideal of law is fulfilled." employed in a police-ruled State and imply, moreover, the unmistakable rejection of the system of concentration camps.. The defendant Frank had actually spoken against the establishment of concentration camps before the date indicated. The evidence has shown that in the year 1933, in his capacity as Bavarian Minister of Justice, he was opposed to the concentration camp at Dachau, that he urged the application of the so-called legality principle that is the prosecution of all offences by the State -even in these camps, and that, over and above this, he demanded the dissolution of the concentration campat Dachau. That this last point is a fa is shown by the evidence, taken on commission of the witness, Dr. Stepp.
The Prosecution also appears to see in the sentence "Law is what is useful to the people" an indication of the participation of the defendant Frank in the alleged common plan. Such a conclusion could only be drawn from a complete misapprehension of the idea which the defendant Frank wished to express by means of this sentence.
It is merely the issue of a challenge a to the individualistically, ever-sensitized legal idea. In the same sense as is implied in the phrase "The common good before one's own" the sentence quoted is intended to express the demand for a legal system, to a greater extent than in previous years, takes account of common law and socialist tendencies.
It is in reality nothing more than a different way of saying: Salus publica suprema lex. unthinkable that the defendant Frank could have belonged to the inner circle of Hitler's collaborators. The differences of outlook in regard to the functions of law were bound to become more apparent in the course of the war. It could therefore cause no surprise that after the death of the former Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, it was not the defendant Frank who was appointed as his successor, but the President of the People's Court, Dr. Thierack.
And to sum up: It may be said that there is no factual foundation for the assumption that the defendant Frank participated in a common plan, a common plan which had as its object the waging of on aggressive war and in connection therewith the commission of crimes againt the rulesof war. Before I turn to the points of accusation brought against the defendant Front within the framework of his career as Governor-General, I will refer shortly to responsibility under penal law as a member of the organizations accused of criminality.
So far as Frank's responsibility as member of the Reich Government is under investigation, I can here refer in the main to the statements which I will also make in the case of the defendant Hess. The only difference lies in the fact that whereas Hess too was only Reich Minister without Portfolio, he had a as the Fuehrer's Deputy under the Fuehrer's decree of July 27, 1934 a considerable part to play in the preparation of laws. That however, was not the case with the defendant Frank. Frank had hardly any influence at all on the legislation of the Reich. That is why he was co-signatory of so extraordinary few Reich laws. With the exception of the law of the 16th of March, 1935, by which general conscription was re-introduced, his name is to be found under none of the laws which the Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal as relevant to the proof of the criminal nature of the Reich Government as an organization.
Reich Law Department, was also a member of the leadership Corps of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. An investigation of this point of accusation Frank which fulfil the requirements of any penal law. For the rest, and apart from that, here too I can refer to my statements in the case of the defendant Hess. a General of the SS. The evidence has shown that Frank at no time belonged to the SS and that he did not even have the honorary rank of a general of the SS. On the other hand, he was an Obergruppenfuehrer in the SA. With respect to the application made by the Prosecution to declare that organization as criminal too. the same may be said as in the case of the application to declare the Leadership Corps criminal. The Charter and the Prosecution here again depart from the principle which hitherto has been considered an indispensable component of my modern criminal law practice, the principle, namely, that no punishment is admissible unless guilt has been established in every individual case.
My Lords: defendant Frank as Governor-General. When the Polish Government had left the country after Poland's military collapse, the German occupying forces were faced with the task of building up an administration without the help of any parliamentary representation or any representatives of the former Polish STate. The difficulties arising out of this situation were bound to be all the greater because, in spite of the comparatively short time that the war had lasted, the war damage, especially to the communications system, was not inconsiderable. Above all, however the establishment of an orderly administrqtion was rendered more difficult by the fact that the unitary economic territory of the former Polish State was divided into three parts. Of the 388,000 square kilometers which made up the territory of the former Polish State, about 200,000 square kilometers were taken over by the Soviet Union, 97,000 sq. km. formed the Government-General, while the rest was incorporated in the German Reich. A change came on August 1, 1941. On that date Galicia was annexed to the GovernmentGeneral as a new district, whereby the territory of the Government-General was increased to an area of approximately 150,000 square kilometers with about 18 million inhabitants.
This frontier-delimitation made it all the more difficult for the administration, as the agricultural excess products all went to the Soviet Union, while on the other hand, important industrial cities such as Lodz, and above all the coal-fields of Dombrowa, fell to the Reich. was set up to cover the four military districts of East Prussia, Posen, Lodz and Cracow, and Commander-in-Chief General von Rundstedt being placed at the head of that Government. The defendant Frank became Supreme Chief of Administration (Oberverwaltungschef). into force of the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the administration of the occupied Polish territories under the date of 12 October Through this decree the defendant Frank was appointed Governor-General for the occupied Polish territories which were not incorporated in the Reich and which shortly afterwards became known as the "Government-General". question as to whether the administration of the territories of the former Polish State jointly designated as the Government-General should have conformed to the principle of occupatis bellica(occupation of enemy territory), or whether it should not rather be assumed that the principles of dobellatio (complete subjection and incorporation in a foreign State) were applicable in that case. by virtue of his office of Governor-General. According to Article 3 of the Fuehrer Decree of October 12, 1939 the Governor-General was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer. The same provision placed all branches of the administration in the hands of the Governor-General. powers as it would seem at first sight. The Fuehrer's Decree itself, provided in Article 5, that the Ministerial Council for the Defence of the Reich could also make laws for the territory of the Government-General.
The Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year-Plan had the same power. Articl 6 provided that over and above all, the highest Reich authorities could issue decrees necessary for planning within the German living space and economic area.
and that these would be effective also for the Government-General. as provided in the Fuehrer Decree of October 12, 1939, other powers were conferred at a later dat, which impaired to unequal degree the principle of a military administration. That is particularly true of the position of the Plenipotentiary for Labour. I refer at this point to the appropriate documents presented by the Prosecution and the Defense, in particular to the Fuehrer Decree of March 21, 1942, in which it is expressly provided that the powers of the Plenipotentiary for Labour extend to the territory of the GovernmentGeneral. The whole armament industry in the Government-General was at first in the hands of the OKW, but after the establishment of the Reich Ministry of Armaments, it came under the jurisdiction of the latter.
The evidence has also shown that in other directions too the principle of military administration was extensively infringed upon. For this I refer to the statements of the witnesses Dr. Lammers and Dr. Buehler and to the contents of the documents submitted by me, especially the document USA 135. This deals with the directives in "special matters concerning instruction No. 21" (case Barbaressa)", in which it is expressly provided that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army shall be entitled "to order such measures in-the Government-General a are necessary for the execution of his military duties and for safeguarding the troops", and in which the Commander-in-Chief is empowered to delegate his authority to the Army groups and armies. all special powers, however, pale beside the special position allotted to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler even in respect of the territory of the GovernmentGeneral. The evidence, and particularly the testimony of Dr. Bilfinger, councillor in the RSHA, shows that as early as in 1939, when the defendant was appointed Governor-General, a secret decree was issued in which it was provided that the Higher SS and Police-Deader East was to receive his instructions direct from the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police Himmler. Similarly, it is provided in the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor for the Consolidation of the German Nation that the Reichsfuehrer SS should be directly empowered to effect the formation of new German Settlement areas by means of resettlements. These two decrees conferred on the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler powers which from the very first day of the existence of the Government-General were to confront its administration with almost insurmountable difficulties. It was very soon evident that the general Administration under the Governor-General had at its disposal no executive organs in the true meaning of the term. Since the Higher SS and Police-leader East received his instructions and orders direct from Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and refused to carry out instructions emanating from the Governor-General, it was very soon seen that in reality there were two separate authorities ruling over the Government-General. The difficulties which thus arose were bound to become all the greater as Higher SS and Policeleader Krueger, who for not loss than four years was Himmler's direct representative in the Government-General, did not even inform the administration of the Government-General before carrying out police measures.
administration lacking executive police organs is in the long run not capable of carrying out its appointed functions. This is even true under normal conditions, but must be more especially the case in the administration of occupied territory. If we remember, moreover, not only that Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler issued his instructions direct to the Higher SS and Police leader, ignoring the Governor-General, but that over and above this, the offices III, IV, V & VI of the RSHA also gave direct orders, namely to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Cracow - then we can assess the difficulties with which the civil administration of the Government-General had to wrestle day by day. every attempt to reach some form of cooperation with the Security Police, unless he was prepared to relinquish entirely any hope of building up a civil administration in the Government-General. And in fact the history of the administration of the Government-General -- which lasted more than five years is for the greater part nothing but a chronicle of uninterrupted struggles between the Governor-General and the administration on the one hand and, on the other, the Security Police (including the SD) represented by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and the Higher SS and Police leader East. resettlements. As Reichs Commissioner for the Consolidation of the German Nation Himmler and his organs carried out resettlement measures without even getting into previous contact with the administration of the GovernmentGeneral or informing the Governor-General.
The numerous protests of the Governor-General, addressed to Dr. Lammers, Reichsminister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, with regard to the measures taken by the Reichsfuehrer and the Higher SS and Police leader East and the difficulties they put in the way of the administration of that territory, have been established by the efidence. These protests led in the year 1942 to an attempted new regulation of the relationship between the administration and the police.
In retrospect, it can be said today as a result of the evidence that even this attempt was only utilized by Himmler and the Security Police to undermine internally and externally the position of the Governor-General and his civil administration. Security was established in the Government-General, and the Higher SS and Police leader was appointed State Secretary. According to Article II of this Decree, the State Secretary for Security also became the representative of the Reichsfuehrer SS in his capacity as Reichs Commissioner for the consolidation of the German nation. The, decisive provision of this decree is contained in Article IV, in which it is stated verbatim:
"The Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of German Police can issue direct instructions to the State Secretary for Security in natters pertaining to Security and the Consolidation of the German nation." the establishment of the Government-General - which also provided that the Higher SS and Police leader East was to receive his instructions direct from the Berlin central offices and above all from the Reichsfuehrer SSin person was expressly and now publicly confirmed. It is true that Article V of the Fuehrer Decree of May 7, 1942 provided that in case of differences of opinion between the Governor-General and the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of German Police the Fuehrer's decision was to be obtained through the Reichs Minister and Chief of Chancellery. when he appeared as witness before this Tribunal. He testified that in so far as he found it possible at all to gain the Fuehrer's ear in these matters, the latter on principle invariably approved Himmler's view. This is not surprising if we remember Himmler's position in the German Governmental system, particularly during the later war years. This deprived the defendant Frank of the last possibility of influencing in any way the measures taken by Himmler and the Higher SS and Police leader East. 1942, the scope of duties of the State Secretary for Security had to be newly defined.