But with regard to that again the Prosecution take the line that that
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Hess and Frank): Mr.
President, the affidavit of the Ambassador Dr. Gauss which had already been accepted by the Tribunal is in evidence under Number H016, gives part of the negotiations. Ambassador Dr. Gauss was not present at the negotiations which took place before the pact was made. I have therefore made the motion to call Legation Secretary Hilger as a witness after he had already been approved as a witness for the defendant von Ribbentrop. I have, furthermore, requested that the Tribunal should get the text of that secret additional agreement. I have to admit, however, that this request has no longer the importance which it had at the time when it was made. In the meantime we received a copy of that secret agreement. cerning the German-Soviet border pact and furthermore, I have an affidavit by Ambassador Dr. Gauss of the first of April of this year from which the identification with the text which had been drafted on the 23rd of August and the 28th of September, 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that document being produced for the consideration of the Tribunal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Not at all, my Lord, As I say, the Tribunal has considered our objection on relevance and we have lost on it and therefore it is not really open to me to argue any question of the relevance of the document in view of the decision of the Tribunal.
The only point that I make is that Dr. Seidl produces an alleged copy of the treaty, supported by an affidavit of Ambassador Gauss then it immensely strengthens my argument, I submit, against him being allowed to call the witnesses.
COLONEL POKROV KSY: The Soviet Prosecution on the question which is now being discussed by the Tribunal today has submitted a document to the General Secretariate of the International Tribunal. If this document is already in your possession then I need not talk about our position here. But, if you find it necessary I am going to speak about it here. We are against it because of the statements---
THE PRESIDENT: Are you presenting an argument or a document of some sort?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, I am not going to argue about it and return to this question if you have this document.
THE PRESIDENT: You misunderstood me. You mentioned a document which you answere was in the possession of the Tribunal. I am not aware that we have got any document from the Soviet Prosecution. It may be that it has been received and if so we will consider it, of course. document of some sort.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The question here is regarding the official answer of the Soviet Prosecution on the question as to whether we consider it necessary to consider the request of Dr. Seidl regarding a group of questions connected with the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: You think it would be possible to be content with just the document which is in your possession now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, certainly, unless you wish to say anything. We
COLONEL POKROVSKY: There is going to be no further information regarding it.
Our position has been in detail stated in this document and if you have
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on the 13th of April I had made a written motion to be permitted to submit an annex as Exhibit Hess 17.
I have submitted this document in six copies with the request to have them translated.
They are the following documents:
first, a German-Soviet non-agression pact of 23 August, 1939, which was submitted under G.B. 145 by the Prosecution; second, the supplementary protocol of the same date; third, the German-Soviet friendship and border pact of 28 August, 1939; fourth, the secret supple second affidavit which I have mentioned before by Ambassador Dr. Gauss.
Dr. Gauss here before this Court -- he is in Nurnberg -- if the Tribunal I ask the Tribunal to make its decision about these motions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: My Lord, this an application for a witness Dieckhoff, in regard to whom interrogatories have already been granted. As I understand, the reason is that witness Tirpke has been found to have retired from the German Foreign Office some eighteen months earlier than was thought. Baron von Ludinghausen has suggested that, to balance the calling of Dieckhoff as a witness, he will give up the calling of the witness Zimmermann and have an affidavit of interrogatory instead. My Lord, that seems to the Prosecution a very reasonable suggestion and we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, no objection to Dieckhoff as a witness and Zimmerman for an affidavit or interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, that is all with regard to the defendant von Neurath.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Then, with regard to the defendant Schacht, it is only the petition of the witness Hilser, and the Prosecution does not really mind whether Dr. Dix calls him or puts in an affidavit. I think that it is only a question of whether the witness will be available to come here from Hamburg and, if he is available, we have no objection to him being called as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Then My Lord, next one on the list is an application on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, with-drawel of interrogatories for Mende granted on the 23rd of March as the prospective witness is not located and interrogatories for Marenbach in place of Mende, who can give the same testimony. Dr. Servatius believes that Marenbach is located at the Garmisch internment camp. The Prosecution have no objection to that.
My Lord, I think there was a formal one from Dr. Thoma with regard to the use of the sworn statement by Professor Denker, but there is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already allowed that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: You have already allowed that, this is only the formal application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well, Then we will consider those matters. There are a number of documents, the production of which the Defendant Sauckel's counsel is applying.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been suggested to us that counsel for the Defendant Sauckel and counsel of the Prosecution could help us over that matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, my friend, Mr. Roberts, has been dealing with Dr. Servatius upon this point; so, perhaps he could help the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, will it take a long time for that or not?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think so. The Tribunal, I understand-
COLONEL POKROWSKI: I should like to tell the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution did not receive any documents regarding which the British Prosecutor just spoke and we ask not to discuss these documents until the moment when we shall have the opportunity to see them.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that that these documents have not been translated yet. The question really is the preliminary one of which documents should be translated, and we were only going through the documents in order to see which documents were sufficiently relevant to be translated; so that it would not be-
COLONEL POKROWSKI: Very well.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the Tribunal, I understand, has made a preliminary order of just striking out the documents which Dr. Servatius and I agreed should not be presented. My Lord, that leaves a very large number of documents, of which I think the Tribunal has a list. My Lord, the first sixty-eight documents, or rather from documents 6 to 68, are regulations dealing with the conditions of the employment of labor in Germany. My Lord, I have seen Dr. Servatius' proposed document book and he has marked certain passages which he would desire to read and which would have to be translated, My Lord, and that does cut down the bulk of the documents very considerably.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, we have not read all these documents yet and as they are not translated, can you indicate to us whether you have any objection to them being translated?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think I could object to those first documents from 6 to 68. The passages marked are being translated because from their description they appear to be relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 6 to 68.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the passages which are actually marked?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then will you go on?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: 69 to 79 he has already struck out.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, 80 and 81 I object to. They are documents making allegations of the breach of the Hague Regulations by the Soviet nation. My Lord, I submit that that is not relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: The allegations of illegal acts by the Soviet Government with reference to individuals?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, I submit that that could not be relevant at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and 82 and 89 you do not object to these?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not object to those, the passages as marked.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius promised, as far as he could, to cut down the passages which were going to be marked.
My Lord, 90 and 91 I object to. Dr. Servatius wants to put in under the description of documents a large number of affidavits, the number of which I think is not yet ascertained, affidavits by various persons as to the conditions of labor and the conditions under which foreign workers were employed. My Lord, the defendant Sauckel has been allowed a certain number of witnesses and also affidavits or interrogatories from other people.
My Lord, I submit that this application under 90 and 91, two files of affidavits, is not really an application for documents at all, and it should be disallowed.
THE PRESIDENT: No.92 he has struck out
MR. ROBERTS: 92 has been struck out.
My Lord, No. 93 is, in fact, a book, which was referred to be the French Prosecutor, and , therefor, of course, Dr. Servatius would be entitled to refer to it in his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the passages marked in that or not?
MR. ROBERTS: Well, he has not marked any as yet. There are some pictures My Lord, of -
THE PRESIDENT: He only wants the pictures?
MR. ROBERTS: I think so, My Lord, Showing the cherubic happiness of the foreign workers in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 94 is an affidavit of Sauckel's son. It is only required, I understand, if one of three other witnesses, who have been allowed, are not available. My Lord, it is to deal with the allegation that Sauckel ordered the evacuation of Buchenwald and, My Lord, I cannot object to this very short affidavit if Dr. Servatius cannot produce one of the three witnesses who have been allowed to him.
My Lord, 95 are Sauckel's speeches, and Dr. Servatius again has promised to cut down the passages which he has marked. It is difficult to object to that in view of the allegation of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 95 and 97 are books, in which there are very short extracts, which have been m arked, and, again, as it deals with a relevant period of the alleged conspiracy, Mr Lord, I do not see how I can object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: In the same category, yes. Does that meet with your views Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, principally, I have negotiated with the Prosecutor and this is the result: Only to a few documents I would like to say something; that is documents 80 and 81. One is the photostat of the deportation order of the City of Hoelz; the other one an affidavit concerning forced labor in Saaz. I need the first document in order to prove that the convention of the Hague was obsolete; that is to say, that before the armistice, already during the fighting, the population of the Eastern German territories was sent to Russia for forced labor; and I have supplemented the motion because I thought it was too meager for proof to find out from the mayors of cities in East Prussia that the larger part of the population has been deported for work for forced labor. I believe that, in order to proce that the Convention of the Hague in the East was considered non-existent, is of great importance for the defense of my client.
Document 81 deals with a condition after the armistice but which appears only as a continuation of that which has occurred in the East and confirms that under the occupation of the Soviet Army that condition continued to exist, that is to say, the recruitment of the population for work, not within the sense of the Convention of the Hague for the repair of roads but also for the purpose of work in industry and activities outside of the framework of the Convention of the Hague.
proof, to use these matters of proof. content. They are two folders with a collection of affidavits. The attempt is made to bring counterproof against an investigation made by a government with which we were confronted. of individual cases put together like a Mosaic. There are mass conditions which can only be understood in this sense. which could make a report of that kind, and I am suggesting that at first I shall bring a collection of affidavits concerning these conditions, and I do not intend to submit every one of these affidavits. My motion is that the Court should appoint one judge who should study that folder and report about it, make a report about it to the Tribunal. That is the thing which later, in dealing with political organizations, they will have to be confronted with. That is the problem, how these mass conditions can be presented to the Tribunal. say "Well, one witness cannot cover the entire ground," On the other hand, I cannot come here with a hundred or more witnesses. So this would be a medium solution, a solution that one person should study the material and then give a report. That is the content of these two folders.
THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you in mind or have you obtained?
DR. SERVATIUS: So far it is still very small, what I have received. It appears that those who know something are very concerned and very reticent, because they are afraid they will be prosecuted. But I hope to be able be make a selection of sensible statements, and I believe that there will be about 20 or 30 affidavits. Of course I would limit it to that, because I am not interested in occupying the Court with unnecessary work. that I will have to withdraw my motion, because I have to admit myself that so far up to now the amount of material is very small; but I wish that the possibility would be left open for me and when it comes to it I should like to present it to the Court again.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Is that all you want to say?
DR. SERVATIUS: There is still Document Number 93, the illustrated booklet, "Europe Works in Germany."
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Prosecution object?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, the Prosecution didn't object. I only would like to show some pictures and projections. It is the problem to demonstrate under what conditions these people arrived from the East and what they looked like later, such as it can be shown in a pamphlet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
MR. ROBERTS: There was one other point which I ought to mention. Perhaps Dr. Servatius would be good enough to listen.
My Lord, Dr. Servatius has applied in writing to the Tribunal, by letter dated the 5th of March 1946, for all medical reports of Dr. Jaeger, who was a chief camp doctor at Krebs-Essen. Secondly, all monthly reports of a man called Groene, who was a colleague of Dr. Jaeger. Thirdly, all minutes of monthly conferences which the chief camp leader held with his subordinate camp leaders at Krebs.
My Lord, the position is this: That the French put in -- oh, I think our American colleagues put in an affidavit of Dr. Jaeger, and Dr. Jaeger himself has been granted as a witness for Sauckel, and so he will be seen in the witness box.
My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Jaeger being asked, I suppose, to bring his reports with him if they are available. We haven't got them, and I don't think we know where they are, but the witness is being called.
DR. SERVATIUS: The bulk of these documents I have received already, and I assume that I will also receive the rest. I believe the material which I have now is sufficient for my purpose so that it is not necessary to bother the Prosecution any more.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean we need make no order?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 18 April 1946 at 1000 hours.)
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
The United States of
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Hans Frank): Mr. President, on the 9th of April of this year I have made the application deviating from the rule made by the Tribunal that I may first of all present the documents, then call the witnesses, and then at the end to call on the defendant as a witness. I do not yet know whether the Tribunal is already in possession of the document books, and I, myself, have ascertained that Volume 1 of the document book was translated by the 8th of April; Volumes 2 and 3 by the 11th of April; and Volumes 4 and 5 a few days later. At any rate, I have not yet received any document books myself for the reason that the department responsible for the binding of the books has not yet received permission to bind the books.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought I asked about this, not yesterday, but the day before--yesterday, yes, and you said you were perfectly ready to go on.
DR. SEIDL: I had been told that the books had been translated and I assumed it to be a matter of course that these books had also been bound. Yesterday I had discovered that this is not the case. At any rate, there is no guilt on my part in this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not suggesting that there was any guilt on your part.
MR. DODD: In the first place, we did not have much to go over with Dr. Seidl. The agreement was reached with him the night before last about six o'clock or a little afterwards. Hereafter the Materials were put into the process of preparation and there are five hundred pages. They have just not been completed, and it is not so that the people did not receive authority to go ahead. They have not been able to complete their work and there will be some delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you can go on with your witnesses. You have the defendant himself to call and several other witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: And the documents will no doubt be ready by then. We are rising at half past four, and by the time that the Tribunal reassembles, by Tuesday morning, no doubt all the documents will be ready. As be your application, The Tribunal has considered the application and sees no reason to depart from their ordinary rule that the defendant should be called first; that is to say, if you intend be call the defendant.
DR. SEIDL: Oh yes, I have the intention of examining the defendant; but in the interests of accelerating the matter I had suggested that the other witnesses should be heard first, so that the examination of the actual defendant could be as short as possible. It may be possible that he can then answer a number of questions merely by saying yes or no. Another reason why I consider this procedure as best suitable is because a proper examination of the defendant is only possible if I have the document books at hand at the same time. That necessity does not apply to the remaining witnesses. I should, therefore like to ask the Tribunal to give me permission so that I can first of all near the witnesses who are already in the witness' room.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents are all or nearly all, I imagine, in German and can be put to the defendant in the course of his examination, and the Tribunal think; as they have already said, that calling the defendant first is in the interests of expedition and they, therefore feel they must adhere to their rule.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the defendant Dr. Hans Frank to the witness stand.
HANS FRANK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you give your full name?
A Hans Frank.
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Will you sit down please. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, when and where were you born?
Q Please will you briefly state what education you have had? 1926 I passed the state examination for lawyers, which completed my scientific training.
Q And what were the activities you carried out after that?
A I had several legal jobs. I worked as a lawyer. I was a member of the instructional staff of a technical high school and, in the main, I worked as the legal advisor for Adolph Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Q Since when have you been a member of the NSDAP? of the National Socialist German Workers Party since 1919. I joined the newly formed NSDAP not at all. In 1923, however, I joined the movement in Munich as a member of the SA and, eventually, I entered the NSDAP finally in 1927.
Q Were you ever a member of the SS?
or General of the SS.
Q You were a member of the SA. What was the last position you held therein? honorary position. and which functions did you carry out? Leadership office of the NSDAP. In that capacity in 1931 I was also made Reichsleiter of the NSDAP by Adolf Hitler. I held this position until I was called away in 1942. These are the principal offices I have held in the Party. with legal questions within the Party, haven't you. the interest of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP and its members during the difficult years of struggle, in the interest of the victory of the movement, state? of the Party program, which was talking about the German common law to be created. In the interest of accelerating the proceedings, I do not wish to make a detailed statement regarding my thoughts. The main point was that I was making efforts to create a model for the legal system in Germany, and by that I can the independent judge. development of the Leadership State, even as far as dictatorship, there would be danger for the community and the legal safety of the individual, and that this would be rather smaller if there were a judge who would be independent from the leaders of the state and would act amongst the nation.
with the question of the existence of independent legislation. My principal struggles and discussions with Himmler, Hitler, and Bormann during all these years were more and more directed to this particular sphere. Only When the independent judge in the National Socialist Reich had finally been overcome was my work and my efforts a hopeless case. parliament.
Q Which positions did you hold after 1933? after the independent ministries of justice in the several states were dissolved I became minister without portfolio. had been founding. I was the Reich Leader of the National Socialist Union of Lawyers, which was later on given the title of the Legal Caretakers, and in 1933 and 1934 I was Reich Commissioner for Justice. In 1939 I became Governor General of the Government General in Cracow. founder of? The main task, the central task, of that Academy was to carry out Point 13 of the Party program, German common law, and in such a way that it would tally with the legal culture in the German Reich. limited to an advisory capacity? leading legal minds in Germany, both theoretical and practical. Right from the beginning I paid no attention to the question whether the members were Party members or not. 90 per cent of its members were not members of the Party. Their task was the preparation of laws, and they were carrying out the activities of an advisory committee in a well organized parliament.
background of the German parliament, the advisory committees in the German legal world should take their place in the Academy instead of the legal advisory committees in the Reichstag. social nature, since in ever increasing measure the participation in all other spheres became more and more impossible, due to the development of the autocratic system.
State with regard to the legal world were therefore in the hands of the Ministry for Justice and that wasn't you.
A No, I was not Minister of Justice in the Reich. The Reichminster of Justice, Dr. G uertner, was, however, not active in the entire legislative world. He was responsible only for those laws which came immediately under his ministry. Legislation in the Reich, in accordance with the authorizin law, was in the hands of the Fuehre and Reichschancellor and the entire Reich G overnment. Consequently, my name appears in the Reich Law Gazette at the bottom of only one law, and that is the law regardin the reintroduction of general rearmament, but I am proud to find my name at the end of that law. Bavarian Minister of Justice. ection with concentration camps or to state your views, and under what circumstances did that happen? with the report which came from the Advocate General's Department in Munich to me on the occasion of the killing of the Munich solicitor Dr. Strauss. The Adjutant General's Department complained to me because I had given them orders to investigate this murders and they stated that they had been refused admission to the concentration camp at Dachau by the SS. Epp, and asked him to attend the meeting, during which I produced the files regarding this killing and pointed out the impossibility of such an action on the part of the SS, and stated that up to that moment representatives from the German Public Prosecutor's Office had had an opportunity to investigate any killing in connection with which suspicion arose, and that a departure, at least until then, had not become known to me. After that, I continued by protesting against this method to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. G uertner, who was the supreme head of the legal system in Germany, and I pointed out that this meant the beginning of a development which was threatening the legal system in G ermany in the most serious manner possible.