The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-30.03


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-30.03
Last-Modified: 1999/09/23

I do not want to take this in detail, but I ask the Tribunal
to look at the first sentence of Section 3:

   "It follows from the above that the main weight of the
   action will have to be placed on lynchings. Should the
   campaign be carried out to such an extent that the
   purpose, to wit: 'the deterrence of enemy aviators,' is
   actually achieved, which goal is favoured by the Foreign
   Office, then the strafing attacks by enemy fliers upon
   the civilian populations must be stressed in a
   completely different propagandist manner."

I do not think I need trouble the Tribunal, but that shows
quite clearly the defendant's point of view. If the Tribunal
would look at the next document, it is stated at the
beginning of the second paragraph:

   "Ambassador Ritter has advised us by telephone on 29th
   June that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has approved
   this draft."

That is the position as to the treatment of aviators, where
there is, in my suggestion, a completely cold-blooded and
deliberate adoption of a procedure evading International
Law.

The second section is the destruction of the peoples in
Europe. With regard to Poland, again I will not go into
details, but I remind the Tribunal of the evidence of the
witness Lahousen (Pages 275-6, Part 1), and his cross-
examination on the 1st December (Pages 318-20, Part 1).

                                                  [Page 101]

Secondly, Bohemia and Moravia: on the 16th March, 1939,
there was promulgated the decree of the Fuehrer and
Reichschancellor, signed by Ribbentrop, concerning the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. That is already in as
Exhibit GB 8 - Document TC-51. The effect of that was to
place the Reich Protector in a remarkable position of
supremacy under the Fuehrer. The only part which I would
like the Tribunal to have in mind is Article 5, and sub-
Article 2:

   "It shall be the duty of the Reich Protector, as
   representative of the Fuehrer and Chancellor of the
   Reich, and as Commissioner of the Reich Government, to
   see to the observance of the political principles laid
   down by the Fuehrer and Chancellor of the Reich.
   
   3. The members of the government of the protectorate
   shall be confirmed by the Reich Protector. The
   confirmation may be withdrawn.
   
   4. The Reich Protector is entitled to inform himself of
   all measures taken by the government of the protectorate
   and to give advice. He can object to measures calculated
   to harm the Reich, and, in case of danger, issue
   ordinances required for the common interest.
   
   5. The promulgation of laws, etc., and the execution of
   administrative measures and valid sentences are to be
   suspended if the Reich Protector raises an objection."

As a result of this law, the two Reich Protectors of Bohemia
and Moravia, and their various deputies, were appointed, and
then there were committed the various crimes, which will be
detailed by my Soviet colleague.

Similarly, with regard to the Netherlands, on the 8th May,
1940, a decree of the Fuehrer was signed by Ribbentrop
concerning the exercise of governmental authority in the
Netherlands; and that is Document D-639, which I put in as
Exhibit GB 154, Section 1 says:

   "The occupied Netherlands territories will be
   administered by the 'Reich Commissioner for the Occupied
   Netherlands Territories' ... the Reich Commissioner is
   guardian of the interests of the Reich and vested with
   supreme civil authority.
   
   Dr. Artur Seyss-Inquart is hereby appointed Reich
   Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories."

On the basis of this decree, the Reich Commissioner - the
defendant Seyss-Inquart - promulgated such orders as that of
the 4th July, 1940, dealing with the confiscation of
property of those who had, or might have furthered
activities hostile to the German Reich, and tentative
arrangements were made for the resettlement of the Dutch
population. This will be dealt with fully by my French
colleague.

I simply, for the moment, put in as a matter of reference
the general order of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, which is
Exhibit GB 155, the document being 2921-PS. I do not intend
to read it. I have summarised the effect of it, and it will
be dealt with more fully by my French colleagues.

I want the Tribunal to appreciate, with regard to these two
matters of Bohemia and the Netherlands, that the charge
against this defendant is laying the basis and procuring the
governmental structure under which the War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity were directed.

I also formally put in Exhibit GB 156, the discussion on the
question of the Dutch population, which is contained in
Document 1520-PS. Again, I have explained it generally and I
do not want to occupy time by reading it in full now.

Finally, I come to the persecution of the Jews. In December,
1938, the defendant Ribbentrop, in a conversation with M.
Bonnet, who was then Foreign Minister of France, expressed
his opinion of the Jews. That was reported by the United
States Ambassador, Mr. Kennedy, to the State Department. The
report of Mr. Kennedy is Document L-205, which I now put in

                                                  [Page 102]

as Exhibit GB 157. If I might read to the Tribunal the
second paragraph which concerns this point:

   "During the day we had a telephone call from Berenger's
   office in Paris. We were told that the matter of
   refugees had been raised by Bonnet in his conversation
   with von Ribbentrop. The result was very bad.
   Ribbentrop, when pressed, had said to Bonnet that the
   Jews in Germany, without exception, were pickpockets,
   murderers and thieves. The property they possessed had
   been acquired illegally. The German Government had
   therefore decided to treat them as the criminal elements
   of the population. The property which they had acquired
   illegally would be taken from them. They would be forced
   to live in the districts of the criminal classes. They
   would be under police observation like other criminals.
   They would be forced to report to the police as other
   criminals were obliged to do. The German Government
   could not help it if some of these criminals escaped to
   other countries which seemed so anxious to have them. It
   was not, however, willing to let them take along with
   them the property which they had acquired through
   illegal operations. There was in fact nothing that it
   could or would do."

That succinct statement of this defendant's views on Jews is
elaborated in a long document which he had sent out by the
Foreign Office, which is numbered 3358-PS, which I put in as
Exhibit GB 158. I do not want to read the whole of that
document because it is excessively dreary. It is also an
excessively clear indication of the defendant's views on the
treatment of Jews; but if the Tribunal would look at, first
of all, Page 3, it is headed, "The Jewish Question as a
Factor in German Foreign Policy in the year 1938." After the
four divisions the document goes on to say:

   "It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year
   1938 has brought nearer the solution of the Jewish
   question, simultaneously with the realisation of the
   'idea of Greater Germany,' since the Jewish policy was
   both the basis and consequence of the events of the year
   1938."

That is elaborated. If the Tribunal will turn over to Page 4
at the beginning of the second paragraph, it will see the
first sentence:

   "The final goal of German-Jewish policy is the
   emigration of an Jews living in Reich territory."

Then that is developed at great length through a large
number of pages. If the Tribunal would turn to the foot of
Page 7, it goes on to say:

   "These examples from reports from authorities abroad
   can, if desired, be amplified. They confirm the
   correctness of the expectation, that criticism of the
   measures for excluding Jews from German Lebensraum,
   which were misunderstood in many countries for lack of
   evidence, would only be temporary and would swing in the
   other direction the moment the population saw with its
   own eyes and thus learned, what the Jewish danger was to
   them. The poorer, and therefore the more burdensome the
   immigrant Jew becomes to the country absorbing him, the
   more strongly that country will react, and the more
   desirable is this effect in the interest of German
   propaganda. The object of this German action is the
   future international solution of the Jewish question,
   dictated not by false compassion for the 'United
   Religious Jewish minority' but by the full consciousness
   of all peoples of the danger which it represents to the
   racial composition of the nations."

The Tribunal will appreciate that this document was
circulated by the defendant's ministry, widely circulated to
all senior Reich authorities and to numerous people before
the war, on the 25th January, 1939, just after the statement
to M. Bonnet. Apparently the anti-Semitism of the defendant
went from - I was going to say from strength to strength, at
any rate from

                                                  [Page 103]

exaggeration to exaggeration, for in June, 1944, the
defendant Rosenberg made arrangements for an international
anti-Jewish Congress to be held in Cracow on the 11th July,
1944. The honorary members were to be von Ribbentrop,
Himmler, Goebbels and Frank - I think the defendant Frank.
The Foreign Office was to take over the mission of inviting
prominent foreigners from Italy, France, Hungary, Holland,
Arabia, Iraq, Norway, etc., in order to give an
international aspect to the Congress. However, the military
events of June, 1944, prompted Hitler to call off the
Congress, which had lost its significance by virtue of the
Allied landing in Normandy.

That is contained in Document 1752-PS, Exhibit GB 159. At
the foot of Page 1, the Tribunal will see the following has
been entered as an honorary member - Reich Foreign Minister
Joachim von Ribbentrop. So that there is no doubt that this
defendant was behind the programme against the Jews, which
resulted in the placing of them in concentration camps with
anyone else opposed to the Nazi way of life, and it is
submitted that he must, as a minister in special touch with
the head of the government, have known what was going on in
the country and in the camps. One who preached this
doctrine, and was in a position of authority, cannot, I
submit to anyone who has had any material experience,
suggest that he was ignorant of how the policy was carried
out.

That is the evidence on the third allegation and I submit,
by the evidence which I have recapitulated to the Tribunal,
that the three allegations are proved.

With regard to the second, Hitler's own words were:

   "In the historic year of 1938 the Foreign Minister, von
   Ribbentrop, was of great help to me, in view of his
   accurate and audacious judgement and the exceptionally
   clever treatment of all problems of foreign policy."

During the course of the war, this defendant was in close
liaison with the other Nazi conspirators. He advised them
and made available to them, in his foreign embassies and
legations abroad, information which was required; and at
times participated, as I had shown, in the planning of War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

It is submitted that all the allegations which were read
from Appendix A of the Indictment are completely proved
against this defendant. I only wanted the Tribunal to allow
me to add one fact on behalf of the British delegation. In
the preparation of these briefs we have received great
assistance from certain of our American colleagues, and I
should like to thank once, but nevertheless, heartily, on
behalf of all of us, Dr. Kempner's staff: Captain John W.
Auchineloss, Lieutenants Richard Heller and Frederick
Felton, Captain J. Robert Claggett, Captain Norman Stoll,
and Mr. Karl Lachmann for the great help they have been to
us.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.

DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Frank): May it please
the Tribunal, I have a motion to make.

THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of whom is your motion?

DR. SEIDL: I want to make a motion which concerns the
indictment of Frank by the prosecution. The Charter of the
Tribunal contains, in Part IV, regulations for a fair trial,
and Article 16 determines that for the purpose of guarding
the right of the defendants the following procedure shall be
followed. "The Indictment shall include full particulars
specifying in detail the charges against the defendants. A
copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with
the Indictment, translated into a language which he
understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a
reasonable time before the trial."

At the beginning of the trial the defendant Frank was handed
a copy of the Indictment. This is the Indictment which was
read on the first day. This is, if I may say so, a general
Indictment. All actions are listed therein which,

                                                  [Page 104]

according to the opinion of the Signatories of the London
Agreement, are regarded as Crimes against Peace, War Crimes
and Crimes against Humanity. The Indictment does not contain
in particular the criminal actions of each defendant. I am
now thinking about positive actions, or concrete actions, or
omissions.

This morning I received a document. It has the title "The
Individual Responsibility of the defendant Hans Frank for
Crimes against the Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity" - or in German "die personliche Verantwortung des
Angcklagten Frank fur Verbrechen gegen den Frieden, fur
Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Humanitat." This
document is without any table of contents. It consists of 30
typewritten pages. In addition to this document, or
Indictment, as I should like to call it, another document
book has been given to me; this book here concerning Hans
Frank. The first document, as well as the second document,
are not in German but in English. This first document is in
reality what I should call the Indictment against Frank,
because here in this document of 30 pages, for the first
time, are listed those individual activities of Frank which
are to be regarded as criminal actions. At least one ought
to say that this document is an essential part of the
Indictment.

THE PRESIDENT: Interrupting you, the Tribunal has already
expressed its desire that a motion such as this should be
made in writing. The Tribunal considers that a motion of the
sort which you are making, if made orally, is a waste of the
Tribunal's time. It therefore desires you to put your motion
in writing. It will then be considered.

DR. SEIDL: I regret that I had to make this motion now, but
I was not able to make it in writing beforehand, having
received this document only two and a half hours ago. My
motion asks the prosecution that these two documents be
given to the defendant Frank in the German language.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not got the documents to
which you are referring, but it is quite impossible for us
to understand the motion you making unless you make it in
writing and attach the documents or in some other way
describe or explain to us what the documents are. We have
not the documents that you are referring to.

DR. SEIDL: Then I shall make my motion in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, can you explain to me what
counsel who just spoke is complaining about?

MR. ROBERTS: I gather he was complaining that the trial
brief and the document book which had been served on his
client, Frank, were in English and not in German.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is dealing with the case against Frank?

MR. ROBERTS: It is being dealt with by the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better ask Colonel Storey,
then.

COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please, I think what counsel
is referring to is the practice we have made of delivering
in advance a copy of the document book and a copy of the
trial brief. In this particular instance I happen to know
that what counsel refers to is the trial address, which is
to be read over the microphone, and as a courtesy to defence
counsel, copies have been delivered in advance of the
presentation, just like the other document books and briefs
against the other individual defendants. That is what it is,
as I understand it.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents which will be presented against
the defendant Frank will be all translated?

COLONEL STOREY: I am sure they will, yes, Sit. I do not know
about the individual case, but the instructions are that, as
to the documents there will be photostats, each one in
German, plus the English translation, for counsel, and

                                                  [Page 105]


that is what has been delivered, plus the trial address, if
your Honour pleases. We handed that material to him in
advance, it is what the attorney will read over the
microphone.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, I thought the Tribunal
ordered, after consulting the prosecutors as to the
feasibility of the scheme, that sufficient translators
should be supplied to the defendant's counsel so that such
documents, if in the English language, as trial briefs,
might be translated to defendant's counsel. You will
remember it was suggested that at least four translators, I
think, should be supplied to the defendant's counsel.

COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal will recall, I think this is
what was finally determined; that document books and briefs
could be submitted in English and the photostatic copies
submitted to defendant's counsel, and that if they wanted
additional copies of the German, then they should request
them and they would be furnished. I think that is what the
final order was.


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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

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

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