that the existing Jewish question had to be solved by the creation of a minority right, emigration, or by settling the Jews in a national territory by a process lasting a decade. The white paper of the British Government of 24 July 1946 shows how a historical development can cause measures which were never previously planned.

The practice of the German State Leadership in the war as proved here during the trial, completely differed with my conviction. Adolf Hitler, in an increasing measure, drew persons to himself who were not my comrades, but my opponents. I must say, with reference to their harmful activities, this is not the execution of National Socialism for which millions of believing men and women have fought. It was its shameful misuse; it was the degeneration which I also deeply condemned.

The thought that a crime of Genocide has to be outlawed by International agreement and will be the subject of severe penalties is something which I sincerely welcome, though under the natural prerequisites, Genocide neither at present nor in the future may be permitted against the German people in any way. Among other matters, the Soviet Prosecutor stated that the entire "so-called ideological activity" had been a "preparation for crime". In that conection I wish to say that National Socialism represented the thought of an overcoming of the class struggle which was disintegrating the people, and the unity of all classes in a large community of peoples. Through the Labor Service, for instance, it reinstates the honor of manual labor on the mother earth, and directs the eyes of all Germans to the necessity of a strong peasantry. By the Winter Aid Work it created a comradeship of the entire nation working for all the comrades in need, irrespective of their former Party membership. It built homes for mothers, youth hostels, and community clubs in the factories; and it acquainted millions with the yet unknown treasures of art.

And all that, I too served.

Never in my love of a free and strong Reich did I forget the duty towards honorable Europe. As early as 1932 I applied to Rome for its maintenance and peaceful development, and I fought as long as I could for the ideas of the inner winnings of the peoples of Eastern Europe when becoming Eastern Minister in 1941. Therefore, in this hour of need, I cannot deviate from the idea of my life, from the ideal of a socially peaceful Germany and a Europe conscious of its value, and I will remain faithful to them.

The honest service for this ideology considering all human shortcomings was not a conspiracy; my actions were never crime. I understood my struggle to be, as it was understood by

many thousands of comrades, the struggle for the most noble idea for which it was fought for every 100 years and for which the flag was raised.

I ask you to recognize this as the truth.

In that case no persecution of a conviction would arise from this trial; then, in my conviction, a first step would be taken for a new mutual understanding of the peoples, without prejudice, without hostile sentiments, and without hatred.

IX. HANS FRANK

1. FINAL ARGUMENT by Dr. Alfred Seidl, Defense Counsel

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.

As I have already explained in the case of the defendant Hess, 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.

Like all the other defendants, the defendant Frank is accused of 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 the laws and customs of war.

The evidence has shown that the defendant Frank joined the National Socialist Party in the year 1928. Both before and after the assumption of power by the National Socialists, he was concerned almost exclusively with legal questions till the year 1942. The Reich Law Department was under his control as Reichsleiter of the Party. After Adolf Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, Frank became 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 (Laender). 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, 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.

This list of the various posts held by the defendant Frank in Party 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 Program, which demanded a German Common Law. And in actual fact almost all speeches and publications by the defendant Frank, both before and after the assumption of power by the National Socialists, dealt with legal questions in the widest sense of the term.

In the course of his examination in the witness box, the defendant Frank 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. Here I can for the most part refer to the statements I made in the case of the defendant Hess. The aim of the National Socialists before they assumed power can be expressed in a few words: Liberation of the German people from the shackles of the Versailles Treaty; elimination of the huge mass of unemployment which had arisen in consequence of that Treaty and of the unreasonable reparations policy of Germany's former enemies; elimination of the signs of degeneracy-political, economic, social and moral-connected with that unemployment, and finally the restoration of the sovereignty of the German Reich in all spheres.

The Prosecution was unable to produce any evidence to show that the 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.

Moreover, the evidence brought forth nothing to show the

existence of the common plan alleged by the Prosecution in Count One of the Indictment, if by this we are to understand a particular, clearly defined plan evolved by a closely circumscribed, unchanging set of people.

As regards the participation of the defendant Frank in this common plan, the evidence and in particular the testimony given by the witness Dr. Lammers and the defendant himself in the witness box, has shown on 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 conferences the Prosecution has submitted as Exhibits USA 25 to 34.

The only statute which is important in this connection is the Law concerning the Reintroduction of General Conscription of March 16, 1935. In the case of the defendant Hess 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 no harm to any other nation. Nor did the content of that law or the circumstances which led to its enactment allow of the conclusion that it was part of a common plan whose object was the launching of a war of aggression. The German people had been obliged to realize during the preceding 17 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 its 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. For the rest, I refer to the Proclamation of the Reich Government to the German people, which was issued in connection with the publication of that law.

Further: the work of the defendant Frank, even after the

assumption of power, 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.

The objects of the Academy for German Law are apparent from the Law concerning its establishment of July 11, 1943. 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 drafts of statutes. Legislation itself was exclusively a matter for the appropriate Reich Ministries for the various departments. One of the tasks of the Academy was to exercise the functions of the legal committees of the former Reichstag. In actual fact the work of the Academy was done almost exclusively in its numerous committees which had been established by the defendant. Entry into the Academy was not dependent on membership of the Party. Most of the members of the Academy were legal scholars and eminent practitioners of law, who were not Party members. Moreover, it is well known that the Academy for German Law kept up close relations with similar establishments abroad, and that numerous foreign scholars gave lectures in the Academy. These facts entirely exclude the assumption that the Academy could have played any important part in the common plan alleged by the Prosecution. The same is true of the position of the defendant Frank as Leader of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association.

Adolf Hitler's attitude to the conception of a State resting on law (Rechtsstaat), in so far as any doubt could still have been entertained about it, has become perfectly clear through the evidence presented at this trial. Hitler was a revolutionary and a man of violence. He looked on law as a hindrance and as a disturbing factor in the realization of his plans in the realm of power politics. Moreover, he left no doubt about this attitude of his and spoke about states under rule of law in a number of speeches. He was always very reserved in his dealings with lawyers, and for this reason alone it was impossible from the outset that any close association could have developed between him and the defendant Frank. The defendant Frank considered it his life's work to see the conception of a State resting on law realized in the National Socialist Reich, and above all to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.