Oranienburg in the year 1938 about which witness Hoess testified. At that time, as witness Hoess himself testifies, the external framework of the camps was still that of military training areas. In any case, an official visitor to the camp at that time could not notice any murders, mistreatments or similar crimes, so that the visit is not a decisive argument for knowledge of crimes in the concentration camps.

On the other hand, Frick never visited the Dachau concentration camp, contrary to the testimony of witness Blaha. In this, I refer to the testimony of Gillhuber, who as the constant companion of Frick would have had to know about such a visit if it had taken place. I take the liberty of pointing out also that the two other constant companions of Frick have also been mentioned by me as witnesses, but by the consent of the prosecution were considered as unnecessary by the Tribunal for the reason that one of the companions would be sufficient as witness.

At the conclusion of this chapter, I must still concern myself with an assertion of the prosecution which designated Frick at one time as the chief of the Reich Security Main Office.

I take the liberty of pointing out the testimony of the witness Ohlendorf who stated to the court that the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) was a creation of Himmler, who combined in this office his state police tasks and his functions as Reichsfuehrer SS, with which Frick had no relationship of any kind and over which he had even less authority to command. The chief of this office was thus only Himmler himself.

I must go further into the charges which are being made against the defendant Frick in respect to the persecution of members of the Jewish race. Frick shared in the legal measures, particularly the Nurnberg Laws, and in administrative measures, which he regarded as an expression of National Socialist race policy. On the other hand there is no proof that Frick himself had shared in or had known of the measures of physical extermination which, on Hitler's direct orders, were carried out by Himmler and his organizations, and were being kept secret from those who themselves had no part in these frightful events. Furthermore, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, the defendant is also accused of having participated in the killing of the sick and insane. Hitler's basic order is contained in Document 630-PS, USA Exhibit 342. This document shows that Hitler did not give a corresponding order to some governmental office but, completely outside of the governmental order system of the Ministries, to two single persons, namely Bouhler and Dr. Brandt. Contrary to all rules, Hitler did not sign this order himself in an official capacity

as Fuehrer and Reichchancellor, but used personal stationery with the heading "Adolf Hitler."

This shows what the witness Lammers has confirmed, that Hitler did not give an order for these measures to the Ministry of the Interior or some other governmental office, but to two of his Party members, as also the Party symbol is the only mark on this stationery. On the other hand, the documents submitted by the Prosecution prove that complaints were made which also reached the Ministry of the Interior but they do not prove that, in contradiction to Document 630-PS, Frick had a share in the measures for the killings or that he could have stopped them.

After his departure from the Ministry of the Interior on 20 August 1943, Frick was appointed Reichprotector of Bohemia and Moravia. Here he was given an order which from the start was entirely unequivocal in its competence. I refer to Document 3443-PS also as USSR 60 and 29 in the Frick document book, further 1366-PS, submitted by me as Frick Exhibit 5a, furthermore the testimony of the witness Lammers. The office of the Reichprotector was originally the unified representative of the Reichpower in the Protectorate.

In actual practice however, the authoritative power passed more and more to Frank, the Secretary of State for the Reichprotectorate at that time. With the appointment of Frick in August 1943, through a Fuehrer decree which was not made public, the executive authority was now formally transferred to Frank, who from that time on received the official title "The German Minister of State in Bohemia and Moravia." The Reichprotector, retained substantially the privilege of representation and right of clemency, the improper use of which by Frick has neither been maintained nor proved by the prosecution. On the other hand, Frank, as "German Minister of State," according to the above mentioned Fuehrer decree, exercised his executive authority directly under Hitler, by whom he had been directly appointed, and from whom he received his directions without Frick's intervention, Frick being in no way authorized to exercise any influence thereon. Considering this state of affairs, a charge against the defendant Frick cannot be derived from Document 3589-PS, USA Exhibit 720.

I now come to the Prosecution's accusation that Frick, by his membership of certain organizations, is responsible for certain criminal actions.

The SS was one of these organizations emphasized by the Prosecution. Frick has never been a member of it.

Similarly, he was never a General in the SS, as stated by the

Prosecution. I might assume this to be merely a mistake on the part of the Prosecution. In any case the Prosecution did not submit proof thereof.

Frick was likewise never a member of the SA, as shown, probably by mistake, in the chart which indicated Frick's membership of various organizations. There is no proof of this.

The Prosecution has charged Frick with being the supreme chief of the Gestapo, and therefore designated him as its member, on the strength of the argument that since the appointment of Himmler in 1936 as Chief of the German Police, the Gestapo has been formally incorporated into the Reich Ministry of the Interior.

But the Gestapo had its own Chief in the person of Himmler, who alone issued orders, and his formal subordination to the Minister of the Interior, does not necessarily make him, the Minister of the Interior, a member of the organization which was exclusively under Himmler's orders. My colleague charged with the defense of the Gestapo will also have to deal with the character of this organization. As to the defendant Frick, I have only to state that he held the formal position of a Reichsleiter in his character of Chairman of the Reichstag fraction of the NSDAP.

The Reichstag having lost its political importance since 1933, which fact needs no further explanation, Frick's position had also practically lost its importance and could no longer be compared with the position of a Reichsleiter, who administered important political branches.

And finally Frick as Reich Minister was a member of the Reich Cabinet. Also with regard to the character and the authority of this organization I refer primarily to the statements which are yet to follow of my colleague, who has been named defense counsel of this organization.

I am referring here only to the testimony of Lammers and Gisevius, and furthermore to the excerpt from the book of this witness, which I have submitted as Exhibit 13 as evidence for the position and authority which the Reich Cabinet maintained toward the dictatorial practices of Hitler.

According to all this the defendant Frick appears as a personality, which certainly exerted a decisive influence on interior policy after this goal had been achieved.

All his measures, however, had inner-political aims; they were not intended to have anything to do with the foreign-political goal of a war of aggression and especially not with crimes against humanity, committed to further crimes against the peace or against the rules of warfare, and only in these cases would this

court have jurisdiction according to Article 6 of the Statute, as has also been stated by the Prosecution.

When Frick realized that the policy had turned into a direction of which he could no longer approve, he tried to exert all his influence in order to introduce a change. However, he then had to see more and more that he could not find an audience in Hitler for his representations and complaints, and to the contrary, he had to realize that these complaints destroyed Hitler's confidence in him, as the latter preferred to have himself advised by Himmler and persons of similar attitudes, so that Frick finally was not received by Hitler any more since the year 1937. If he wanted to present any complaints Frick then gave up such hopeless attempts to introduce a change in the situation, which would not have been changed by his resignation either, which according to the results of the evidence he had repeatedly offered in vain.

In this way his tragedy lies in his entanglement in a system in the first steps of which he had participated enthusiastically and the development of which he had imagined to be different.

In any case it appears important to me in judging his personality and his actions, that this presentation of evidence which has gone on for months has not given any proof of the personal participation of the defendant in any crimes, either.

It is not without reason that John Gunther in the book "Inside Europe," which I have presented to the Tribunal as evidence, describes especially the defendant Frick as "the only honest Nazi." Gunther at the same place goes on to call him a "bureaucrat all the way through." Hitler himself always called him repeatedly the "paragraph scrounger," he whom Frick (just about typically of him) had not met in any public assembly but in his office with the police in Munich in the year 1923. This man felt enthusiasm for the suggestive power of Hitler, for himself so distant, who with his big word appealed to his senses, his honor, and his patriotism.

It was Hitler who made him proud to be able to participate in the reconstruction of a German nation, which through strong armed forces was to be in a position to play a peaceful but yet active part in world politics.

However, it was also Hitler who understood to throw a scare into the citizen Frick about the supposedly threatening Bolshevist danger and whatever more there existed of false phrases, twisted statements, and propaganda arts, and which also fooled men of greater mental height, who let themselves be driven along by the suggestive power of a Hitler, and who did not realize in time that they had subordinated themselves to the suggestive will of

a criminal who was prepared to overthrow the pillars of civilization for his ideas and who finally would leave Germany behind in a monstrous spiritual and material field of rubble, to the overcoming of which this trial may also contribute through a sentence in accordance with law and justice.

2. FINAL PLEA by Wilhelm Frick

I have a clear conscience with reference to the accusations. My entire life was spent in the service of my people and my fatherland. To them I have sacrificed my entire strength in faithful fulfillment of my duty.

I am convinced that no patriotic Americans or patriotic members of another country would act differently were his country in the same position, because any other action would have been a breach of my oath of allegiance, and high treason.

Regarding the fulfillment of my legal and moral duties, I believe that I deserve no more penalty than the tens of thousands of faithful German civil servants and employees of official state agencies who here today, as years and years ago, are detained in camps merely because they fulfilled their duties. To them I owe memory and faith which I, as a former, long-standing Minister of the Reich, consider it a particular honor to state.

XI. JULIUS STREICHER

1. FINAL ARGUMENT by Dr. Hans Marx, Defense Counsel

When in May of the past year the final action of the greatest and most horrible war of all times came to an end, the German people was slow to rise again from the stupor in which it had for the most part spent the last months of the war. Like all the peoples of Europe for years it had suffered unspeakably, the last months in particular with their hail of bombs had brought so much misery to both country and people that it almost surpassed all human capacity.

This terror was increased by the knowledge that the war was lost and by the fear of the uncertain fate which the occupation period would bring. And when finally the period of first anxiety had passed, when the German people was slowly beginning to breathe again, paralyzing horror spread once more.

Through the press and radio, through newspapers and motion pictures knowledge was spread of the atrocities which had taken place in the East, in the steppes, and in the concentration camps. Germany learned that people, men of its own blood, millions and