Изображения страниц

statements in the trial brief presented by the Prosecution, the defendant Frank is also alleged to be responsible for the undernourishment of the Polish population. Actually however the Prosecution is unable to produce any evidence to show that in the area governed by the defendant Frank either hunger catastrophes occurred or epidemics broke out. The evidence has revealed on the contrary that the efforts of the defendant Frank in the years 1939 and 1940 were successful in inducing the Reich to deliver no less than 600,000 tons of grain. That made it possible to overcome the nutrition difficulties caused by the war.

It is true that in the following years the Government-General contributed in no small degree to the war effort by itself delivering grain. But it should not be overlooked that these deliveries were made possible by an extraordinary increase in agricultural production in the Government-General. And this was in its turn made possible by a farseeing economic policy, especially by the distribution of agricultural machinery, seed corn and so on. Nor should it be forgotten that the deliveries of grain by the Government-General from the year 1941 onwards, also served to feed the Polish workers placed in Reich territory, and that in general these grain deliveries were utilized to maintain the internal balance as between the European economic systems.

On this question the following basic observations should, however, be made:

In a number of points of accusation the Prosecution has levelled reproaches against the administrative activities of the defendant Frank in his capacity as Governor-General, without making an attempt to give an even approximately adequate description of the general work of the defendant, and without pointing out its inherent difficulties. There can be no question but that such an attitude transgresses the fundamental rules of any criminal procedure. It is a recognized principle derived from the criminal law principles of all civilized states that a uniform natural process must be judged in its entirety and that its 'evaluation must rest on all the circumstances of the case that are in any way suitable for consideration by the Court when passing judgment. This would seem to be all the more necessary in the present case as the defendant Frank is accused of having pursued a long-term policy of oppression, exploitation and germanization.


My Lords!

If the defendant Frank had in truth had any such intentions, then he could certainly have attained his goal in far simpler fashion, It would not have been necessary to issue hundreds of decrees every year, decrees which for example for the year 1942


excesses against which all his efforts had proved unavailing. These 9 points are in the main identical with the points of accusation against Frank. The content of the memorandum of June 19, 1943, however, shows very plainly that the defendant denies responsibility for these abuses. It reveals, on the contrary quite clearly that neither the defendant nor the general administration of the Government-General can be held responsible for the said evils, but that the whole responsibility must be borne by the institutions mentioned above, in particular the Security Police and the SD, and/or the Higher SS and Policeleader East. If the defendant Frank had had the instruments of power wherewith to abolish the evils he condemned, it would not have been necessary for him to address that memorandum to Hitler at all. He would then himself have been able to take all necessary steps. In addition to this the evidence has shown that the memorandum of June 19, 1943, was not the only one addressed to the Fuehrer on the matter. It is clear from the testimony of the witnesses Dr. Lammers and Dr. Buehler and the defendant's own statements in the witness box that from the year 1940 onwards he (the defendant) sent protests and memoranda at regular intervals of a few months both to Hitler personally and to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery. These written protests were invariably on the subject of the violent measures taken and the excesses committed by the Higher SS and Policeleader and the Security Police including the SD. But none of the protests met with success.

As can also be said on the basis of the evidence, the defendant Frank continually made suggestions to Hitler on the subject of improving relations between the administration of the Government-General and the population. The memorandum of June 19, 1943, too is cast in the form of a comprehensive political program. It includes moreover all the essential points of protest contained in a memorandum presented in February 1943 to the GovernorGeneral at his own desire, by the leader of the Ukrainian Chief Committee. This latter memorandum was put in evidence by the Prosecution as USA Exhibit 178 (1526-PS). Such suggestions were also consistently rejected by Hitler.

Under these circumstances it is pertinent to ask what else the defendant Frank could have done. Certainly he should have resigned. But that too he did. He offered his resignation no less than 14 times, the first time as early as 1939. His resignation was rejected by Hitler as often as it was tendered. But the defendant Frank did more. He approached Field-Marshal Keitel with the request that he be allowed to rejoin the Wehrmacht as lieutenant. That was in the year 1942. Hitler refused his consent


to that too. These facts allow of only one conclusion, namely that Hitler saw in the defendant Frank a man behind whose back he (with the help of Himmler and the organs of the Security Police and the SD) could carry out the measures he considered requisite for attaining the aims of his power policy.

My Lords!

One thing the defendant Frank certainly did not do. He did not join the ranks of traitors to his country. He had no part in any scheme which had as its object the elimination of Hitler and which attempted to achieve that object by means which from the outset could only have been designated as ineffective. On the other hand, the defendant Frank undertook something else.

When it became more and more obvious that Hitler and Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler were about to abolish the last remnants of a state resting on law; when it became increasingly apparent that the power of the police knew no bounds and that a police-state of the purest water was in process of development, the defendant Frank came forward and addressed four great speeches to the German public with a last appeal on behalf of the idea of a state resting on law. He did that when Hitler stood at the summit of his power. He addressed this appeal to the German public at a time when the German forces were marching on Stalingrad and into the Caucasus, when the German panzer armies in Africa stood at El Alamein, barely 100 km from Alexandria. In the course of the evidence I read some extracts from these great speeches which the defendant Frank made in Berlin, Heidelberg, Vienna and Munich. Those speeches contained a clear repudiation of every form of police-state and championed the idea of the State resting on law, of the independence of the judiciary and of law as such. These speeches found a tremendous echo among lawyers, but unfortunately not in wider circles. Nor in particular were they echoed by the men who alone would have possessed the power to ward off the threatening catastrophe.

The consequences of this attempt to avert the extinction of the idea of the state resting on law by a last great effort are wellknown. The defendant Frank was deprived of all his Party Offices, he was dismissed from his post as President of the Academy for German Law. The leadership of the National Socialist Lawyer's Association was conferred on Reich Minister of Justice Thierack. Frank himself was forbidden by Hitler to speak in public. Although the defendant Frank again on this occasion sent in his resignation as Governor-General, Hitler refused to accept it, as he had always done before. The reason for this, as given in a letter from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

to the defendant Frank, was that considerations of foreign policy had caused the Fuehrer again to refuse this latest request of Frank to be allowed to resign. According to everything that has emerged from the evidence in this trial it may be looked upon as certain that it was not only (and probably not even mainly) for such reasons that Hitler refused to accept Frank's resignation.

The decisive factor was obviously the consideration that it was better policy not to let the security police and Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler's other organs fulfill their appointed task openly, but rather to let them continue their work under cover, while maintaining a general civil administration under the Governor-General. Naturally this open breach between the defendant Frank on the one hand, and Hitler and the state police system represented by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and the Higher SS and Policeleader East on the other, could not fail to have repercussions on the position of the defendant in his capacity as Governor-General. Still more than before the various Reich authorities now began to interfere in the administration of the Government-General. Above all however, it was quite clear from the summer of 1942 onwards that the Higher SS and Policeleader East, together with the organs of the Security Police and SD subordinated to him, took no more notice at all of any instructions issued by the Governor-General and the general administration.

Both in the Government-General and in the Reich itself legal institutions receded more and more into the background. The State was transformed into an unadulterated police-state, and developments took the inevitable course which the defendant Frank had foreseen and feared, the course which on November 19, 1941, he had outlined at a Congress of the principal section chiefs and Reich Group leaders of the National Socialist Lawyers Association in the following words:

"Law cannot be degraded to a position where it becomes an object of bargaining. Law cannot be sold. It is either there or it is not there. Law cannot be marketed on the Stock Exchange. If the law finds no support, then the State too loses its moral prop and sinks into the depths of night and horror."

2. FINAL PLEA by Hans Frank


May it please the Tribunal:

Adolf Hitler, the name predominant in this Trial, has not made, to all the German people in the world, his final statement. He in the deepest distress of his nation did not find a comforting word. He became rigid, and he did not take care of his position as a Fuehrer, but he disappeared into the dark through his suicide. Maybe it was stubbornness; maybe it was despair; or stubborn

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »