Party, from the Very beginning, openly pursued the aim of bringing about a change in the foreign political situation of Germany by means of war. special proof is necessary that each of the defendants, in working for Hitler and his Party, also knowingly collaborated in the preparation of a war of aggression. planned a war of aggression, the Prosecution refers to the Party program, which names as one of its crimes the abolition of the Treaty of Versailles. With not one word, however, is it said in the Party program that this aim should be achieved by force of arms. others, from the testimony of the defendant von Neurath, there is nothing to prove an intention existing from the very beginning to wage a war of aggression. Nothing different is found in the official publications of the Party from the time of Hitler's assumption of the government. the intention to compel the revision of the Treaty of Versailles by force of arms, it was therefore, even-before 1933, permitted outside the territory of the Reich, as in the year 1930 in Danzig with the assent of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations and of the Polish President. as responsible head of the Government, took a quite unequivocal attitude in regard to the ways and aims of his foreign policy, whether in official speeches and discourses or in private conversations. power, stressed his unconditional will for peace and his abhorrence of war, and he always defended this attitude with convincing reasons. He repeated again and again that he intended to obtain certain revisions of the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means only.
I need not repeat the appropriate quotations from Hitler's speeches, which already have been submitted by the Prosecution, to prove to what extent Hitler deceived the world and the people he ruled by his peace speeches, which were repeatedly supported by a peal of church bells to increase their effectiveness.
speeches which he, as responsible Government chief, made again and again. wanted war remained, however, a hopeless minority throughout the world. Hitler's assertions of peaceful intentions seriously, and the best proof of this peace delusion of even the foreign statesmen who also knew the Party's program, lies certainly in the fact that these statesmen neglected to such a great extent to create defensive armaments against Hitler's war of aggression. Nobody in Germany and in the world who was not directly initiated into Hitler's most secret plans seriously believed in it. 1933 in the period of parliamentary opposition, it is not possible to prove a continuous preparation for a war of aggression since the twenties, supposedly discernible by anybody who looked the Party program through. The Prosecution now contends further that, even if the warlike intentions were not discernible in a general way, the intention of Hitler to prepare a war of aggression must have been clearly visible to defendant Frick by reason of the duties which Frick fulfilled since January 30th 1933 in his capacity as Reich Minister for the Interior. political power of Hitler and his Party at home. In this connection the Prosecution referred to the collaboration of Frick in the legal decrees by means of which the opposition against Hitler's system of government was destroyed in parliament and in the country; further the legislative measures which eliminated a true self-administration in the cities and rural communities; furthermore, legislative and administrative decrees by which opponents of the National Socialist system were excluded from taking any part in the business of the State and in economic life. could not have conducted another war, the beginning of which, promising such success, presupposed of necessity a complete destruction of opposition in the country and the establishment of the absolute dictatorship of Hitler.
the preparation for war is lacking. connection with a forthcoming war, if considered purely as projects on a National Socialist domestic policy. It has not been proved whether the defendant Frick had furthermore been informed of Hitler's further plans after a strengthening of power at home and for pursuing the aims of their foreign policy of the Party by other than peaceful means,but to enforce them by war. authority was Hitler's pre-suppoisition for his later known war intentions, nothing has been achieved unless the proof is forthcoming, that Hitler had, from the beginning, aimed at authoritative power in the domestic sphere as a first step towards the carrying on of war, and that Frick was aware of this when he took part in the activities of the internal policy of which he was in charge. provisions of the Charter, they do not come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. typical Home Office civil servant, considered his measures as absolutely independent drives within the scheme of domestic policy, which, however, had nothing whatsoever to do with the solutions by force of questions of foreign policy. dealing directly with Germany's rearmament, i.e. the reintroduction of general conscription and the occupation of the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Frick, issued the orders of the civil administration for the recruitment of men liable for military service, and he therefore himself signed the Armed Forces Law for war of aggression.
of military sovereignty over the demilitarized Western Zone was explained by Hitler himself to his collaborators and the world by arguments, the reasoning of which was then widely accepted, and after the first shock many foreign statesman still believed in Hitler's well-founded assurances of peace, and advocated the presumption that there was no reason to fear any belligerent intentions of Hitler. I refer to the document 789-PS U.S.A. Exhibit No. 23 - according to which on 23 November 1939 Hitler personally declared to his Commanders-inChief that he had created the Wehrmacht in order to make war. even at that time still found credence in Germany and abroad and - as proved by the evidence - ever his collaborators in his own Cabinet who had not been initiated into his secret plans and believed in it. agreed in the reconstruction of the German Wehrmacht, though contrary to the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, but that they never wanted another war and did not consider that by collaborating they would contribute to the planning of a war of aggression.
As to the defendant Frick: according to the conception of his defense no proof was given that Hitler had informed him of his belligerent plans, and he therefore cannot be charged with collaborating in the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht as an intentional contribution to the planning of a war of aggression.
A similar situation arises from the defendant's activity in establishing the civil administration in general in the event of a possible war, a task with which the defendant was charged as a General Plenipotentiary for the administration of the Reich by the second Reich Defense Law dated 4 September 1938. Administration of the Reich was created only by the second Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, and thus had not been included in the first one of 31 May 1935.
dealing with the subject of Reich Defense which since 1933 met at irregular intervals as Commission for the Defense of the Reich, as stated in the documents submitted by the Prosecution. These meetings had nothing to do with an agreement to wage war of aggression. They dealt with general questions of Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935. The organization for Reich Defense was more closely coordinated, particularly by the appointment of the General Plenipotentiary for the War Economy, and at his interrogation the defendant Schacht explained in detail that the purpose of his assignment was not preparation for a war of aggression according to the tasks and regulations to be found in the first Reich Defense Law but the organization of economy for defense in the event of a war of aggression by other States. for Reich Administration as it was created by the Reich Defense Law of 4 Sept 1938 which was delegated to the defendant Frick on the basis of his position as Reich Minister of the Interior. administration for the purposes of Reich defense. According to documents which have been submitted to the Tribunal, it may have been that Hitler wanted the war at the time when he instigated, but it is nevertheless relevant for the defense of the defendant, whether Frick at that time was able to recognize the aggressive intentions of Hitler from the law itself and from its preliminary work or from other evidence or information which was communicated to him at that time.
The law itself does not allow the recognition of Hitler's intention to use it as an instrument of preparation for war of aggression in the scope of civil life. capacity as Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration had to do merely with the concentration on the domestic administration of Germany in case of a possible war or of a threat of war.
Document 3787, USA 782, which was subsequently submitted. the defense of the Reich in case of a war. It speaks about the "state of defense" and mentions the case of a "surprise threat to the Reich territory", at which occurrence certain measures must be taken. himself planned to bring about a war and according to the repeatedly discussed principle of Hitler not to divulge anymore of his plans to anyone than the respective person had to know for his own work -- which principle was strictly adhered to even with his closest collaborators -- it should not be assumed, nor has it been proved, that when the order for this law was given to the Ministry of Interior anything else was communicated than the requirement to take precautionary measures - by means of concentration of powers of the domestic/administration of the country - against the possible attack on Reich territory by other states. be considered as premeditated preparation for a war of aggression when it is declared essential to the competent agencies of the domestic administration for the defense of the Reich against the threatened attack by another state, which Hitler understood how to feign very cleverly for all those who did not need to recognize his secret plans and who nevertheless should understand his armament and the organization of the state ordered by him for case of war. as their object the activity of the defendant Frick as Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration. Document 2608 PS, USA Exhibit No, 714 -- and stated that the planned preparation of the administration for the possible event of a war had been made during the peace by the appointment of a Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration. by the text of the law.
The same applies to Document 2986 -PS USA Exhibit No. 409 -, an affidavit by the defendant to the same effect. Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration as combined with the appointment of a General Plenipotentiary for Economy and the function of the Chief of the OKW, susceptible of reference as a "Triumvirate" holding governmental authority in Germany. government by such a Triumvirate, and witness Lammers too has referred to the strictly subordinate tasks performed by these persons by virtue of orders received, tasks which had nothing to do with the preparation of a war or aggression. Prosecution as participation in preparation for a war of aggression; namely, Frick's work for the Association for Maintaining Germanism Abroad. I am referring to Documents Frick, Exhibit No. 4 and 3258 PS, the latter submitted as - GB 262 aided its cultural efforts as a union for the promotion of German cultural relations abroad. It cannot, however, be gathered from the documents that Frick extended any activity whatsoever for the furtherance of the aims of a so-called Fifth Column abroad. of the policy of the aggressive war by Frick, is the affidavit of Messersmith 2385-PS USA Exhibit No. 68. incorrect and the defendant Schacht in particular demonstrated at his examination that in essential points it cannot be correct at all. The witness has not been subjected to cross examination. more so as an additional clarifying questioningof the witness through written questionnaires onlyled to the result that the witness,by using general phrases, avoided giving concrete answers to the questions put to him.
cannot make concrete declaration at all and that he obviously was considerably deceived by his memory in his Affidavit. This may be due to his old age. essential points, can be used for passing legal judgment. defendant Frick participated in conscious preparation for war of aggression, the Prosecution submitted a further document - D 44 - USA Exhibit No. 428. From this document it is seen that the Reich Ministry of the Interior is supposed to have given a directive in the year 1933 that official publications were not to be drawn up in a form which might enable people abroad to infer an infraction of the Versailles Treaty from the publication. to be masked with the directives or whether it was only a matter of avoiding the appearance of treaty violations. The same problem exists for Document 1350-PS - USA Exhibit No. 742. This is the minutes of a conference between the Staff of the SA and the Reich Defense Minister, who proposed to the 3A in the year 1933 to have the budgetiary funds of the Reich designated by the Reich ministry of the Interior for the military training of the SA. ministry of the Interior towards this proposal and if they had accepted it, this again would have proved only that the Reich ministry of the Interior furthered the restoration of the Wehrmacht, a fact which, moreover, is already proved. recognized as a preparation for war of aggression the measures ordered by Hitler as necessary for the defense of the Reich.
with the Soviet Union, a conference certainly took place between the defendant Rosenberg and representatives of the ministries concerning measures in case of a possible occupation of territories of the Soviet Union.
This is shown in document 1039 -PS - USA Exhibit No. 146, Rosenberg's report concerning these discussions in which it is stated that negotiations took place with "Reich Minister Frick (State Secretary Stuckart)". These parentheses mean that the Reich Ministry of the Interior was represented in these negotiations by State Secretary Stuckart; therefore that Frick did not personally participate in the negotiations. Since the negotiations took placeonly a few days before the beginning fo the war in the East, it is not proven by the document that Frick himself was informed about the negotiations before the beginning of the war, which was then, as it is generally known, proclaimed by Hitler, as a necessary measure of defense against an imminent attack by the Soviet Union. It has been clarified by numerous proofs in this trial how much Hitler kept his true aggressive intentions secret, and understood generally how to cover up the true aim of all his political measures throughout the years with thousands of convincing reasons with which he justified the individual measures of his policy of aggression. his war plans, but this circle was not selected according to the position of the person concerned in the Cabinet or according to his position in the Party hierarchy, but exclusively from the viewpoint whether the person concerned had to know the aggressive character of Hitler's general policy or even his detailed plans of aggression in respect to his own tasks in the framework of the preparation of the war.
Document 326-PS USA Exhibit No. 25, shows with what consequence the principle of secrecy had been kept, even toward the older members of the Party and the administrators of important departments of the Reich Cabinet. Whoever, as the Reich Minister of the Interior, had to carry out only measures in the framework of the preparation for war, which could have been the same as tasks of a purely defensive character, was not informed concerning aggressive intention in observance of the letter's principle. even a single one of these secret conferences in which Hitler informed a circle of selected men about his foreign political plans and his war aims. Hitler had especially accentuated and given reasons for the exclusion of the Reich Cabinet as a governmental body in the document 326-PS just mentioned. USA Exhibit No. 27 -- the additional principle is established that no one may be informed about any part of the war plans who does not have to know these plans for his tasks directly. Frick's name is not only missing from the list of those present in the conferences of Hitler concerning his policy of aggression which took place before the war, but the same applies also to the nume rous conferences concerning further war aims and Hitler's aggressive intentions which had been held during the war.
them concerning the later attacks, as is shown by Hitler's lectures concerning his plans and the appropriate lists of those present. Frick, a true specialist of domestic administration who was not considered competent for military and foreign political questions, was good enough for the establishment of the civilian administration in case of any possible war. According to Hitler's opinion, the latter's foreign political and military plans were none of the former's business. determined, after the conquest of the foreign territories and after their occupation, the administrative policy in these territories and that he is responsible for it. The Prosecution considers this asserted activity of the defendant, according to Article 6, letter "a" of the statute, as "participation in the execution of wars of aggression".
According to the presentation of the prosecution, Frick is said to have exercised an over-all control over the occupied territories, especially in his capacity as chief of the Central Agency for the occupied territories. for all war crimes and crimes against humanity which had been committed in the occupied and incorporated territories before and during the war, until his recall as Reich Minister of the Interior on 22August 1943. It is a question of legal interpretation whether the activity in the administration of occupied territories, pursuant to article 6, letter "a" of the statute, is to be evaluated as the "execution of wars of aggression", or whether a criminal aspect comes into consideration only under the viewpoint of crimes against the rules of war or against humanity. It appears important to me, for the decision of this question, that it does not belong to the tasks of an official of a civil administration to examine, after the conclusion of military operations, whether there is a question of a legal or illegal occupation according to the standards of international law. Such an obligation of examination would mean an overburdening for the department of the civil administration as well as for the administrative chief, whose activity cannot be designated as illegal for the reason that the territory administered by him had been annexed a short or even a long time ago in violation of the regulations of international law. There is no such obligation of examination in the practice of the civil administration. unlimited interpretation, the military operations themselves are to be understood under an execution of wars of aggression, but not the later civil administration of conquered territories. The punishment of crimes which occurred in the government of the occupied territories would not be made impossible through such an interpretation. In any case, these crimes are subject to punishment as crimes against humanity or against the rules of war according to the statute. In addition, it is to be mentioned for which territories in particular the defendant Frick bears a responsibility. the national law, within the national borders of the German Reich, which are therefore called the incorporated territories.
With the national legal incorporation into the Reich, these territories came under the administration of the appropriate Reich Ministries for the departments of domestic administration, but only for these and thus under the authority of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. So that the defendant Frick bears, until August 1943, the national legal responsibility of a minister for the domestic administration of these territories. In the East, this is mostly a question of the territories of West-PrussiaPosen-Danzig; thus, the so-called incorporated Eastern territories which belonged, until the Versailles treaty, to the national entity of the German Reich. ment; in the West the Eupen-Malmedy district; and in the Southeast, the Sudetenland. Furthermore, the country of Austria was incorporated into the national union of the German Reich. tive measures which were brought about by the incorporation, and he has the usual responsibility of a Minister of the Interior for the domestic administration of these territories until his dismissal in August 1943. government of the protectorate which had been designated as autonomous by the decree concerning the establishment of the protectorate -Document 2119-PS -- and therefore was not controlled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Reich Ministry of the Interior in the Polish territories which have been collected under the designation "General Government" and have been put under the jurisdiction of a "General Governor". Contrary to the so-called "incorporated Eastern territories", the Reich Ministry of the Interior had no right to issue orders or to take care of administrative matters for the General Government -- document 3079-PS, which contains Hitler's decree concerning the administration of the occupied Polish territories. USSR 223, the Frank diary where he states that no Reich central offices are authorized to intervene in the government of his territory.
administration was established under any legal form. administrative ministries in the Reich at any given time, but they were under the jurisdiction of the administrative chief of the corresponding territories at any given time, and he himself was directly under Hitler's jurisdiction. administration of which a was under the jurisdiction of a Reich minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. The same applies to Norway, where a Reich Commissioner was appointed. who was also independent, of the Reich ministry of the Interior, and was directly under Hitler's jurisdiction. In Luxembourg, in Alsace, and in Lorraine, there were also chiefs of the civil administrations who were not dependent on the Reich ministry of the Interior, while there was a military administration in Belgium and Northern France which was also not dependent on the Reich Ministry of the Interior. re occupied in the Southeast of Europe were completely independent ofthe Reich Ministry of the Inferior. For a part of the occupied territories there is now, in the appropriate decree concerning the creation of a seperate civil administration, the order that the Reich Minister of the Interior is appointed as the central agency, and from this formulation the prosecution has deducted a responsibility of defendant Frick for the administration of all occupied territories, as is stated in the indictment.
the establishment of a central agency for Norway -- document 3082-PS, or No.24 in the Frick document book. The witness Dr. Lammers has given a further explanation of the tasks. At that time it was the primary task of the central agency to put personnel at the disposal of the chief of the civil administrations in the occupied territories, if requested. Therefore, if a civil official was needed for any district, the administration of the district concerned turned to the central agency in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which then put any official from the Reich at the disposal of the chief of the civil administration. The Reich Ministry of the Interior was especially suited for this, since it had at its disposal numerous officials of the domestic administration in Germany. which alone gives its orders to the official from this moment on, does not establish responsibility for the further activity of this official in his new department for which the Reich Ministry of the Interior could issue no orders whatsoever. An example : If the Minister of Justice lets the Foreign Minister have one of his official, naturally only the Foreign Minister has the responsibility for the further activity of this official, and not the Minister of Justice who has released the official. This activity of the central agency therefore does not justify the assumption of a responsibility for the administration of the occupied territories by Frick. trated in the Reich Ministry of the Interior : that is, as the examination of the witness Lammers has proven -- and I quote from the just-mentioned document 3082-PS --"the unified cooperation of the supreme Reich authorities with each other and with the Reich Commissioner, which is to be brought into unison with the needs of Norway." and Seyss-Inquart, who functioned as chiefs of civil administrations in the occupied territories, has not, on any single occasion, revealed any cooperation of any kind with the defendant Frick either in his capacity of Reich Minister of the Interior or of Director of the Central Office in this Ministry.
that the defendant Frick exercised extensive control over all occupied territ-
ories. Actually, however, those documents, as I have just demonstrated, reveal no more extensive administrative activity. Document 3304 PS evidencesadministrative activity for the annexed Eastern territories. This coincides with my statement of the case that the annexed Eastern territories, for their internal administration, were subject to the Reich Ministry of the Interior by virtue of their constitutional annexation to the Union of nations of the German Reich. The document, however, bears no reference to the administration of the Eastern occupied territories, i.e., the Government General, or to the occupied Soviet-Russian territories.
The other document submitted, 1039 PS -- U.S.A. Exhibit No. 146 -evidences the transfer of administrative personnel from the department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Minister for Occupied Territories, a typical task of the Central Headquarters, which I have already discussed. The prosecution has submitted further documents which reveal that the Reich Ministry of the Interior had a hand in the bestowal of German citizenship upon so-called "racial Germans." ty of the defendant Frick for the occupied territories, but merely a typical activity of a Minister of the Interior, whose department is competent for the general regulations concerning German citizenship, including cases where persons living outside the Reich territory are involved. Neither, therefore,can this activity of the Minister of the Interior, affecting specific persons in the occupied territories, evidence an extensive administrative policy and a general responsibility of the defendant Frick for the administration of the occupied territories. In particular, in the occupied territories not annexed to the Reich Territory, Frick had no authority or competence whatsoever in the circle of tasks of the police. occupied territories. Reference can be made in this respect to Document 1997 PS -- USA Exhibit No.319 -- Hitler's decree concerning police safeguards of the Eastern territories, for which Himmler was directly commissioned. The same is revealed by Document 447 PS--USA Exhibit No.135-- a directive of the OKW, dated 13 March 1941, to the effect that the Reichsfuehrer SS in the occupied Eastern territories is charged with certain duties regarding the execution of which he acts independently and on his own responsibility.
tories, which at times were assigned either to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler or to the SS and police chiefs who, I repeat, were exclusively under the discipline of Himmler, but were however, in many cases, actually classified in the range of activity of the civil administration chief involved, the Governor General in Poland for instance. Compare the excerpt from Frank's Diary entered in the Frick Document Book under No. 25 also USRR No.223. defendant Frick's jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant Frick bears no responsibility for crimes against the laws of war and against humanity in the occupied territories, since he could neither order crimes nor prevent them. the prosecution as to the responsibility of the defendant Frick for all the measures of the police, including the Gestapo, as well as for the establishment and administration of concentration camps. reveal that the Police, including the political police, was, in 1933, still the concern of the individual Laender within the Reich, such as Prussia, Bavaria, etc. Accordingly, in Prussia, the Secret State Police (Gestapo) and the concentration camps were established and administered by Goering in his capacity as Prussian Minister of the Interior. The tasks of the political police were then transferred by a Prussian law dated 30 November 1933 to the office of the Prussian prime minister, which was also managed by Goering. Therefore, when the offices of Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior were merged, in the Spring of 1934, Frick did not assume political police duties in Prussia since these remained much more incumbent upon Goering in his capacity of Prime Minister. gradually appointed Special Deputy for Political Police. During this period, the Reich Minister of the Interior had only the right of so-called "Reich supervision" over the Lands, which Frick made use of by the enactment of general instructions and legal ordinances : and this is the only point where Frick, as Minister of the Reich, could exercise any influence on the affairs of the political Police and of concentration camps.
Frick made use of this possibility, in accordance with his basic attitude-
as confirmed by the witness Gisevius-- to prevent and repress arbitrary actions of the Political Police insofar as this was in his power under the circumstances prevailing then . He endeavored, by the enactment of provisions of law and procedure, to restrict the arbitrary practices of the Political Police of the states.
I am referring to Document 779-PS submitted by me as Frick Exhibit No.6. sitions under the descriptive preamble -- which I quote -- "In order to counter act abuse occurring in application of protective custody." application of preventive custody in numerous cases in which it had been improperly applied by the Gestapo. political police, the latter were, of'course, more longwinded because they were under the direction of Goering and Himmler, of whom the "bureaucrat" Frick -- as Hitler disdainfully called him -- could not come within an ace as regards influence with the Party and State.
For that reason the Political Police of the Laender in its practice frequently disregarded Frick's legal ordinances. As long as there was reason to hope that through his intervention the wild practice of the Political Police of the Laender could be directed into orderly channels and according to legal prescriptions, Frick did not stand by idly.
I refer to document 775-PS, Frick Exhibit No. 9, a memorandum from Frick to Hitler, which clearly and unequivocally calls things by their correct name, mentioning legal insecurity, unrest and embitterment, and severely criticising the Political Police of the Laender because of misuse of the right to order custody in individual cases.
Here I insert: The same document also proves that the defendant in the struggle of the churches stood clearly on the side of the churches. This is also proved by Neurath Exhibit 1. andum which he himself drew up for Frick as a further attempt to restrain and legally control through severe criticism and suggestions the arbitrary practice of the Political Police of the Laender. None of those attempts was of avail because Frick's political influence was too insignificant and because he could not assert himself against Goering and Himmler and -- a thing which at the time could not yet become clear to Frick -- because the practice of Goering and Himmler was essentially in harmony with what Hitler actually wanted himself. Therefore, the documents submitted by the prosecution, token in conjunction with the evidence offered by the defense, show that in the domain of the Political Police and in ordering custody, Frick had a certain competency at a time when Police service still was a task entrusted to the individual states. However, this evidence also shows that during that time Frick's jurisdiction was very limited and it further shows that Frick, acting within the bounds of his competency, became active only in order to take steps against the terror and arbitrary actions of the Gestapo through general instructions and through repeated Complaints in individual cases so that the conclusion is not justified that Frick in any way positively participated in the Gestapo's measures of terror and compulsion. The legal situation changed at a later time With Hitler's decree of 17 June 1936 -- document 2073 PS, document book Frick No.35 -- police tasks for the entire Reich were combined and uniformly transferred to Himmler whose department was formally made a part of the Ministry of the Interior under the title "Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German police in the Ministry of the Interior."
in his capacity as Reich Minister of the Interior any authority of command or whether he was given any power to issue instructions on the Political Police, its offices and functionaries, which could he practically enforced. When Himmler in accordance with his own with and because of his influence on Hitler Was appointed Police Chief for the entire Reich there did not exist in Germany a Police or security ministry, properly speaking. Himmler in person was formally attached to who Reich Ministry of the Interior. of the Interior. created for him and his purposes. The entire sphere of tasks of the Police was separated from the rest of the activities of the Ministry of the Interior and placed under Himmler's special jurisdiction under a newly created tithe of office which as a government office included the words "Reichsfuehrer SS", thereby making it possible for Himmler by reason of a title of office characterizing him as Reichsfuehrer SS (In other words a party office at highest level) to carry out State Police tasks in that capacity giving him apparent independence from any instructions issued by a minister of state. the hierarchy of government agencies Himmler was given the right, from the very beginning, to represent Police matters before the Cabinet on his own responsibility just like a Reich Minister -- which is also brought out in the decree covering his appointment, 2073-PS. This decree is a prize sample for overlapping of competencies -- something which Hitler favored so very much in his government system. Himmler was part of the Ministry of the Interior and as a functionary of the Ministry of the Interior, was formally bound to abide by instructions of the Minister. However, he also was an independent Police chief with the right to represent before the Cabinet on his own responsibility matters pertaining to the Police, thus eliminating Frick.
In addition to that, his orders simultaneously carried the authority of a Reichsfuehrer SS and Frick had no authority at allto interfere with them. stronger measure the towering influence of Himmler on Hitler: Frick repeatedly undertook to intervene in behalf of a safeguard of a well ordered state apparatus, through overall instructions, intended to restrain the arbitrary acts of the Political Police. As late as 25 January 1938 he tried to curtail admissibility of protective custody through a decree and in a series of cases it forbade its improper application.
I refer to document 1723-PS, USA Exhibit No.206, an extract of which under No. 36 is in the Frick document book. It prohibited protective custody in lieu of, or in addition to, legal penalty, forbidding its application by police authorities of the medium or lower level and making mandatory prior hearing of the accused person. He decreed periodical examination of continuance of reasons for confinement and on principle forbade application of protective custody against foreigners in regard to whom he left to the police only the authority to expel them from the Reich in case of acts endangering the state. these instructions of Frick and that Himmler and his subordinates had maintained an absolute power by terror and violence. This is correct and has been confirmed in detail by the witness Gisevius. else: to show that Frick himself disapproved such arbitrary acts and that he tried to do all in his power to oppose such arbitrary acts.
Finally, however, Hitler forbade even this. He informed him through Lammers -- as confirmed by him as witness -- that he was not to concern himself with police matters, that Himmler was taking better care of it and that the Police was doing well in Himmler's hands. hands and he also gave outward expression to this, by later dropping with Hitler's consent the qualification in his official title "in the Ministry for the Interior", simply referring to it as "Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police" which also becomes evident from the testimony of Lammers.