Frick's responsibility under criminal law for the political police and their arbitrary measures is not established by the fact that the entire police has been formally incorporated in the Reich Ministry of the Interior since the year 1936, as it has been proven that Frick himself did not participate in arbitrary acts, but tried on the contrary to intervene against such arbitrary practice with his might, which, however, was by no means a match for the personality and the influence of Himmler with Hitler. actual situation as to commands and power and not the purely external circumstances of a formal incorporation of the tasks involved in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
I insert a paragraph here. The prosecution during their presentation on 3 July 1946 brought out Document 181, which has become GB 528. They stated in that connection that this document proved that the political police not only was a part of the Ministry of the Interior, but that Frick had in fact been responsible for the measures of the political police. Actually the document show only that Frick had been included as Minister of the Interior in the proceedings employed during the sterilization of the so-called hereditary-diseased. The document has nothing to do with any measures of the police, and certainly nothing to do with any measures of the political police. And there is no information in it regarding Himmler's position in the Ministry of the Interior.
In this connection, I must briefly deal with the reference of the prosecution to the fact that Hitler's decree concerning the appointment of Himmler as Chief of the German Police -document 2073 PS- had also been signed by Frick himself. I believe that the relationship between Frick and Himmler as well as the differing relation of both to Hitler are sufficiently clear to justify the conclusion, that the appointment of Himmler expressed solely an agreement between Hitler and Himmler, which Frick would have vetoed in vain. We are confronted with the same problem which applies to so many defendants namely the problem of being one of the formal co-signers of an order which was issued by Hitler and which was also formally signed by the chief of a department, although the department chief had no means of exerting influence on the order and could not have prevented it, either, since the order, would have gave fully into effect as a Fuehrer decree. appraised by the prosecution as bearing on actual activity of defendant Frick within the sphere of tasks of the political police. referred in this connection. It concerns an ordinance about the assignment a higher Police Chief to the Reichstatthalter (Reich-Governor)in the Eastern territories which are incorporated in the State Union of the German Reich, and hence deals with the administrative structure of the Reichstatthalter's office in a part of the Reich. ral competence, of the Minister of the Interior and insofar does not prove a special police activity. Gestapo. concerning the appointment of police-consultants with the Prussian provincial administrations, which were also subordinate to the Reich Ministry of the Interior as offices of the general internal Reich administration. administration in the province is a measure of the internal Reich administration.
and particularly it also does not prove the issuance of any instructions by the defendant to the Gestapo. secution as bearing on participation of the defendant in the establishment a administration of concentration camps or as an approval of terror methods through the Gestapo. ment 2533 PS as proof of approval of these arrangements by the defendant Frick. of German Law of which Frick has erroneously been called the authority the prosecution. for a legal judgment.
I refer to document 2513 PS Exhibit No. 235, which contains an excerpt a speech, which Frick allegedly made in the year 1927 - but the excerpt of the speech is taken from a provincial Social Democrat newspaper, a small paper opposed to Frick, the reporter of which thus had no authentic copy of the speech at his disposal - and we all know what mistakes and misunderstandings are also contained in such short reports, the composition of which cannot be checked b y the speaker himself. history is written not only with the ballot, but with blood and iron, is not a reliable source.
The prosecution further submitted document 1643 PS -USA Exhibit No. 173 land in order to extend the grounds of the Auschwitz concentration camp. and for this reason, an official from the Ministry of the Interior was called into the negotiations, who stated however- page 2 of the English traslation of the document- that he was not authorized to dispose of real property. Thus, one cannot construe from this document any political- police activity of the defendant or an approval of the practice of concentration camps.
Finally, the prosecution in this connection pointed out that defendant Frick personally visited the ORANIENBURG and DACHAU concentration camps. The defendant does not deny the visit in 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 murder, 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, Prick 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 companion 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 Nuernberg Laws, and in administrative measures, which he regarded as an expression of National Socialist ra policy. On the other hand there is no proof that Frick himself had shared in 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 No/ 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 fillings or that he could have stopped them.
20 August 1943, Frick was appointed Reichprotector of Bohemia and Moravia. Here he was given an order wchih, from the start was entirely unequivocal in its competence. I refer to document 3443-PS, also as USSR 60 and No.29 in the Frick document book , further - 1366 PS, submitted by me as Prick exhibit No. 5a. Furthermore, the testimony of the witness Lammers. The office of the Reichprotector was originally the unified representative of the Reichpower in the Protectorate. more and more the 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, whofrom that time on received the official tital "The German minister of State in Bohemia and Moravia". The Reichprotector, retained substantially the privilege of representation and the 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", sccording to the above mentioned Fuehrer decree, exercised his executive authority directly under Hitler, by Whom he had been directly appointed, and from whom he receieved 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 No.720.
I now come to the Prosecution's accusation that Frick, by his membership of certain organizations, is responsible for certain criminal actions. Prosecution. Frick was never a member of it.
Similiarly, 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. probably by mistake - in the chart which indicated Frick's membership of various organizations . There is no proof of this. 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. mler, 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 or 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 hold the formal position of a Rechsleiter in his character of Chairman Of the Reichstag fraction of the NSDAP. 1933, which fact needs no further explanation, Frick's position had also practically lost its importance and could nor longer be compared with the position of a Reichslieter who administered importance political branches. the Reich Cabinet. Also with regard to the character and two 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 No.13, as evidence for the position and authority which the Reich Cabinet maintained toward the dictatorial practices of Hitler.
personality, which certainly exerted a decisive influence on interior policy after his yon 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 G of the statute, as has also been stated by the Prosecution. a direction of which he could no longer approve, he tried to exert all his influence in order to introduce a change. not find an audience in Hitler for his representations and complaints. And to the contrary, he had to realize that those complaints destroyed Hitler's confidence in him , as the latter preferred to have himself advised by Himmler and persons of similar attitudes, so that Prick finally was not received by Hitler any more, since the year 1937. I he wanted to present any complaints, Frick then gave up such hopless 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. system, in the first stops 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 pe rsonality 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.
"Inside Europe", which I have presented to the Tribunal as evidence, describes especially the defendant Prick as "the only honest Nazi". Gunther, at the same place, goes on to call him a "bueacrat 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 has office with the police in Munich in the year 1923. This man felt enthusiasimcfor the suggested power of Hitler, for himself so distant who, with his big word, appealed to his senses, his honor and his patriotism. pate 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 pant in world politics. 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 lot themselves be driven alone 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 his aims and who finally would leave Germany behind in a monstrous spiritual and material field of rubble, to the overcoming of which tins trial may also contribute through a sentence in accordance with law and justice.
The PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: My Lords, I begin with the speech for the defense of Julius Streicher.
horrible war of all times came to an end, the German 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 bombs, had brought so much mysery to both country and people that it almost surpassed all human capacity. 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 were slowly beginning to breathe again, paralyzing horror spread once more. 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 millions of innocent Jewish people, had been slaughtered and destroyed. Most people felt instinctively that these deeds would necessarily be the greatest accusation amongst all the charges the world had to make against Germany. approved of these actions was and is the great question for its fate. It is the touchstone by which the decision must be made as to whether Germany will ever be able to return again as a nation with equal rights into the common cultural and spiritual cycle of the world. the question as to who was responsible. And then, a search for that person who had ordered these atrocities, who had carried them out, and how such inconceivable things could have happened at all. Gauleiter of Franconie and publisher of "Der Steurmer", that is, the present defendant Julius Streicher, had fallen into the hands of the American troops. From the echo this news aroused in the press which was exclusively directed and published by the occupying power and just as well in the radio new, it could be gathered that the world imagined that in the person of Julius Streicher it For Afternoon Session, 11 July 1946 had not only taken prisoner one of the numerous anti-Semitic propaganda agents of the Third Reich, but in short, enemy No. 1 of the Jews.
in Julius Streicher they had seized not only the most active propaganda agents for the persecution and extermination of the Jews, but that he had also participated to the highest degree in carrying out these acts of extermination. of the Jews and the greatest preacher of extermination of the Jews, but also the person to whose direct influence one must trace back the extermination of European Jewry. defendant Streicher sits here in the defendant's dock, together with the other defendants, amongst the chief responsible persons of the NationalSocialists system. For, in itself, neither according to his personality nor measured by his offices and positions does he belong to the circle of leaders of the N.S.D.A.P. nor to the Party's decisive personalities. Prosecution, was abandoned by them, however, at an early stage, for the written indictment no longer charged the defendant Streicher with any personal and direct part in the abominable massmurders. Rather, it stated, on the other hand, that there was less evidence to offer for him than for any of the other defendants in favour ofa direct and personal guilt. Only his propaganda, his work both written and verbal, was made the subject of an accusation. against the defendant Streicher were summed up as follows:
I. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the power of the N.S.D.A.P. after the latter's entry into the
II. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda, aimed at the
III. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education to
a) in the German people,
b) in the German youth, and
c) in the active annihilators of Jewry. Without Julius Streicher, no Auschwitz, no Mauthausen, no Maidanek, no Lublin. In such a manner, the indictment may be summed up briefly. regards the Party's later seizure of power he supported and promoted it with all his might from the very beginning. His support went to the extent of a whole movement which he had built up personally in Franconia, and which he put at the disposal of Adolf Hitler's party, the latter being small, as one can imagine after the first world war, and limited to southern Bavaria only. Furthermore, after Hitler's release from the fortress of Landsberg, he immediately jointed him again and subsequently championed his ideas and goals with the greatest determination.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a good time to break off. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 12 July 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn today at 4 o'clock.
Dr. Marx?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, with the Permission of the Tribunal I shall now continue with the presentation of the final plea for the defendant Streicher. against Streicher had been summarized, and I had taken the liberty of explaining that these accusations are subdivided into three different paragraphs:
1. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the power of the NSDAP after the latter's entry into the government.
2. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda aimed at the persecution of the Jews.
3. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education to encourage hatred against the Jews. as regards the Party's later seizure of power he supported and promoted it with all his might from the very beginning. His support went to the extent of a whole movement which he had built up personally in Franconia, and which he put at the disposal of Adolf Hitler's party, the latter being extrememly small after the first world war and limited to southern Bavaria only. Furthermore, after Hitler's release from the fortress of Lansberg he immediately joined him again and subsequently championed his ideas and goals with the greatest determination.
Until 1933, the defendant's activity was limited to propaganda for the NSDAP and its goals, particularly in the field of the Jewish question.
such. The participation in a party within a state, which allows such an opposition party, can be regarded as criminal only if, first of all, the goals of such a party are objectively criminal, and if subjectively a member of such a movement knows, approves of, and thereby supports these criminal goals. this very fact, that the NSDAP is accused of having had criminal goals from the very beginning. According to the assertion of the prosecution, the members of this party started out with the plan of subjugating the world, of annihilating foreign races, and of setting the German master-race above the whole world. They are accused of having harboured the will to carry out these aims and plans from the very outset by means of aggressive wars, murder and violence.
If, therefore, defendant Streicher's mere participation in the NSDAP and his support of it are to be ascribed to him as a crime, it must be proved that the party had such plans and that the defendant knew and approved of them.
The gentlemen who took the floor before me have already demonstrated sufficiently that such a conspiracy with such aims did not exist. Therefore I can save myself the trouble of making further statements on this subject and I can refer to what has already been set forth by the other defense counsels. I have only to deal with the point that the defendant Streicher did not in any case participate in such a conspiracy, if the latter should be considered by the High Tribunal to have existed. way. The aims advocated therein cannot be considered as criminal. Thus, if such aims did actually exist, they could only -- given the nature of a conspiracy -- be known in a restricted circle. meeting in Munich, so that not only the whole public of Germany but also that of the entire world could be informed about the aims of the party. the secret agreement in a common aim, which is usually the characteristic sign of a conspiracy. at that time already there existed a plan for a war of revenge or aggression, connected with the preceding of simultaneous determination of the Jews. If nevertheless a conspiracy should have existed, the latter would have confined itself to the narrow circle which revolved exclusively around Hitler. But the defendant Streicher did not belong to this circle. None of the offices he occupied provides the leastfoothold for it. As an old party member he was just one among many thousands. As honorary Gauleiter, as honorary SA-Obergruppenfuehrer, he was also only an equal among equals. Thus one cannot find in any of the offices he held any link or entanglement with the innermost circle of the party. It is also impossible to discern after the end of 1938 any personal relations with the leading men of the movement, be it with Hitler himself, be it with the defendant Goering,be it Goebbels, Himmler or Bormann. proceedings produce any proof to that effect. Of all the material presented during all those months of the Trial, nothing can be taken even as a shadow of a proof that the defendant Streicher was so closely connected with the highest authority of the party that he could have or even must have known its ultimate aims.
The final aims of the N.S.D.A.P. in the Jewish question -- the effects of which were manifest in the concentration camps -- had not been formulated and fixed the way they appeared in the end, neither before the seizure of power nor several years after. The party program itself provided for the Jews to be placed under a law for aliens, thus the laws issued in the Third Reich followed this line. Only later on, it can be said here, theprogram became more severe and finally came head over heels under the influence of war. But any proof of the fact that the defendant Streicher recognized other aims than those of the official party program has not been offered. of the criminal aims of the party supported the seizure of power of the NSDAP, and only on such a basis could a penal charge be brought against him. increase and maintain the power of the NSDAP after the seizure of power, is also not disputed by him. But here, too, only if the defendant know at that time the objectionable aims of the party, can his conduct be considered punishable. defendant Streicher, contrary to almost all other defendants, did not remain in his position until the end, not even until the war. Officially, he was dismissed in 1940 from his position of Gauleiter, but actually and practically he had been without any influence and power for more than a year. But while he could still work within the modest framework which was at his disposal in his capacity of Gauleiter, no criminal plans of the NSDAP were recognizable. In any case not for somebody, who like the defendant Streicher was outside the close circle surrounding Adolf Hitler. namely the persecution of Jews as a means of preparation for a war of aggression, can be included here. Up to 1937 the existence of a plan for a war of aggression was absolutely not noticeable. In any case, if Hitler should have entertained an intention to that effect, he did not let it be known to the outside. If, however, anybody should have been taken into his confidence at that time it would have been the leading men in politics and the Wehrmacht, who belonged to the closest circle around him.
However, by no means did the defendant Stretcher belong to those. Especially significant is here, that at the outbreak of the war Streicher was not even appointed Wehrkreiskommissar of the Gau (Commissioner of military administrative area HQ). The individual conferences, from which the prosecution derives the evidence for the planning of the war which occurred later on, did not see the defendant Streicher as a participant. His name does not appear anywhere, neither in a written decree, nor in a protocol. Consequently, no proof has been offered that Streicher knew of any alleged plans for waging war. Jews,in order to facilitate thereby the conduct of the war planned for some time after.
In this connection the following is to be said: "away from Versailles." The defendant adopted this program-point which, however, does not mean that he expected to do away with the Treaty by means of a war. negotiations with former opponents from the world war also stressed the fact at all times that the Versailles Treaty is no proper basis for a permanent world peace and particularly for an economic adjustment. Not only in Germany but everywhere in the entire world, the attitude of clear thinking economic circles toward the Versailles Treaty was to reject it. We may point especially to the United Statesof America as an example. aims, concurred in the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles should be revised. Neither was there any doubt that such revision was possible only on the basis of a new agreement. Even to consider any other possibility of a solution would seem like Utopia, since the German Reich lacked all military power. The N.S.D.A.P. stove, at any rate so far as the outer signs indicated, to find a solution to the problem in just this Way. The supporting of such aim, however, cannot be looked upon as a violation of treaty obligations, and made the object of a charge against the defendant. No proof has been offered that he expected military complications and that he desired them. I am about to take up the matter of the defendant's attitude in the Jewish question.
He is accused of having incited and instigated through decades the persecution of the Jews and of being responsible for the final extermination of Europe's Jewry. indictment against Julius Streicher and perhaps of the total indictment, for in this connection the position of the German people to this question must be tried and judged as well.
The Prosecution takes the point of view that there is just as little doubt as to the responsibility of the defendant, as there is doubt about the guilt involvement of the German people. As evidence the Prosecution brought up :
a) The speeches by Striecher before and after the seizure of power, namely one speech in April 925, in which he spoke about the extermination of the Jews. In the Prosecutor's opinion this is altogether the first evidence regarding the final solution of the Jewish question planned by the Party, namely the extermination of all Jews, is to been in these speeches.
b) Active commitment of the personality and authority of the defendant namely on the boycott-day on April 1, 1933.
c) Numerous articles published in the weekly "Der Stuermer", among them especially such dealing with the ritual murder and with quotations from the Talmud. He knowingly and intentionally described in them the Jews as a criminal and inferior race and created and wanted to create hatred and the will to annihilate this people. The defendant's reply to these points is as follows: He states that he worked in the capacity of a private writer only. His aim was to enlighten the German people, on the Jewish question, as he saw it. His description of the Jews merely had the purpose to show that they are different and of a foreign race and to make it clear that they are living according to laws alien to the German conception. It was by no means his intention to incite and instigate his listeners and readers. Besides, he only propagated the thought that the Jews should be extricated from the German national and economic life and eliminated from the close association with the body of German people. mind, he thought nothing of a German or even European part-solution and rejected it. So it happened that he suggested in an editorial of the Stuermer of 1941 that the French Island of Madagascar should be taken into consideration as a settlement area for the Jews. Accordingly, he did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical extermination but in the resettlement of the Jews. defendant's actions as journalist and speaker, namely regarding his Stuermer and his answer to the accusations lodged against him. His ideology and attitude shall likewise remain unexplained, unexcused or defended, also his way of wirting and speaking.