Q How did that express itself? How did the fact that the Fuehrer thought Koch was right, find its expression?
ABecause the Fuehrer refused to listen to the complaints of Rosenberg which, in my opinion, were justified and did not make a decision, just meant considering the fact that Koch was given the right.
QRosenberg said that the result had been that Hitler had given him the order to confine himself to the administrative matters in the East? Is that right?
ARoughly, I think that was the Fuehrer's decree on that occasion, on the occasion when he also told the two to cooperate.
QHow was Rosenberg's relationship to the Fuehrer, and when was Rosenberg's last visit to the Fuehrer?
AAs far as I know the last visit of Rosenberg happened towards the end of 1943, and before that, he had considerable difficulties to get to see the Fuehrer. He didn't see him very often.
QDidn't this tension have the result that Rosenberg at the end of 1940 or in the autumn of 1940, offered his resignation?
AIt wasn't actually an application to resign, since the Fuehrer had prohibited such applications, but he did say that if he couldn't conduct the business properly and to the Fuehrer's satisfaction, then he would like to be relieved. The result really was an application to resign, yes.
QCan you tell the Tribunal anything about Rosenberg's relation to the population and his influence on the population in the Eastern territory. Is it correct particularly to say that a number of leaders of the churches in the Occupied Eastern Territories thanked Rosenberg because of his tolerant attitude and because he allowed them to carry out their religious culture freely?.
AI only know of that from personal statements Rosenberg made to me and merely superficially. I think he merely told me something like that, yes
QI have yet one more question. It has repeatedly appeared during this trial that Hitler's military entourage considered him a military genius. What was the situation in the administrative sphere? Hitler was the supreme legislature at the end. He was the supreme chief of the government and the head of the State.
Did his administrative entourage encourage him in the thought that all his decisions were correct, were right, and that he was doing something superb, or who did strenghthen his views?
AIn this sphere, too, the Fuehrer had the ability to decide unusually quickly and his judgment was almost always right. He was in a position to decide upon about the principles which he desired for legislation and administration. He often used that and one of the executive officers, the administrator in question--sometimes it was my task--had the task to carry out what the Fuehrer decided on the strength of his tendencies and his basic thoughts, and we had to formulate it appropriately. If any objections did arise in such connection, then it was perfectly possible to bring such objections to the Fuehrer, unless, of course, they infringed on the principle: in other words, on any increase or decrease in such measures or any new version it was perfectly feasible to bring it to him, but not if any of his basic tendencies were affected. That, of course, was very difficult.
QBut, now, regarding the individual problems, did he personally make the pertinent decisions or did he in any way find that certain aims he had in mind were interfering?
ANothing much has come to my notice. Normally, during the recent years, I only made a report every six or eight weeks; in other words, I saw Hitler two or three times per annum or ten times at the most and, of course, on problems we could not discuss. Generally speaking, the Fuehrer left it to his administrators regarding the administration.
THE PRESIDENT:We have heard it over and over again about Hitler.
BY DR. THOMA:
QI have one more question. Did you know anything regarding the fact that Hitler had decided to achieve a final solution regarding the Jewish question, that is the destruction of Jews?
AYes, much is known to me about that. The final solution of the Jewish question became known to me for the first time in 1942, that is when I had heard that the Fuehrer supposedly, through Goering, had given the order to the Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS, Heydrich, to achieve a final solution of the Jewish question. The exact contents of that order did not reach me and consequently, since th s did net come into my sphere of activity, I first of all refused to concern myself with it but when I wanted to know some details later on I did, of course, contact Himmler. I had to contact him to start with and I asked him what the final solution of the Jewish question meant. Himmler replied that he bad received the order from the Fuehrer to bring about the final solution of the Jewish problem or respectively Heydrich and his successor, had that order and that it was the main point of the order that then Jews were to be evacuated from Germany. With that statement I felt satisfied and I adopted the attitude of waiting, since this did not fall into my sphere of activ ity and I first of all wanted to hear something more from either Heydrich or his successor, Kaltenbrunner.
Since nothing did come, however, I wantedto inform myself about the matter and in 1942 I announced my intentions to call on the Fuehrer, whereupon the Fuehrer told me that yes, it was true. He had given Himmler the order to evacuate but that he did not want any further statements on the Jewish question during the war. Shortly afterwards, and this is the beginning of 1943, the R.H.S.A. sent out inventions to attend a meeting which had an item on the agenda, "Final Solution of the Jewish Questions." I had previously sent out an order to my officials that I was not defining my attitude in this connection since I wanted to present it to the Fuehrer and I had ordered if invitations for a meeting went out then one of my officials would have to go there more or less as a listener.
A meeting did actually take place but no result was reached. A protocol was supposed to be sent out and the various departments were supposed to reply to it.
When I received these minutes I found that it contained nothing vital and for a second time I forbid my staff from defining their attitude and I myself refused to and I remember very well indeed that a letter which I had received had first of all been signed by a very small man indeed and who in my mind had no right to sign and he had written me and asked my why I had not commented.
Secondly, the tone of the inquiry was very unkind, saying that everybody had commented upon it except me. I ordered that the reply should be that I had refused to define my views or attitude since I washed to first of all take the matter before the Fuehrer.
In the meantime I once more addressed myself to Herr Himmler. I told him that it was necessary to discuss these questions since a number of problems would have to be solved, particularly since the intention to achieve a final solution of the Jewish question would probably extend to persons of mixed blood, first grade, and would also extend to the so-called privileged marriages, that is to say marriages where only one party was Aryan whereas the other part was Jewish. The Fuehrer stated once more that he did not wish to have a report on it but that he had no objections against consulting upon the problems. That actual evacuations had taken place had become known to me. At that time, however, no mention had been made of principal evacuations. I only knew that there were individual cases and I always addressed myself to Himmler and these individual cases were always treated favorably by Himmler, these cases which had reached me by means of complaints.
Finally, in 1943 rumours cropped up according to which Jews were being killed. I had no jurisdiction over this sphere except that occasionally I would receive complaints. On the basis of these complaints I investigated the rumours but as far as I am concerned all I could find out was that there were rumours. One said he had heard it from the other and nobody wanted to make a definite statement and I am in fact of the opinion that these rumours were due to listening in on foreign broadcast stations and these people just did not want to say where they had gotten the information from.
That caused me once more to write an attack on this matter. First of all, since I myself could not investigate matters which came under Himmler's jurisdiction, I addressed myself to Himmler once again. Himmler denied any killings and told me with reference to the order from the Fuehrer that he had the duty to evacuate the Jews and during such evacuations there cases of death of old people which did occur, there were accidents, there were attacks by enemy aircraft.
In fact, he added that there were revolts, which, of course, would have to be suppressed with a great loss of blood so as to deter these people. Apart from that these people would be accommodated in camps in the East and he brought out a lot of pictures in albums and he showed me the work that was being done in these camps by the Jews and how they worked for the requirements of war, that there were tailor shops. He told me:
"This is the order of the Fuehrer and if you believe that you should attack that position then you had better tell the Fuehrer or you had better tell, me the people who have made these reports to you."
Of course, I could not, first of all because they did not want to be named, and secondly, they only knew these things by heresay so that in fact I could not have given him any material at all.
Nevertheless, I once again reported the same matter to the Fuehrer and on that occasion he gave me practically the same reply which I had been given by Himmler and he said:
"I shall later on decide where these Jews will be taken and in the meantime they are accommodated there."
Then he said the same thing Himmler said and that created the impression upon me that Himmler had told the Fuehrer--Lammers is about to come and see you and he will probably raise the point with you.
But that final solution of the Jewish problem was nevertheless in my files and I was determined to bring it up once again with the Fuehrer. I only succeeded in doing so on the occasion of some particularly severe cases, cases which were such that the Fuehrer had to let me talk to him about it. I must quote as an example a most outstanding case. If a Jew was married to a German then the marriage was considered privileged, that is to say, he was not evacuated. But if the wife died, then the marriage would no longer be considered privileged.
DR. THOMA:Mr. President, I should rather like to ask the witness myself to be as brief as possible but I would ask you to admit one question. In my opinion the witness is trying to describe how the entire solution of the Jews came about and that it was done with the deception of the entire entourage of Hitler and that is why I ask that the witness be allowed to talk since these are decisive questions regarding the entire organization.
BY DR. THOMA:
QWitness, please will you be brief and I am now putting this question to you. Did Hitler tell you at any time that the final solution of the Jewish problems should be exterminating them?
AThat was never mentioned. No, we only talked about evacuations.
QHe only talked about evacuations, did he? I see.
AYes, only evacuations.
QWhen did you hear that Jews were being exterminated, when did you hear that Jews, these five million Jews were being exterminated?
AI heard of that here a few weeks ago.
QIn other words, the whole matter was being kept completely secret and only very few persons knew of it?
AYes, I assume that the way Himmler did it was that he nevertold anybody and he formed his commandos in such a way that nobody know about it. Of course, there must have been a number of people who must have known about it.
QWhat number of people must have known about it?
AI cannot understand.
QCan you tell me anything about which people did know or must have known about it, apart from those who carried out these exterminations? Who, apart from those, must have known about it?
AWell, to start with Himmler must have passed his orders on to other people and certain leading officials must have known.
QAnd apart from that?
AAnd these leading officials, of course, must have passed on their orders down to other leading officials and it went down to the commandos and the whole lot of them must havekept it completely secret.
DR. THOMA:No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:We wall adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
BY DR. PANNENBECKER (Counsel for defendant Frick):
QWitness, you have already talked about such questions which are of importance for the defense of defendant Frick, since he has been a member of the Reich Cabinet. Can you tell me on the strength of what position you are particularly suited to give such answers? I repeat, how is it that you on the strength of your position, can answer these questions?
AYou mean my own?
QYes.
AI was Secretary of State in the Reich Chancellory, and I was the intermediary between the Fuehrer and the Reich Minister, with two exceptions: Either, if the Fuehrer decided to go a direct way to these gentlemen, or if these men in question chose another way to the Fuehrer, not through me. There were a numberof things which didn't go through my hands, whenever these ministers submitted them to the Fuehrer directly. These were all matters referring to a large scale foreign policy, particularly. Only in 1937, on the occasion of certain alterations of the cabinet, did I receive the title "Reich Minister", but my tasks did not change. In particular, I had no fear of influence nor jurisdiction.
QCan you tell me when the last meeting of the Reich Cabinet took place?
AThe Reich Cabinet met for the last time in November, 1937, but, on the other hand, in 1938, at the beginning of February, there was one more so-called "information conference" between ministers, during which the Fuehrer announced the alterations which were being made in the Government, which were referring to von Blomberg and von Neurath. The last cabinet meeting, however, when actual consultations took place and when a penal code was being drafted, took place in November 1997.
QCan you tell me anything about any attempts after that date to get the ministers together?
AAfter that date I continuously attempted to effect a concentration of the Reich Cabinet. I would like to say, I wanted reactivation. This was continously refused by the Fuehrer. I had even prepared a draft, a draft for a decree, according to which ministers would at least have the possibility to consult with each other, say once or twice a month, and under the chairmanship of Reichsmarshal Goering, or, if he were prevented from attending, under my formal chairmanship.
All I was aiming at was a meeting of ministers for information and reporting, but that, too, was turned down by the Fuehrer. Nevertheless, the ministers had the urgent wish to meet. So, I made a further suggestion, namely that once or twice a month the ministers should have a social evening, drinking beer, so that they could get together and talk. To that the Fuehrer replied, "Mr. Lammers, this isn't your business; it'smy business. The next time I go to Berlin, I'll do so." And again this didn't take place.
THE PRESIDENT:What are all these details about beer drinking? If they did not meet and he applied to the Fuehrer, asking them to meet and they never did, that is sufficient. What is the good of going into detail? BY DR. PANNENBECKER:
QIs it correct, therefore, to say that the ministers as individuals had to work on their own, but that a Reich Cabinet as such, which decided upon political questions and was informed and discussed them, did not exist at all?
A- In principle, ministers were no longer anything than the supreme administrative chiefs in their sphere. They no longer acted in the cabinet as political ministers. I have been trying to describe that earlier on no further meetings took place. In fact, they were even forbidden. So, how could it have been possible that they could exchange views?
QDo you know anything about a statement coming from Hitler that he considered the cabinet as a defeatist club?
ADuring my attempts to reactivate the Reich Government and to bring about certain meetings, the Fuehrer told me that this would have to be stopped since an atmosphere could be created which he wouldn't like very much. He didn't use the word "defeatist club" before me, but Reichsleiter Bormann told me that he had said, "Ministers shouldn't meet since this could become a defeatist club."
QIt has been discussed quite frequently here that the Reich Minister on his own couldn't resign.
Do you know whether Frick made an attempt to resign?
AIn spite of this prohibition, Frick has repeatedly stated his wish to be relieved of his office if he no longer enjoyed the Fuehrer's full confidence and if the Fuehrer wouldn't receive him any more. He was told me that frequently; but an application to resign in writing I cannot recollect: Frick's wishes regarding his resignation were, of course, passed on to the Fuehrer by me in every case, although such transmissions were always severely turned down by the Fuehrer.
QIn August, 1943, Frick left his position as the Minister of the Interior. Do you know any details about what he said in that connection, personally?
AAt that time he himself told me, "I am glad to leave my position as Minister for the Interior, but, please, see to it that the Fuehrer does not make me Reich Protector of Bohemia or Moravia, as he is intending to do. I don't want that job. I want to retire." And I told that to the Fuehrer.
So, the Fuehrer ordered Frick to come to his headquarters. Before Frick went to see the Fuehrer alone, he told me that he did not under any circumstances want to accept the position of Reich protector, but, when he left the Fuehrer, he had, nevertheless, changed his mind and he had accepted the job. If I am right, this must have been in August, 1943.
QFrick is accused of being Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration. Do you know anything abut that office?
AHe had the task of coordinating other ministries as Plenipotentiary for the Administration, the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Churches, and Department for Reallocation of Space, He coordinated them under his command and represented them in the Administerial Counsel for Reich Defense, which came into being in 1939 with the outbreak of war.
QCan you tell me which is the basis for his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Administration?
There are two Reich Defense Laws, one for 1938 and one for 1939.
A The Plenipotentiary for Reich Defense Laws I cannot recollect.
The draft of that law, which was not published, the Reich Defense Law of 1938, allocates to the Plenipotentiary for administration, a number of tasks which he did, in fact, never take over. He has only taken ever the task of coordinating these various departments, which I have just mentioned. Actual powers as general Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration were never exercise to that degree, which had been allocated to him in that Reich Defense Law.
Q In this connection, it has been mentioned that there was a so-
called Three Men College, or collegium, which was supposed to have consisted of Frick, Schacht, and the Chief of the OKW. Can you tell me anything about the expression "Three Men College"?
AThe "Three Men College" is quite wrong. It is not a legal conception. It was on auxiliary expression that was used, a make-shift word. These three people, the General Plenipotentiary for Administration, the General Plenipotentiary for Economy, and the Chief of the OKW each had such powers as were necessary to promulgate decrees, but they were tied down and had to get the agreement of the other two. In other words, one could give instructions after the other two had agreed, and meetings of the so-called three men college, or collegium, have never taken place. The decree, or decrees, which have originated from it are very few indeed and altogether quite unimportant. For instance, I can remember that this council has ruled on the question of reducing judges, which are matters referring to civil service, and there are one or two, in fact, a total of six or eight, and altogether quite unimportant.
QThere was later on the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense. Can you compare these two, in other words, the three and the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense?
ADo you mean the Three Men College?
QYes.
AFirst of all, after the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense was established, it was my principle to exclude these three men wherever possible, since it was not at all necessary. The Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense had the task to issue legal decrees which had the power of laws but it actually had nothing to do with the defense of the Reich. In other words, military matters were never discussed in this Ministerial Council for Reich Defense, nor did they negotiate on any foreign political questions or propaganda. In principle, they issued decrees which had the force of laws, and the meetings only took place until December 1939, and after that they merely used the system of written circulation of decrees, and meetings after that did not take place.
Q In connection with occupied territories, there appears to have been a Central Department in the Ministry of the Interior.
This Central Department has been quoted by the Prosecution as evidence for the fact that Frick had considerable administrative powers and responsibilities for occupied territories. Are you able to say anything about the Central Department?
AThe Central Department had two main tasks. One was the recruiting of civil servants. The second was to give assistance in connection with the publication of laws and decrees in occupied territories.
QSuch a department became necessary because the occupied territories required personnel and because the Reich Commissioners in the occupied territories, who were directly under the Fuehrer's command, handled their problems partly through me. If one had decided to settle personnel problems within that framework, then I would have had to do it, but I had no instrument for it. I had only a staff of twelve, and I had no organization in the country, nor did I have any executive powers. Thus, the Minister of the Interior was included, since he had the civil service instrument at his disposal.
QYou just said that the Central Department had given assistance in issuing decrees in the occupied territories. Was it possible for the Central Department to issue a decree referring to Norway or any occupied territory, say for instance, Norway? Could they publish such a decree?
ANo, not actually. Only after the Reich Commissioner in question had agreed.
QWas it customary for the Central Department at any time to publish decrees referring to any certain occupied territory?
ATo my knowledge that has never happened. I do not know of a single case where the Central Department has published a decree.
QIt has been stated that there is a decree from the Minister of their Interior which ruled on the question of citizenship with reference to occupied territories.
ADo you mean G erman citizenship?
QYes.
A Yes, that is an interior matter, an internal German matter.
QDid not the Central Department have the right to issue instructions to either the German Deputy or authorized persons in occupied territories, say the Commissioner for Norway, or did they have the right to issue instructions to the German service departments?
A No, they did not have any such right.
QThe Prosecution has further stated that the Central Department also had the right to issue instructions in those territories for which it had not been specifically appointed. I s there any legal basis or is there any practical example where the Central Department interfered with the jurisdiction for occupied territories?
ANo, none is known to me.
QWould you say that it is correct to say that the civil administration in the occupied territories always was immediately subordinate to Hitler as the Fuehrer, no matter what their designation was?
AIn occupied territories the Reich Commissioners were subordinated, as were the chiefs of the civil administration, immediately to the Fuehrer.
QDid Frick, as Minister for the Interior, have the power to issue orders with reference to occupied territories where the German police was active?
ANo, the police authority in occupied territories was vested in Himmler in co-operation with the commissioners. The Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with the police in occupied territories.
QDoes not the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Interior arise from the fact that Himmler was subordinate to Frick in the Ministry of the Interior?
AThere might have been the possibility to issue instructions as far as Germany was concerned, but not as far as the occupied territories are concerned, and just how far this applied to the German Reich is another problematical question.
QI shall come to that later in detail. Can you tell me anything about the powers of the Minister of the Interior regarding the police during that time when the police was still under the jurisdiction of the counties, 1933 to 1936?
AWell, his powers were very limited, and I cannot tell you any of the details.
QDid he have the right to supervise?
AYes, the Reich had the right of supreme supervision.
Q You know, of course, that later on, through decree, Himmler was appointed to be Reichleiter of the German police in the Ministry of the Interior, do you not?
Do you know who originated that designation?
AYes, I participated at the time. The proposal for such a title appears to have originated from Himmler. I objected to this title for two reasons. Two different matters were being thrown together; the Reich Fuehrer SS, which is a Party organization, and the State organization, the chief of the Police. The Reichsleiter SS has the rank of Reich Leader in the Party, which is equivalent to a Minister, and on the other side you have the chief of police, who has the position of a secretary of state in the Ministry of the Interior and who is subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior, but Himmler insisted, on that designation, and the Fuehrer considered that he was right. My objections were proved correct by the facts, because on one side the right to issue instructions which the Reich Minister of the Interior had with reference to the police now became extremely problematical, since Reichsfuehrer Himmler was giving instructions to police who were SS, and he could give them instructions as Reichsfuehrer SS, and the Ministry of the Interior could not interfere, and it was a habit of his that he appointed police officials as SS officers, so that you could never know in what capacity he was acting. Was he acting as member of the SS, or was he acting as a policeman? And the subordination in the Ministry of Interior later on became almost irrelevant, because, first of all, Himmler used to leave out the Chief of the German Police designation in the Ministry, and as far as administration was concerned, he merely called himself Minister of the Interior, and he no longer considered himself under the jurisdiction. When Minister Frick raised a complaint about this which he addressed to me and which I was supposed to take to the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer told me, "Tell Frick to consider Himmler as Chief of the German Police and not to interfere with him too much. He is looking after the police very well. Where possible, he ought to give him a free hand." Thus, though perhaps not by special decree, there was in practice created a limitation on the jurisdiction on the part of the Minister of the Interior, if it was not altogether cancelled.
Q You have just said that Himmler on his own exercised jurisdict-
ion over police organizations without worrying very much about what Frick wanted, but then there was a channel of orders as far as the police were concerned when Hitle himself gave orders. Did he give them to Frick or did he give them to Himmler?
ANormally the Fuehrer gave these instructions to Himmler . If he gave instructions to me which were referring to the police sector then I mostly handed then on to the Minister of the Interior or at least I informed him.
Q.Do you know anything regarding the question whether concentration camps were presented in the budget of the Reich or whether they were in the budget of the SS?
A.As far as I know -- but I can't say this for certain -- the money for concentration camps did not appear in the budget of the Reich, But what was the case was that the Reich Minister of Finance would receive an over-all payment and pay it to the Party once a year. This was taken care of by the Reich Treasurer. He, in turn, distributed it to the various Party organizations, so that the Reich Leader SS would receive an over-all payment for the SS and quite probably he used that for that finance. I can't recollect that I have over seen any figure, any sum, which was referring to concentration comps in the budget.
Q.Do you know anything regarding the fact that Himmler, giving the reason that means for concentration comps were being raised through the SS, has denied the right of the minister of the Interior to interfere with those natters?
A.No, I don't know anything about that.
Q.I now have some questions referring to another problem. Do you know anything about Himmler's efforts to kill insane persons painlessly?
A.The first time that thought occurred to Hitler was in the autumn of 1939. On that occasion the Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Conti, received the task of invertigating this problem. He was told to discuss the legal angle with me. I spoke against the execution of any such procedure but since the Fuehrer insisted I suggested that this matter should because given all legal guarantees and be ruled upon by a law, because promptly I drafted a law and the Secretary of state was then relieved of the task.
In 1940 the task was given to Reich Leader Buhler. He, Buhler, reported to the Fuehrer, and I wasn't present.
And then he came to see me, and I showed him my draft of the law and stated the objections I had to the whole thing. And he left. Then I presented the draft law to the Fuehrer and he did not approve it, but he didn't turn it down altogether. However, he excluded me and he gave authority for the killing of incurable insane people to Reich Leader Buhler, and the medical officer, Professor Dr. Brandt. I didn't participate in the draft of that authority. As far as I was concerned, the the matter was settled, since the Fuehrer didn't wish to have a law and since he had given others the authority to carry it out.
Q.You have just said that the Fuehrer gave the task to the Secretary of State, Dr. Conti, in the Ministry of the Interior. Did that order go through Frick to Conti from Hitler?
A.I don't know. Secretary of State Conti was called on the telephone by the adjutant's office and he was told to call, and whether that went through Frick or not, that I don't know.
Q.Do you know anything about whether Frick himself did participate in these measures in some form or other?
A.No, nothing is known to me.
Q.Then I have a last group of questions, referring to the Protectorate in Bohemia and Moravia. when in August, 1943, Frick was appointed Protector for Bohemia and Moravia did the formal authority remain the same as before?
A.No, they were deliberately altered. In that was the immediate effect was that the Protector became a more or less decorative personality. The political guidance was to be transferred to the Minister, Frank. The Protector was merely the German head in the Protectorate, with comparatively few perogstives. He was to cooperate in forming the government in the Protectorate and furthermore he had a certain rather limited, rather small right to nominate civil servants, which in the main applied to the medium and lower grade civil servants, and then he had the right to grant pardons to sentenced criminals. Generally speaking the Minister for Bohemia and Moravia, Frank, had the duties to inform the Protector; that principally was the right which the Protector had; and apart from that, it was Hitler's wish that the Protector should not spend too much time in the Protectorate.
In fact I have had to pass that wish on to him several times.
QYou have said that the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia during Frick's time was the head of German administration. Was State Minister Frank under Frick?
AYes, he was the subordinate but the relation was rather that of the head of the State to the head of the Government; in other words, State Minister Frank had political control.
QBut isn't it right to say that Minister Frank was immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer?
ANo, I don't think that was the situation. I haven't got a recollection of the degree, but I don't think he was immediately his subordinate I can't tell you that for certain now. At any rate, the Fuehrer only received Mr. Frank for political discussion and not as Protector.
QI cannot find the paper; I shall have to clarify it later.
Do you know anything regarding the fact that Frick has expressly demanded that partition of authority and that to start with he refused to accept the position of Protector in Bohemia and Moravia and only when he said that outwardly, that he couldn't bear responsibility, did that partition actually take place?
AThe fact that Frick refused, to start with, to accept the position has been stated by me. And when this decree appeared in which the rights of the Protector were laid, down, which was a decree which wasn't published, Dr. Frick quite rightly raised the objection, saying then, "As far as the outside world is concerned, I have responsibilities which aren't known." So we published a notice in the press. In that, it said that the new Reich Protector would only have such and such rights," as I previously listed them here, such as the nomination of civil servants, the right to pardon and the right to cooperate in the forming of a government in the Protectorate. So that it had been stated to the outside world that Frick did not have the whole, full responsibility which had been held by former Reich Protectors.
QDid you know anything about the fact that the reason for that partition of responsibility in the Protectorate was that Hitler didn't think that Frick would be hard enough to handle matters there?
AThat is obviously the reason, yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER:In that case I have no further questions. BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk):
QSo as to supplement the statements already made by the witness, I have only a very few questions. Dr. Lammers, the Defendant Funk beginning with the year 1933 was the Chief of Press of the Reich Government? That is known to you?
AYes.
QYou yourself at that time were in your office, weren't you?
AYes.
QDid the Defendant Funk in these capacity of Chief of press of the Reich Government exercise any influence on decisions made by the Cabinet or upon the contents of proposed law, on the Cabinet?
AThat question must be answered with, "No, he may have had a certain amount of influence from the point of view of the press, that is to say, if a law had too strongly worded a heading or if there were any mistakes in its wordings but he had no influence upon the contents." He was the Chief Of Press and as such he was first of all Ministerialdirektor and Secretary of State, and he had nothing to say about the contents.
QMay was he appointed the Chief of Press -- why was he consulted for meeting?
ABecause of the reporting done through the press.
QThat is to say, you mean only to inform the press regarding the decisions made by the Reich Cabinet?
AYes, that's right.
QBut without exercising any influence on decisions or even to propose laws.
AYes, that's right.
QIn that capacity of Chief Of Press of the Government, he, the defendant Funk, as you know, has held frequent press conferences with the Chancellor, Hitler.
