Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials: Complete Tribunal Proceedings (V. 12) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 6
Afternoon Session
ОглавлениеMR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Defendant, who was the actual leader of the National Socialist Party in the Government General?
FRANK: I hear nothing at all.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask you...
FRANK: I hear nothing at all.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have the following question to put to you: After 6 May 1940 in the Government General...
FRANK: 6 May?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, 6 May 1940, after the Nazi organization had been completed in the Government General, who was appointed its leader?
FRANK: I was.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus the leadership of the administration of the National Socialist Party and of the Police was concentrated in your hands. Therefore you are responsible for the administration, the Police, and the political life of the Government General.
FRANK: Before I answer that question, I must protest when you say that I had control of the Police.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I believe that that is the only way one could interpret the Führer’s orders and the other documents which I have put to you.
FRANK: No doubt, if one disregards the actual facts and the realities of the situation.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, then, let us pass on to another group of questions. You heard of the existence of Maidanek only in 1944, isn’t that so?
FRANK: In 1944 the name Maidanek was brought to my knowledge officially for the first time by the Press Chief Gassner.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will now ask that you be shown a document which was presented by your defense counsel, which was compiled by you, and which is a report addressed to Hitler, dated June 1943. I will read into the record one excerpt, and I wish to remind you that this is dated 19 June 1943:
“As a proof of the mistrust shown to the German leadership, I enclose a characteristic excerpt from the report of the Chief of the Security Police and SD in the Government General...”
FRANK: Just a moment. The wrong passage has been shown me. I have the passage here on Page 35 of the German text, and it is differently worded.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Have you found the place now?
FRANK: Yes. But you started with a different sentence. The sentence here starts “A considerable part of the Polish intelligentsia...”
THE PRESIDENT: Which page is it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Page 35 of the German text, last paragraph.
FRANK: It starts here with the words “A considerable part...”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: All right. Then I will continue:
“As a proof of the degree of the mistrust shown to the German leadership I enclose”—these are your own words, this passage comes somewhat higher up in the quotation—“a characteristic excerpt from the report of the Chief of the Security Police and SD in the Government General for the period from 1 to 31 May 1943, concerning the possibilities of propaganda resulting from Katyn.”
FRANK: That is not here. Would you be good enough to show me the passage? Now, what you are presenting here is not in my text.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, it is there; it comes somewhat earlier in your text.
FRANK: I think it has been omitted from my text.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I begin now at that part which you find lower down at the bottom. Follow the text:
“A large part of the Polish intelligentsia, however, as before, will not allow itself to be influenced by the news from Katyn and holds against the Germans alleged similar cruelties, especially in Auschwitz.”
I omit the next sentence and I continue:
“Among that portion of the working classes which is not communistically inclined, this is scarcely denied; at the same time it is pointed out that the attitude of Germany towards the Poles is not any better.”
Please note the next sentence:
“It is said that there are concentration camps at Auschwitz and Maidanek where likewise the mass murder of Poles is carried out systematically.”
How can one reconcile this part of your report which mentions Auschwitz and Maidanek, where mass murder took place, with your statement that you heard of Maidanek only at the end of 1944. Well, your report is dated June 1943; you mentioned there both Maidanek and Auschwitz.
FRANK: With reference to Maidanek we were talking about the extermination of Jews. The extermination of Jews in Maidanek became known to me during the summer of 1944. Up to now the word “Maidanek” has always been mentioned in connection with extermination of Jews.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, we are to understand—I refer to the text submitted to you—that in May 1943 you heard of the mass murder of Poles in Maidanek, and in 1944 you heard of the mass murder of Jews?
FRANK: I beg your pardon? I heard about the extermination of the Jews at Maidanek in 1944 from the official documents in the foreign press.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And you heard of the mass killings of the Poles in 1943?
FRANK: That is contained in my memorandum, and I protest: these are the facts as I put them before the Führer.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will ask that another document be shown to you. Do you know this document, are you acquainted with it?
FRANK: It is a decree dated 2 October 1943. I assume that the wording agrees with the text of the original decree.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, it is in full agreement with the original text. In any case your defense counsel can follow the text and will be able to verify it. I have to ask you one question. What do you think of this law signed by you?
FRANK: Yes, it is here.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were President of the Reich Academy of Law. From the standpoint of the most elementary standards of law, what do you think of this law signed by you?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the number of it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is Exhibit USSR-335, Mr. President.
FRANK: This is the general wording for a court-martial decree. It provides that the proceedings should take place in the presence of a judge, that a document should be drawn up, and that the proceedings should be recorded in writing. Apart from that I had the power to give pardons, so that every sentence had to be submitted to me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us how this court for court-martial proceedings was composed, who the members of this court were. Would you please pay attention to Paragraph 3, Point 1 of Paragraph 3?
FRANK: The Security Police, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were telling us of your hostile attitude to the SD. Why then did you give the SD the right to exert oppression on the Polish population?
FRANK: Because that was the only way in which I could exert any influence on the sentences. If I had not published this decree, there would have been no possibility of control; and the Police would simply have acted at random.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You spoke of the right of reprieve which was entrusted to you. Would you please note Paragraph 6 of this law. I remind you that a verdict of a summary court-martial by the SD was to be put into effect immediately according to the text. I remind you again that there was only one possible verdict: “death.” How could you change it if the condemned person was to be shot or hanged immediately after the verdict?
FRANK: The sentence would nevertheless have to come before me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, but a sentence had to be carried out immediately.
FRANK: Those were the general instructions which I had issued in connection with the power given me to grant reprieves, and the committee which dealt with reprieves was constantly sitting. Files were sent in...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Since you have spoken of the right to reprieve, I will put to you another question. Do you remember the AB Action?
FRANK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you remember that this action signified the execution of thousands of Polish intellectuals?
FRANK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Then what did it signify?
FRANK: It came within the framework of the general action of appeasement and it was my plan to eliminate, by means of a properly regulated procedure, arbitrary actions on the part of the Police. This was the meaning of that action.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I do not understand very well what you mean. How did you treat persons who were subject to the AB Action? What happened to them?
FRANK: This meeting really only dealt with the question of arrests.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask you what happened to them later?
FRANK: They were arrested and taken into protective custody.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And then?
FRANK: Then they were subjected to the proceedings which had been established. At least, that is what I intended.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was this left to the Police exclusively?
FRANK: The Police were in charge.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In other words, the Police took over the extermination of these people after they had been arrested, is that so?
FRANK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, then tell us, please, why you did not exercise your power of reprieve while they were carrying out this inhuman action?
FRANK: I did make use of it.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will put before you your statement, dated 30 May 1940. You certainly remember this meeting with the Police on 30 May 1940, when you gave final instructions to the police before carrying out this action?
FRANK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stated the following:
“Any attempt on the part of the legal authorities to intervene in the AB Action, undertaken with the help of the Police, should be considered as treason to the State and to German interests.”
Do you remember this statement?
FRANK: I do not remember it, but you must take into account all the circumstances which spread over several weeks. You must consider the statement in its entirety and not seize upon one single sentence. This concerns a development which went on for weeks and months, in the course of which the reprieve committee was established by me for the first time. That was my way of protesting against arbitrary actions and of introducing legal justice in all these proceedings. That is a development extending over many weeks, which you cannot, in my opinion, summarize in one sentence.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am speaking of words which in my opinion can have only one meaning for a jurist. You wrote:
“The reprieve committee which is part of my office is not concerned with these matters. The AB Action will be carried out exclusively by Higher SS and Police Leader Krüger and his organization. This is a purely internal action for quieting the country which is necessary and lies outside the scope of a normal legal trial.”
That is to say you renounced your right of pardon?
FRANK: At that particular moment; but if you follow the further development of the AB Action during the following weeks you will see that this never became effective. That was an intention, a bad intention, which, thank God, I gave up in time. Perhaps my defense counsel will be able to say a few words on the subject later.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One single question interests me. Did you renounce your right of pardon while carrying out this operation or not?
FRANK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well then, how can you account for your words, this one sentence: “The reprieve committee is not concerned with these matters.”?
How should we interpret these words?
FRANK: This is not a decree; it is not the final ruling on the matter. It is a remark which was made on the spur of the moment and was then negotiated on for days. But one must recognize the final stage of the development, and not merely the various motives as they came up during the development.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I understand that very well, Defendant. But I would like to ask you, was this statement made during a conference with the Police and did you instruct the Police in that matter?
FRANK: Not during that meeting. I assume it came up in some other connection. Here we discussed only this one action. After all, I also had to talk to State Secretary Bühler.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, all right. While discussing the AB Action with the Police you stated that the results of this action would not concern the reprieve committee which was subordinated to you, is that right?
FRANK: That sentence is contained in the diary. It is not, however, the final result, but rather an intermediate stage.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps I can recall to you another sentence, in order that you may judge the results of this action. Perhaps you can recall this part which I will put to you. You stated the following:
“We need not bring these elements into German concentration camps, for in that case we would only have difficulties and an unnecessary correspondence with their families. We must simply liquidate matters in the country, and in the simplest way.”
What you mean is that this would simply be a question of liquidation in the simplest form, is that not so?
FRANK: That is a terrible word. But, thank God, it did not take place in this way.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, but these persons were executed. What do you mean by saying that this was not carried out? Obviously this was carried out, for the persons were executed.
FRANK: When they were sentenced they were killed, if the right to pardon them was not exercised.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And they were condemned without application of the right of pardon?
FRANK: I do not believe so.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Unfortunately these people are no more, and therefore obviously they were executed.
FRANK: Which people?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Those who were arrested under the AB Action. I will remind you of another excerpt connected with this AB Action. If you did not agree with the Police with regard to certain police actions it would be difficult to explain the celebrations in connection with the departure of Brigadeführer SS Streckenbach when he left for Berlin. Does this not mean that you were at least on friendly terms with the Police?
FRANK: In connection with political relations many words of praise are spoken which are not in keeping with the truth. You know that as well as any other person.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will allow myself to remind you of only one passage of your speech addressed to the Brigadeführer Streckenbach, one sentence only. You said:
