“Besides the most important prerequisites mentioned in 1) and 2)
to restore calm in the Government General, security of property
among non-agricultural people must also be guaranteed, insofar
as it is not counter to the urgent needs of war. Expropriation
or confiscation without compensation in the industrial sector,
in commerce and trade, and of other private property, should not
take place in any case if the owner or the custodian has not
committed an offense against the German authorities. If the
taking over of industrial enterprises, commercial concerns, or
real estate is necessary for reasons connected with the war, one
should proceed in every case in such a way as to avoid hardship
and under guarantee of appropriate compensation. Such a
procedure would on the one hand further the initiative of Polish
business men, and on the other hand avoid damage to the
interests of German war economy.
“4) In any attempt to influence the attitude of the Poles,
importance must be attached to the influence of the Catholic
Church which cannot be overestimated. I do not deny that the
Catholic Church has always been on the side of the leading
fighters for an independent national Poland. Numerous priests
also made their influence felt in this direction even after the
German occupation. Hundreds of arrests were carried out among
them. A number of priests were taken to concentration camps and
also shot. However, in order to win over the Polish population,
the Church must be given at least a legal status even though it
might not be possible to co-operate with it. It can without
doubt be won over to reinforce the struggle of the Polish people
against Bolshevism, especially today under the effect of the
crime of Katyn, for the Church would always oppose a Bolshevist
regime in the Vistula area, if only out of the instinct of
self-preservation. To achieve that end, however, it is necessary
to refrain in the future from all measures against its activity
and its property, insofar as they do not run directly counter to
war requirements.
“Much harm has been done even quite recently by the closing of
monasteries, charitable institutions, and church
establishments.”
THE PRESIDENT: I had thought that your extracts were going to be brief.
But you have now read from Page 53 to Page 65.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, this document is the only one of this kind
which is available to me, and in view of the fact that the Prosecution
has quoted in full only those passages which the Defendant Dr. Frank
himself criticized most severely, I consider it my duty now to read a
number of passages, to quote them, in order to give the entire picture
correctly and to show what the Defendant Dr. Frank really intended to
achieve with this document. I shall only quote a few more lines and then
I will pass to another document.
THE PRESIDENT: I had hoped that one or two extracts from that document
would show what the Defendant Frank was putting forward—one or two
paragraphs.
DR. SEIDL: I will go on to the next document, Mr. President, that is on
Page 68, the affidavit by the witness Dr. Bühler, which I presented to
the witness today and which has been given the document number Frank-1;
Page 68 in the document book.
On Page 70 there appears Exhibit USA-473 (Document Number L-49). If I
remember correctly this document has already been read in full by the
Prosecution, and I would like to ask the Court only to take judicial
notice of that also in the defense of Dr. Frank.
On Page 72 of the document book is an affidavit of the former
Kreishauptmann, Dr. Albrecht. To be exact I have to state that this is
not really an affidavit in the true sense of the word. It is only a
letter which Kreishauptmann Dr. Albrecht sent to me through the General
Secretary of the Tribunal. I then returned the letter in order to have
it sworn to by the witness, but I have to say that until now that sworn
statement has not been returned, so that for the time being this exhibit
would only have the material value of a letter. Therefore I ask the
Tribunal to decide whether that document can be accepted by the Tribunal
as an exhibit in the form of a letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal did consider that matter before when
your application was before it. They will accept the document for what
it is worth. If you get the document in affidavit form you will no doubt
put it in.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. That will be Document Number Frank-7. I forego the
quoting of the first points and proceed directly to Page 74 of the
document book and I quote under Section 4:
“Dr. Frank’s fight against the exploitation and neglect of the
Government General in favor of the Reich. Conflict with Berlin.
“The first meeting with Dr. Frank occurred shortly after the
establishment of the Government General in the autumn of 1939,
in the Polish district capital Radom, where the 10 Kreis chiefs
of this district had to report concerning the condition of the
population in their administrative district and the problem of
reconstructing, as quickly and effectively as possible, the
general as well as the administrative and economic life. What
struck one most was the keen awareness of Dr. Frank and his deep
concern about the area entrusted to him. This found expression
in the instructions not to consider or treat the Government
General or allow it to be treated, as an object of exploitation
or as a waste area, but rather to consider it as a center of
public order and an area of concentration at the back of the
fighting German front and at the gates of the German homeland,
forming a link between the two. Therefore the loyal native
inhabitants of this country should have claim to the full
protection of the German administration as citizens of the
Government General. To this end the constant efforts of all
authorities and economic agencies would be demanded by him, also
constant control through supervisors, which would be personally
superintended by him in periodical inspection trips with the
participation of the specialized central offices. In this way,
for instance, the two districts which were administered by me
were inspected by him personally three times in 4 years.
“In face of the demands of the Berlin central authorities, who
believed it possible to import more from the Government General
into the Reich than the former could afford, Dr. Frank asserted
vigorously the political independence of the Government General
as an ‘adjunct of the Reich’ and his own independence as being
directly subordinated only to the Supreme Head of the State, and
not to the Reich Government. He also instructed us on no account
to comply with demands which might come to us on the basis of
personal relations with the authorities by whom we were sent, or
with the ministries concerned; and if by so doing we came into
conflict with our loyalty to the Reich, which was equally
expected of us, to report to him about it. This firm attitude
brought Dr. Frank the displeasure of the Berlin government
circles, and the Government General was dubbed ‘Frankreich.’ A
campaign of calumny was initiated in the Reich against him and
against the entire administration of the Government General by
systematically generalizing and exaggerating regrettable
ineptitudes and human weaknesses of individuals, at the same
time attempting to belittle the actual constructive
achievements.”
I should like to ask the Tribunal merely to take official notice of
Section 5, also Section 6, and I will only quote from Section 7.
“7) Dr. Frank as an opponent of acts of violence against the
native population, especially as an opponent of the SS.
“Besides the exploitation and the pauperization of the
Government General, the accusation of the enslaving of the
native population as well as deporting it to the Reich, and many
atrocities of various kinds which have appeared in the newspaper
reports on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, were interpreted as
serious evidence against Dr. Frank. As far as atrocities are
concerned, the guilt lies not with Dr. Frank but in some measure
with the numerous non-German agitators and provocateurs who,
with the growing pressure on the fighting German fronts,
increased their underground activity; but more especially with
the former State Secretary for Security in the Government
General, SS Obergruppenführer Krüger, and his agencies. My
observations in this respect are sketchy, because of the strict
secrecy of these offices.
“On the other hand, Dr. Frank went so far in meeting the Polish
population that this was frequently objected to by his German
compatriots. That he did the correct thing by his stand for the
just interests of the Polish population is proved, for example,
by the impressive fact that barely a year and a half after the
defeat of the Polish people in a campaign of 18 days, the
concentration of German army masses against Russia in the Polish
area took place without any disturbance worth mentioning, and
that the Eastern railroad was able, with Polish personnel, to
move the troop transports up to the most forward unloading
points without being delayed by acts of sabotage.”