“This humane attitude of Dr. Frank, which earned him respect and
sympathy among considerable groups of the native population,
led, on the other hand, to bitter conflicts with the SS, in
whose ranks Himmler’s statement, ‘They shall not love us, but
fear us,’ was applied as the guiding principle of their thoughts
and deeds.
“At times it came to a complete break. I still recall quite
clearly that during a government visit to the Carpathian areas
in the summer of 1943 in the district center of Stanislav, when
he took a walk alone with me and my wife in Zaremcze on the
Prut, Dr. Frank complained most bitterly about the arbitrary
acts of the SS, which quite frequently ran counter to the
political line taken by him. At that time he called the SS the
‘Black Plague’; and when he noticed our astonishment at hearing
such criticism coming from his lips, he pointed out that if, for
example, my wife were to be wrongfully arrested one day or night
by agencies of the Gestapo and disappear, never to be seen
again, without having been given the opportunity of defense in a
court trial, absolutely nothing could be done about it. Some
time afterwards he made a speech to the students in Heidelberg,
which attracted much attention and was loudly applauded, about
the necessity for the re-establishment of a German
constitutional state such as had always met the real needs of
the German people. When he wanted to repeat this speech in
Berlin, he is said to have been forbidden by the Führer and
Reich Chancellor, at Himmler’s instigation, to make speeches for
3 months, as reported to me by a reliable, but unfortunately
forgotten, source. The struggle against the methods of violence
used by the SS led to Dr. Frank’s having a nervous breakdown,
and he had to take a fairly long sick leave. As far as I can
remember this was in the winter of 1943-44.”
I ask the Court to take official notice of Section 8, and I pass on to
Page 84 of the document book. That is an affidavit by SS
Obergruppenführer Erich Von dem Bach-Zelewski, of 21 February 1946. This
affidavit becomes Document Frank-8.
THE PRESIDENT: Did this witness not give evidence?
DR. SEIDL: The witness was questioned here by the Prosecution, and I
made the motion at that time that either I be allowed to interrogate the
witness again or be granted the use of an affidavit. On 8 March 1946 the
Tribunal made the decision, if I remember correctly, that I could use an
affidavit from that witness but that the Prosecution would be free if
they desired to question the witness again.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: I shall read the statements of the witness concerning this
matter, and I quote:
“1) Owing to the infiltration of Russian partisan groups over
the line of the river Bug into the Government General in 1943,
Himmler declared the Government General to be a ‘guerrilla
warfare territory.’ Thus it became my duty as Chief of
Anti-Partisan Units to travel about the Government General to
collect information and get experience, and to submit reports
and suggestions for fighting the partisans.
“In the general information Himmler gave me, he called the
Governor General Dr. Frank a traitor to his country, who was
conspiring with the Poles and whom he would expose to the Führer
very shortly. I still remember two of the reproaches Himmler
made against Frank:
“a) At a lawyer’s meeting in the Old Reich territory Frank is
said to have stated that ‘he preferred a bad constitutional
state to the best conducted police state’; and
“b) During a speech to a Polish delegation Frank had disavowed
some of Himmler’s measures and had disparaged, in front of the
Poles, those charged with carrying them out, by calling them
‘militant personalities.’
“After having, on a circular tour, personally obtained
information on the spot about the situation in the Government
General, I visited the higher SS and Police Führer Krüger and
the Governor General, Dr. Frank, in Kraków.
“Krüger spoke very disapprovingly about Dr. Frank and blamed
Frank’s faltering and unstable policy towards the Poles for
conditions in the Government General. He called for harsher and
more ruthless measures and said that he would not rest until the
traitor Frank was overthrown. I had the impression, from
Krüger’s statements, that personal motives also influenced his
attitude, and that he himself would have liked to become
Governor General.
“After that I had a long discussion with Dr. Frank. I told him
of my impressions; and he went into lengthy details about a new
policy for Poland, which aimed at appeasing the Poles by means
of concessions. In agreement with my personal impressions Dr.
Frank considered the following factors responsible for the
crisis in the Government General:
“a) The ruthless resettlement action carried out now in the
midst of war, especially the senseless and purposeless
resettlement carried out by the SS and Police Führer Globocznik
in Lublin.
“b) The insufficient food quota allotted to the Governor
General.
“Dr. Frank called Krüger and Globocznik declared enemies of any
conciliatory policy, and said it was absolutely essential that
they should be recalled.
“Being convinced that if Dr. Frank failed, he would be succeeded
only by a more ruthless and uncompromising person, I promised
him my support. Having been assured of strictest secrecy I told
Frank I shared his opinion that Krüger and Globocznik would have
to disappear. He, Dr. Frank, knew however that Himmler hated him
and that he was urging Hitler to have him removed. With such a
state of affairs any request on Frank’s part to have Krüger and
Globocznik recalled would not only be rejected but would even
strengthen their position with Himmler. Frank should give me a
free hand, then I could promise him that both would be relieved
of their posts within a short time. Dr. Frank agreed to that,
and I then made use of the military mistakes that Krüger and
Globocznik had committed in order to bring about their recall by
Himmler.
“3) The Warsaw revolt of 1944...”
THE PRESIDENT: I must point out to you that you said you were going to
be only 2 hours over five volumes. You have now been over an hour over
one volume, and you are reading practically everything in these
documents. It is not at all what the Tribunal has intended. You have
been told that you may make short comments showing how the documents are
connected with each other and how they are connected with all the
evidence. That is not what you are doing at all.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of
Paragraph 3 of the affidavit by Von dem Bach-Zelewski.
Paragraph 3 deals with the Warsaw revolt in the year 1944 and the
question as to whether the Governor General had anything to do with the
crushing of that revolt.
Then I pass on to Page 92.
THE PRESIDENT: As a matter of fact, does the Indictment charge anything
in connection with the crushing of the Warsaw revolt in 1944?
DR. SEIDL: There is nothing in the Indictment itself about the part
played by the Governor General in the crushing of that revolt. The
Soviet Prosecution have, however, submitted a telegram which, while it
is not clear whether it was sent, nevertheless connects the Defendant
Dr. Frank in some way with the Warsaw revolt. But I shall not go into
details about that now.