According to the presentation of the prosecution, Frick is said to have exercised an over-all control over the occupied territories, especially in his capacity as chief of the Central Agency for the occupied territories. for all war crimes and crimes against humanity which had been committed in the occupied and incorporated territories before and during the war, until his recall as Reich Minister of the Interior on 22August 1943. It is a question of legal interpretation whether the activity in the administration of occupied territories, pursuant to article 6, letter "a" of the statute, is to be evaluated as the "execution of wars of aggression", or whether a criminal aspect comes into consideration only under the viewpoint of crimes against the rules of war or against humanity. It appears important to me, for the decision of this question, that it does not belong to the tasks of an official of a civil administration to examine, after the conclusion of military operations, whether there is a question of a legal or illegal occupation according to the standards of international law. Such an obligation of examination would mean an overburdening for the department of the civil administration as well as for the administrative chief, whose activity cannot be designated as illegal for the reason that the territory administered by him had been annexed a short or even a long time ago in violation of the regulations of international law. There is no such obligation of examination in the practice of the civil administration. unlimited interpretation, the military operations themselves are to be understood under an execution of wars of aggression, but not the later civil administration of conquered territories. The punishment of crimes which occurred in the government of the occupied territories would not be made impossible through such an interpretation. In any case, these crimes are subject to punishment as crimes against humanity or against the rules of war according to the statute. In addition, it is to be mentioned for which territories in particular the defendant Frick bears a responsibility. the national law, within the national borders of the German Reich, which are therefore called the incorporated territories.
With the national legal incorporation into the Reich, these territories came under the administration of the appropriate Reich Ministries for the departments of domestic administration, but only for these and thus under the authority of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. So that the defendant Frick bears, until August 1943, the national legal responsibility of a minister for the domestic administration of these territories. In the East, this is mostly a question of the territories of West-PrussiaPosen-Danzig; thus, the so-called incorporated Eastern territories which belonged, until the Versailles treaty, to the national entity of the German Reich. ment; in the West the Eupen-Malmedy district; and in the Southeast, the Sudetenland. Furthermore, the country of Austria was incorporated into the national union of the German Reich. tive measures which were brought about by the incorporation, and he has the usual responsibility of a Minister of the Interior for the domestic administration of these territories until his dismissal in August 1943. government of the protectorate which had been designated as autonomous by the decree concerning the establishment of the protectorate -Document 2119-PS -- and therefore was not controlled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Reich Ministry of the Interior in the Polish territories which have been collected under the designation "General Government" and have been put under the jurisdiction of a "General Governor". Contrary to the so-called "incorporated Eastern territories", the Reich Ministry of the Interior had no right to issue orders or to take care of administrative matters for the General Government -- document 3079-PS, which contains Hitler's decree concerning the administration of the occupied Polish territories. USSR 223, the Frank diary where he states that no Reich central offices are authorized to intervene in the government of his territory.
administration was established under any legal form. administrative ministries in the Reich at any given time, but they were under the jurisdiction of the administrative chief of the corresponding territories at any given time, and he himself was directly under Hitler's jurisdiction. administration of which a was under the jurisdiction of a Reich minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. The same applies to Norway, where a Reich Commissioner was appointed. who was also independent, of the Reich ministry of the Interior, and was directly under Hitler's jurisdiction. In Luxembourg, in Alsace, and in Lorraine, there were also chiefs of the civil administrations who were not dependent on the Reich ministry of the Interior, while there was a military administration in Belgium and Northern France which was also not dependent on the Reich Ministry of the Interior. re occupied in the Southeast of Europe were completely independent ofthe Reich Ministry of the Inferior. For a part of the occupied territories there is now, in the appropriate decree concerning the creation of a seperate civil administration, the order that the Reich Minister of the Interior is appointed as the central agency, and from this formulation the prosecution has deducted a responsibility of defendant Frick for the administration of all occupied territories, as is stated in the indictment.
the establishment of a central agency for Norway -- document 3082-PS, or No.24 in the Frick document book. The witness Dr. Lammers has given a further explanation of the tasks. At that time it was the primary task of the central agency to put personnel at the disposal of the chief of the civil administrations in the occupied territories, if requested. Therefore, if a civil official was needed for any district, the administration of the district concerned turned to the central agency in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which then put any official from the Reich at the disposal of the chief of the civil administration. The Reich Ministry of the Interior was especially suited for this, since it had at its disposal numerous officials of the domestic administration in Germany. which alone gives its orders to the official from this moment on, does not establish responsibility for the further activity of this official in his new department for which the Reich Ministry of the Interior could issue no orders whatsoever. An example : If the Minister of Justice lets the Foreign Minister have one of his official, naturally only the Foreign Minister has the responsibility for the further activity of this official, and not the Minister of Justice who has released the official. This activity of the central agency therefore does not justify the assumption of a responsibility for the administration of the occupied territories by Frick. trated in the Reich Ministry of the Interior : that is, as the examination of the witness Lammers has proven -- and I quote from the just-mentioned document 3082-PS --"the unified cooperation of the supreme Reich authorities with each other and with the Reich Commissioner, which is to be brought into unison with the needs of Norway." and Seyss-Inquart, who functioned as chiefs of civil administrations in the occupied territories, has not, on any single occasion, revealed any cooperation of any kind with the defendant Frick either in his capacity of Reich Minister of the Interior or of Director of the Central Office in this Ministry.
that the defendant Frick exercised extensive control over all occupied territ-
ories. Actually, however, those documents, as I have just demonstrated, reveal no more extensive administrative activity. Document 3304 PS evidencesadministrative activity for the annexed Eastern territories. This coincides with my statement of the case that the annexed Eastern territories, for their internal administration, were subject to the Reich Ministry of the Interior by virtue of their constitutional annexation to the Union of nations of the German Reich. The document, however, bears no reference to the administration of the Eastern occupied territories, i.e., the Government General, or to the occupied Soviet-Russian territories.
The other document submitted, 1039 PS -- U.S.A. Exhibit No. 146 -evidences the transfer of administrative personnel from the department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Minister for Occupied Territories, a typical task of the Central Headquarters, which I have already discussed. The prosecution has submitted further documents which reveal that the Reich Ministry of the Interior had a hand in the bestowal of German citizenship upon so-called "racial Germans." ty of the defendant Frick for the occupied territories, but merely a typical activity of a Minister of the Interior, whose department is competent for the general regulations concerning German citizenship, including cases where persons living outside the Reich territory are involved. Neither, therefore,can this activity of the Minister of the Interior, affecting specific persons in the occupied territories, evidence an extensive administrative policy and a general responsibility of the defendant Frick for the administration of the occupied territories. In particular, in the occupied territories not annexed to the Reich Territory, Frick had no authority or competence whatsoever in the circle of tasks of the police. occupied territories. Reference can be made in this respect to Document 1997 PS -- USA Exhibit No.319 -- Hitler's decree concerning police safeguards of the Eastern territories, for which Himmler was directly commissioned. The same is revealed by Document 447 PS--USA Exhibit No.135-- a directive of the OKW, dated 13 March 1941, to the effect that the Reichsfuehrer SS in the occupied Eastern territories is charged with certain duties regarding the execution of which he acts independently and on his own responsibility.
tories, which at times were assigned either to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler or to the SS and police chiefs who, I repeat, were exclusively under the discipline of Himmler, but were however, in many cases, actually classified in the range of activity of the civil administration chief involved, the Governor General in Poland for instance. Compare the excerpt from Frank's Diary entered in the Frick Document Book under No. 25 also USRR No.223. defendant Frick's jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant Frick bears no responsibility for crimes against the laws of war and against humanity in the occupied territories, since he could neither order crimes nor prevent them. the prosecution as to the responsibility of the defendant Frick for all the measures of the police, including the Gestapo, as well as for the establishment and administration of concentration camps. reveal that the Police, including the political police, was, in 1933, still the concern of the individual Laender within the Reich, such as Prussia, Bavaria, etc. Accordingly, in Prussia, the Secret State Police (Gestapo) and the concentration camps were established and administered by Goering in his capacity as Prussian Minister of the Interior. The tasks of the political police were then transferred by a Prussian law dated 30 November 1933 to the office of the Prussian prime minister, which was also managed by Goering. Therefore, when the offices of Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior were merged, in the Spring of 1934, Frick did not assume political police duties in Prussia since these remained much more incumbent upon Goering in his capacity of Prime Minister. gradually appointed Special Deputy for Political Police. During this period, the Reich Minister of the Interior had only the right of so-called "Reich supervision" over the Lands, which Frick made use of by the enactment of general instructions and legal ordinances : and this is the only point where Frick, as Minister of the Reich, could exercise any influence on the affairs of the political Police and of concentration camps.
Frick made use of this possibility, in accordance with his basic attitude-
as confirmed by the witness Gisevius-- to prevent and repress arbitrary actions of the Political Police insofar as this was in his power under the circumstances prevailing then . He endeavored, by the enactment of provisions of law and procedure, to restrict the arbitrary practices of the Political Police of the states.
I am referring to Document 779-PS submitted by me as Frick Exhibit No.6. sitions under the descriptive preamble -- which I quote -- "In order to counter act abuse occurring in application of protective custody." application of preventive custody in numerous cases in which it had been improperly applied by the Gestapo. political police, the latter were, of'course, more longwinded because they were under the direction of Goering and Himmler, of whom the "bureaucrat" Frick -- as Hitler disdainfully called him -- could not come within an ace as regards influence with the Party and State.
For that reason the Political Police of the Laender in its practice frequently disregarded Frick's legal ordinances. As long as there was reason to hope that through his intervention the wild practice of the Political Police of the Laender could be directed into orderly channels and according to legal prescriptions, Frick did not stand by idly.
I refer to document 775-PS, Frick Exhibit No. 9, a memorandum from Frick to Hitler, which clearly and unequivocally calls things by their correct name, mentioning legal insecurity, unrest and embitterment, and severely criticising the Political Police of the Laender because of misuse of the right to order custody in individual cases.
Here I insert: The same document also proves that the defendant in the struggle of the churches stood clearly on the side of the churches. This is also proved by Neurath Exhibit 1. andum which he himself drew up for Frick as a further attempt to restrain and legally control through severe criticism and suggestions the arbitrary practice of the Political Police of the Laender. None of those attempts was of avail because Frick's political influence was too insignificant and because he could not assert himself against Goering and Himmler and -- a thing which at the time could not yet become clear to Frick -- because the practice of Goering and Himmler was essentially in harmony with what Hitler actually wanted himself. Therefore, the documents submitted by the prosecution, token in conjunction with the evidence offered by the defense, show that in the domain of the Political Police and in ordering custody, Frick had a certain competency at a time when Police service still was a task entrusted to the individual states. However, this evidence also shows that during that time Frick's jurisdiction was very limited and it further shows that Frick, acting within the bounds of his competency, became active only in order to take steps against the terror and arbitrary actions of the Gestapo through general instructions and through repeated Complaints in individual cases so that the conclusion is not justified that Frick in any way positively participated in the Gestapo's measures of terror and compulsion. The legal situation changed at a later time With Hitler's decree of 17 June 1936 -- document 2073 PS, document book Frick No.35 -- police tasks for the entire Reich were combined and uniformly transferred to Himmler whose department was formally made a part of the Ministry of the Interior under the title "Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German police in the Ministry of the Interior."
in his capacity as Reich Minister of the Interior any authority of command or whether he was given any power to issue instructions on the Political Police, its offices and functionaries, which could he practically enforced. When Himmler in accordance with his own with and because of his influence on Hitler Was appointed Police Chief for the entire Reich there did not exist in Germany a Police or security ministry, properly speaking. Himmler in person was formally attached to who Reich Ministry of the Interior. of the Interior. created for him and his purposes. The entire sphere of tasks of the Police was separated from the rest of the activities of the Ministry of the Interior and placed under Himmler's special jurisdiction under a newly created tithe of office which as a government office included the words "Reichsfuehrer SS", thereby making it possible for Himmler by reason of a title of office characterizing him as Reichsfuehrer SS (In other words a party office at highest level) to carry out State Police tasks in that capacity giving him apparent independence from any instructions issued by a minister of state. the hierarchy of government agencies Himmler was given the right, from the very beginning, to represent Police matters before the Cabinet on his own responsibility just like a Reich Minister -- which is also brought out in the decree covering his appointment, 2073-PS. This decree is a prize sample for overlapping of competencies -- something which Hitler favored so very much in his government system. Himmler was part of the Ministry of the Interior and as a functionary of the Ministry of the Interior, was formally bound to abide by instructions of the Minister. However, he also was an independent Police chief with the right to represent before the Cabinet on his own responsibility matters pertaining to the Police, thus eliminating Frick.
In addition to that, his orders simultaneously carried the authority of a Reichsfuehrer SS and Frick had no authority at allto interfere with them. stronger measure the towering influence of Himmler on Hitler: Frick repeatedly undertook to intervene in behalf of a safeguard of a well ordered state apparatus, through overall instructions, intended to restrain the arbitrary acts of the Political Police. As late as 25 January 1938 he tried to curtail admissibility of protective custody through a decree and in a series of cases it forbade its improper application.
I refer to document 1723-PS, USA Exhibit No.206, an extract of which under No. 36 is in the Frick document book. It prohibited protective custody in lieu of, or in addition to, legal penalty, forbidding its application by police authorities of the medium or lower level and making mandatory prior hearing of the accused person. He decreed periodical examination of continuance of reasons for confinement and on principle forbade application of protective custody against foreigners in regard to whom he left to the police only the authority to expel them from the Reich in case of acts endangering the state. these instructions of Frick and that Himmler and his subordinates had maintained an absolute power by terror and violence. This is correct and has been confirmed in detail by the witness Gisevius. else: to show that Frick himself disapproved such arbitrary acts and that he tried to do all in his power to oppose such arbitrary acts.
Finally, however, Hitler forbade even this. He informed him through Lammers -- as confirmed by him as witness -- that he was not to concern himself with police matters, that Himmler was taking better care of it and that the Police was doing well in Himmler's hands. hands and he also gave outward expression to this, by later dropping with Hitler's consent the qualification in his official title "in the Ministry for the Interior", simply referring to it as "Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police" which also becomes evident from the testimony of Lammers.
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.
