Volume V deals exclusively with the accusations made by the Prosecution

of the United States against the Defendant Frank concerning his activity as President of the Academy for German Law, as President of the National Socialist Lawyers’ Association, and similar positions. Page 1 is a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution, 1391-PS. It still has no USA number and will be Exhibit Number Frank-11. It is the law regarding the Academy for German Law with the necessary statutes and the tasks resulting therefrom.

I turn to page 25 of the document book. This quotation becomes Exhibit Frank-12 (Document Number Frank-12). It deals with a sentence which has been ascribed to the defendant: “Right is that which is good for the people.” This quotation should prove only that the Defendant Dr. Frank wanted to express nothing more than that which is implied in the Roman sentence: _Salus publica suprema lex_ (The supreme law is the welfare of the people). I ask the Court to take cognizance of this and turn to Page 26 of the document book, an excerpt from the magazine of the Academy for German Law of 1938. That will be Exhibit Frank-13 (Document Number Frank-13). This quotation also deals with the afore-mentioned sentence: “Right is that which is good for the people.”

Page 30 is an excerpt from Exhibit USA-670 (Document Number 3459-PS) and deals with the closing celebration of the “Congress of German Law 1939” at Leipzig, where the Defendant Dr. Frank made the concluding speech before 25,000 lawyers. I quote on Page 31, Line 10 from the bottom:

“Only by applying legal security methods, by administering true justice, and by clearly following the legislative ideal of law can the national community continue to exist. This legal method which permanently ensures the fulfillment of the tasks of the community has been assigned to you, fellow guardians of the law, as your mission. Ancient Germanic principles have come down to us through the centuries.

“1) No one shall be judged who has not had the opportunity to defend himself.

“2) No one shall be deprived of the incontestable rights which he enjoys as a member of the national community, except by decision of the judge. Honor, liberty, life, the profits of labor are among those rights.

“3) Regardless of the nature of the proceedings, the reasons for the indictment, or the law which is applied, everyone who is under indictment must be given the opportunity to have a defense counsel who can make legal statements for him; he must be given a legal and impartial hearing.”

I turn to Page 35 of the document book, which deals with a speech, an address by the Defendant Dr. Frank, made at a meeting of the heads of the departments of the National Socialist Lawyer’s Association on 19 November 1941. The speech—that is, the excerpt—becomes Exhibit Number Frank-14 (Document Number Frank-14). I quote only a few sentences at the top of Page 37.

“Therefore, it is a very serious task which we have imposed upon ourselves and we must always bear in mind that it can be fulfilled only with courage and absolute readiness for self-sacrifice. I observe the developments with great attention. I watch every anti-juridical tendency. I know only too well from history—as you all do—of the attempts made to gain ever-increasing power in general directions because one has weapons with which one can shoot, and authority on the basis of which one can make people who have been arrested disappear. In the first place, I mean by this not only the attempts made by the SS, the SD, and by the police headquarters, but the attempts of many other offices of the State and the Reich to exclude themselves from general jurisdiction.”

I turn to—I would like to quote the last five lines on Page 41. Those were the last words spoken during that session:

“One cannot debase law to an article of merchandise; one cannot sell it; it exists or it does not exist. Law is not an exchange commodity. If justice is not supported, the State loses its moral foundation; it sinks into the abyss of darkness and horror.”

The next document is on Page 42. It is the first address which the Defendant Dr. Frank made in Berlin at the university on 8 June 1942. It will be Exhibit Number Frank-15 (Document Number Frank-15). I quote Page 44, second paragraph, seventh line:

“On the other hand, however, a member of the community cannot be deprived of honor, liberty, life, and property; he cannot be expelled and condemned without first being able to defend himself against the charges brought against him. The Armed Forces serve us as a model in this respect. There everyone is a free, honored member of the community, with equal rights, until a judge—standing independently above him—has weighed and judged between indictment and defense.”

I then turn to Page 49 of the document book, the second of these four long speeches. It was held in Vienna, and will become Exhibit Number Frank-15.

THE PRESIDENT: We have already had Exhibit Frank-15 on Page 41.

DR. SEIDL: No, I beg your pardon, Mr. President; it will be Frank-16 (Document Number Frank-16). I quote only one sentence on Page 51.

“I shall continue to repeat with all the strength of my conviction that it would be an evil thing if ideals advocating a police state were to be presented as distinct National Socialist ideals, while old Germanic ideals of law fell entirely into the background.”

Now I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 57 of the document book to the speech made by the Defendant Dr. Frank at the University of Munich, on 20 July 1942. This will be Exhibit Frank-17 (Document Number Frank-17). I quote on Page 58, Line 16:

“It is, however, impossible to talk about a national community and still regard the servants of the law as excluded from this national community, and throw mud at them in the midst of the war. The Führer has transferred the tasks of the Reich Leader of the Reich Legal Office and that of the leader of the National Socialist Lawyers’ Association to me, and therefore it is my duty to state that it is detrimental to the German national community if in the ‘Black Corps’ lawyers are called ‘sewer-rats.’”

I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 67 of the document book. That is the speech which he made at Heidelberg on 21 July 1942. That will be Exhibit Frank-18 (Document Number Frank-18). I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of that speech. On Page 69 I quote only one sentence: “But never must there be a police state, never. That I oppose.”

I now come to the last document which the Prosecution of the United States has already submitted under Exhibit Number USA-607 (Document Number 2233(x)-PS), an excerpt from the diary: “Concluding reflections on the events of the last three months.”

In these reflections Dr. Frank once more definitely states his attitude towards the concept of the legal state, and I ask the Tribunal to take cognizance particularly of his basic assumptions on Pages 74 and 75 of the document book. Here, Dr. Frank again formulated the prerequisites which he considered necessary for the existence of any legal state. I quote only a few lines from Page 74:

“1) No fellow German can be convicted without regular court procedure, and only on the basis of a law in effect before the act was committed.

“2) The proceedings must carry full guarantee that the accused will be interrogated on all matters pertaining to the indictment, and that he will be able to speak freely.

“3) The accused must have the opportunity, at all stages of the trial, to avail himself of the services of defense counsel acquainted with the law.

“4) The defense counsel must have complete freedom of action and independence in carrying out his office in order to strike an even balance between the State prosecutor and the defendant.

“5) The judge or the court must make his or its decision quite independently—that is, the verdict must not be influenced by any irrelevant factors—in logical consideration of the subject matter and in just application of the purport of the law.

“6) When the penalty imposed by the sentence has been paid, the act has been expiated.

“7) Measures for protective custody and security custody may not be undertaken or carried out by police organs, nor may measures for the punishment of concentration camp inmates, except from this aspect, that is, after confirmation of the intended measures by regular, independent judges.

“8) In the same manner, the administration of justice for fellow Germans must guarantee full safeguarding of individual interests in all relations pertaining to civil suits proper.”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, are there any passages in these documents which express the opinion that the same principles ought to be applied to others than fellow Germans?

DR. SEIDL: In this last quotation the Defendant Dr. Frank dealt basically with questions of law without making any difference here between Germans and people of foreign nationality. However, in his capacity as Governor General he also fundamentally objected at all times to the transfer of Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews to concentration camps. This can be seen from a whole series of entries in the diary.

With this I have come to the end of my evidence for Dr. Frank. There are left only the answers to interrogatories by witnesses whose interrogation before a commission has been approved by the Court. At a later date I shall compile these interrogations in a small document book and submit the translation thereof to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of interrogatories where you have not yet got the answers; is that right?

DR. SEIDL: These are interrogatories to which the answers have not yet been received.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, as soon as you have received them you will furnish them to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal?

DR. SEIDL: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker.

DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): In presenting evidence for the Defendant Frick, I shall forego calling the defendant himself as a witness. The questions which require an explanation deal mainly with problems relating to formal authority and also with problems which differentiate between formal authority and actual responsibility. These are problems, part of which have already been elucidated by the interrogation of Dr. Lammers and the rest of which will be cleared up by the submission of documents. One special field, however, cannot be entirely clarified by documents; and that is the question of the actual distribution of authority within the sphere of the Police; but for that special field I have named the witness Dr. Gisevius. He is the only witness whose interrogation seems to be necessary for the presentation of evidence in the case of Frick. Therefore, in the meantime, I have dispensed with other witnesses.

I ask the Court to decide whether I should call the witness Dr. Gisevius first or whether I should submit my documents first. If documents are to be presented first, I believe that I could finish by the midday recess.

THE PRESIDENT: You can finish your documents before the adjournment, do you mean?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. I believe so.

THE PRESIDENT: Until 1:00 o’clock?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you indifferent whether you call the witness first or whether you present the documents first?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that perhaps it would be more convenient to give the documents first. They hope that you will be able to finish them reasonably quickly.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

Numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the document book (Documents Number 386-PS, L-79, and 3726-PS) deal with evidence concerning the question of whether the members of the Reich Cabinet knew about Hitler’s preparation for aggressive war. I need not read the documents; they have already been submitted, and they show that Hitler gave information of his plans for aggression only to those of his assistants who had to know of these plans for their own work, but did not inform Frick who, as Minister of the Interior, was responsible for the internal policy.

Within the scope of the war preparation, Frick was made Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration by the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, which has already been submitted, Exhibit Number USA-36 (Document Number 2194-PS). This law does not indicate that this position had anything to do with the known preparation of an aggressive war; it shows only the participation of the Administration of the Interior in a general preparation and organization in the event of a future war. I have therefore included in the document book an excerpt from this law under Number 4 of the document book, in order to correct an error. The Defendant Frick himself stated in an affidavit on 14 November 1945, that he had held the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration from 21 May 1935. This is the date of the first Reich Defense Law, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USA-24 (Document 2261-PS). The first Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935, however, does not provide for the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration; that is contained only in the second law of 4 September 1938.

This second law has been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-36. Following this erroneous statement which the Defendant Frick made without having the two laws on hand, the Prosecution has also stated that Frick held the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration from 21 May 1935, while actually he held it only from 4 September 1938, that is, the date of the second law.

Numbers 5 and 6 of the document book have already been submitted by the Prosecution. They also prove nothing except the participation of the Defendant Frick in the establishment of civil administration with a view to a possible future war. It is not necessary to read this either.

The Prosecution considers Hitler’s aggressive intentions to be so well known and so obvious as to require no further proof. The Prosecution on that assumption came to the conclusion that participation in the National Socialist Government, in any field whatsoever, would in itself imply the conscious support of aggressive war. In opposition to that I have referred to evidence in documents from Number 7 to 10 inclusive of the Frick document book (Documents Number 2288-PS, 2292-PS, 2289-PS, and 3729-PS) which have already been submitted by the Prosecution and which show that Hitler in public, as well as in private conversations, from the time he came into power followed a definite policy of declaring his peaceful intentions—a policy, therefore, which for considered reasons, declared to all that to keep peace was right.

I believe that these documents, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal, must also be considered in order to decide whether or not Hitler’s official policy, since his coming to power, indicated that he had intentions of waging aggressive war. As evidence in that direction, I should like to submit Number 11 and Number 12 of the document book, which have not been presented until now, and which I will submit as Documents Frick-1 and -2.

The first is a telegram of 8 March 1936 from Cardinal Archbishop Schulte to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. The second document is a solemn declaration by the Austrian bishops occasioned by the annexation of Austria in March 1938.

The first document states, and I quote:

“Cardinal Archbishop Schulte has sent to General Von Blomberg, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, a telegram in which, at the memorable hour when the Armed Forces of the Reich are re-entering the German Rhineland as the guardians of peace and order, he greets the soldiers of our nation with deep emotion mindful of the magnificent example of self-sacrificing love of fatherland, stern manly discipline, and upright fear of God, which our Army has always given to the world.”

I particularly selected these two documents because the Catholic Church is not suspected of sanctioning aggressive wars, or of approving of Hitler’s criminal intentions in any other way. These statements would have been unthinkable if the accusations of the Prosecution were true, namely, that the criminal aims of Hitler and particularly his aggressive intentions had been known.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, the Tribunal would like to know what is the source of this telegram from the Archbishop, Number Frick-11.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I took the telegram, Number Frick-11, from the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 9 March 1936.

THE PRESIDENT: And the other one?

DR. PANNENBECKER: The other document is from the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 28 March 1938.

Number 13 of the document book contains only one sentence, taken from a speech made by Frick, from which it is evident that Frick shared the same opinion. He states in this speech, and I quote:

“The national revolution is the expression of the will to eliminate by legal means every form of external and internal foreign domination.”

THE PRESIDENT: You gave that the number 13, did you?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. That should be 3.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, that is what I wanted to say. I submit it as Document Number Frick-3.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. PANNENBECKER: The Defendant Frick has been accused particularly of working for the League for Germans Abroad. The Prosecution saw in this activity a contribution by the Defendant Frick to the preparation of aggressive wars. Frick’s actual attitude regarding the aims of the League for Germans Abroad can be seen from Number 14, which will be Document Number Frick-4. In a speech made by Frick, it states, and I quote:

“The VDA (League for Germans Abroad) has nothing to do with political aims or with frontier questions; it is, and is intended to be, nothing more than a rallying point for German cultural activities...the world over.”

In Number 15, which is Exhibit Frick-5...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, I perhaps ought to say that in the index of this document book it looks as though the exhibit numbers were the numbers of the documents in the order in which they are put in the book, but that will not be so.

DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it will not be so.

THE PRESIDENT: That last document which you just put in as Exhibit Number 4 is shown in the book to be Exhibit Number 14, which is a mistake. It is Document Number 14, but not Exhibit Number 14.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Number 14 of the document book, Exhibit Number Frick-4 (Document Number Frick-4).

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Dealing with the same subject I have entered in Number 15, Exhibit Number Frick-5 (Document Number 3358-PS), a decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior of 24 February 1933, which also deals with the question of the work of the League for Germans Abroad. It states, and I quote...

THE PRESIDENT: Has that not already been put in? I see it has a PS number.

DR. PANNENBECKER: It has a PS number, but it was not then submitted as evidence by the Prosecution. Therefore I quote:

“The suffering and misery of the times, the lack of work and food within Germany, cannot divert attention from the fact that about 30 million Germans, living outside of the present contracted borders of the Reich, are an integral part of the entire German people; an integral part, which the Reich Government is not able to help economically but to which it considers itself under an obligation to offer cultural support through the organization primarily concerned with this task—the League of Germans Abroad.”

In the documents from Number 16 to 24 inclusive of the document book, which I need not read in detail, I have placed together the legal decrees which deal with the competence of the Reich Ministry of the Interior as a central office for certain occupied territories. The tasks of this central office, which had no authority to issue orders and no executive authority in any occupied territories, have already been described by the witness Dr. Lammers; and these tasks are specially entered in Number 24 of the document book. I do not need to submit it in evidence. It is an official publication of the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ and has, in addition, already been submitted as 3082-PS. In accordance with the fact that the central office had no authority to issue orders in the occupied territories, there is in the diary of Dr. Frank a confirmation that the Governor General alone had authority to issue orders for the administration of his territory. I do not need to quote this passage as it has already been submitted to the Tribunal.

Police authority in the occupied territories was transferred to Reichsführer SS Himmler; but Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with this either, since that authority was vested exclusively in Himmler in his capacity as Reichsführer SS. That can be seen from Number 26 of the document book, which also already has been submitted as Exhibit USA-319 (Document Number 1997-PS).

The Prosecution further considers the Defendant Frick responsible for the crimes committed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia since August 1943, on the grounds that Frick had been Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia since August 1943. In this connection, I refer to Numbers 28 and 29 of the document book (Documents Number 1366-PS and 3443-PS), from which it is evident that, at the time that Frick was appointed, the former powers of the Reich Protector had been subdivided between a so-called German State Minister in Bohemia and Moravia—who, under the immediate supervision of the Führer and Reich Chancellor, had to manage all government affairs—and the Reich Protector Frick who was given some special powers and in principle had the right to grant reprieves on sentences passed by the local courts.

Frick has also been accused of being responsible for the Political Police, that is, the Secret State Police, and the concentration camps. Until 1936 police matters were the affair of the individual states in Germany; consequently in Prussia, Göring as Prussian Prime Minister, and Prussian Minister of the Interior, built up the Political Police and established the concentration camps. Frick, therefore, as Reich Minister of the Interior, had no connection with these things.

In the spring of 1934 Frick also became Prussian Minister of the Interior. Previously, however, Göring had by a special law taken the affairs of the Political Police out of the jurisdiction of the office of the Prussian Minister of the Interior and placed it under the immediate supervision of the Prime Minister, an office which Göring retained for himself.

The corresponding decrees have already been submitted by the Prosecution as Documents Number 2104-PS, 2105-PS, and 2113-PS.

The same is evident from Document Number 30 in the document book, which has also been submitted as Exhibit USA-233 (Document Number 2344-PS).

Thus, in the Political Police sphere, Frick, until 1936, had only a general right of supervision, such as the Reich had over the individual states. He had, however, no special right of command in individual cases, only the authority to issue general directives; and in Numbers 31-33 of the document book I have entered a few of these directives issued by Frick.

I quote Number 31, which will be Exhibit Frick-6 (Document Number 779-PS):

“In order to correct the abuses resulting from the decree for protective custody, the Reich Minister of the Interior, in his directives of 12 April 1934 to the Land governments and Reichsstatthalter anent the promulgation and execution of decrees for protective custody, has determined that protective custody may be ordered only: (a) for the protection of the arrested person; (b) if the arrested person by his behavior, and especially by activities directed against the State, has directly endangered public security and order. Therefore, protective custody is not permissible when the above-mentioned cases do not apply, especially (a) for persons who merely exercise their public and civil rights; (b) for lawyers for representing the interests of their clients; (c) in the case of personal matters, as for instance, insults; (d) because of economic measures (questions of salary, dismissal of employees, and similar cases).

“Furthermore, protective custody is not permissible as a countermeasure for punishable actions, for the courts are competent to deal with those cases.”

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that?

DR. PANNENBECKER: It is a document which the Prosecution has submitted as 779-PS and which was taken from the files of the ministry. There is no date on the document but it must have been in the spring of 1934, as can be seen from the first sentence of the document. The _Völkischer Beobachter_ mentions the same decree in its issue of 14 April 1934. I have included that as Number 32 in the document book; it will be Exhibit Frick-7 (Document Number Frick-7).

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, are you offering that as an exhibit or has it already been put in evidence?

DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it has not, as yet, been submitted. I offer it as Exhibit Number Frick-7.

THE PRESIDENT: I am told the date is April 12.

DR. PANNENBECKER: In the spring of 1934, yes, shortly after.

THE PRESIDENT: 12th of April, 1934.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

The _Völkischer Beobachter_ also mentions this decree in its issue of 14 April 1934. We are concerned with Document 32 of the document book, which will be Exhibit Number Frick-7. I do not need to read it in detail.

The same is evident from Number 33 of the book, which will be Exhibit Number Frick-8 (Document Number I-302).

Number 34 of the book—which will be Exhibit Number Frick-9 (Document Number 775-PS) shows that the Gestapo actually did not adhere to Frick’s directives, and that Frick was powerless in that connection. Nevertheless, the document appears important to me because it shows that Frick tried repeatedly with great pains to counteract the abuses of the Gestapo, which, however, with the support of Himmler, was stronger than he—especially since Himmler enjoyed the direct confidence of the Führer.

On 17 June 1936, the affairs of the Political Police came under the jurisdiction of the Reich. Himmler was appointed Chief of the German Police and, though formally attached to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, he functioned, in fact, as an independent Police Ministry under the immediate authority of Hitler; and, as a minister, he was privileged to look after his affairs in the Reich Cabinet himself.

This can be seen from Document Number 35 of the document book—an excerpt from the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ which has been submitted as 2073-PS. I do not believe that I have to give it an exhibit number; it is an official announcement in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_.

In this connection the Prosecution has submitted Document 1723-PS as Exhibit USA-206. I have entered an extract from this document as Number 36 in the document book in order to correct an error. The document is an extract from a book written by Dr. Ley in his capacity as Reich Organization Leader. In that book Dr. Ley gives directives to the Party offices regarding co-operation with the Gestapo, and at the end of the extract Ley reprinted a decree by Frick which shows how Frick attempted to counteract the arbitrary measures of the Gestapo.

However, in presenting evidence on the morning of 13 December 1945, the Prosecution read the entire document as an order by Frick. I should therefore like to correct that error.

Since Himmler and the chiefs of the Gestapo did not heed Frick’s general directives, Frick tried, at least in individual cases, to alleviate conditions in concentration camps; but generally he was not successful. To quote an example, I have included—under Number 37 of the document book—a letter by the former Reichstag Delegate Wulle, which he sent to me of his own accord. This letter will be Exhibit Number Frick-10 (Document Number Frick-10). The letter states, and I quote:

“He”—Frick—“as my former counsel told me, has at various times tried to persuade Hitler to release me; but without success as it was Himmler who made all decisions regarding concentration camps. However, I owe it to him that I have been treated in a comparatively decent manner at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp... He stood out from among the Nazi demagogues because of his impartiality and reserve; he was a man who by nature disapproved of any act of violence... Since the spring of 1925 I have been involved in a sharp struggle against Hitler and his party. I consider it even more to Frick’s credit that despite this antagonism and his comparatively powerless position with respect to Himmler, he tried in every way to help my wife and me during the bitter years of my imprisonment in the concentration camp...”

The Prosecution has asserted, on the basis of the statements made by the witness Blaha before this Tribunal, that Frick knew of the conditions in the Dachau concentration camp through having visited it in the first half of the year 1944.

Therefore, with the permission of the Tribunal I submitted an interrogatory to the witness Gillhuber, who accompanied Frick on all his trips and...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment, Dr. Pannenbecker. The Tribunal considers that it cannot entertain an affidavit upon oath from the Defendant Frick, who is not going into the witness box to give evidence on oath, unless he is offered as a witness, in which case he may be cross-examined.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, but the last document was not an affidavit by Frick, but by Gillhuber, a witness, who has received an interrogatory. It is Number 40 of the document book. I am just informed that by an oversight this exhibit has not been included in the book; I shall have to submit it later.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well! Tell us what it is.

DR. PANNENBECKER: It is an interrogatory of, and the answers by, the witness Gillhuber. Gillhuber, for the personal protection of the Defendant Frick, accompanied him on all his official travels. In answering the interrogatory, he confirmed the fact that Frick had never visited the camp. The interrogatory, with the answers, has still to be submitted in translation. It is contained in my book.

THE PRESIDENT: You may read the interrogatory, unless the Prosecution has any objection to its admissibility, or the terms of it, because the interrogatory has already been provisionally allowed.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I read, then, from Number 40 of the Frick document book, which becomes Exhibit Frick-11 (Document Number Frick-11), the following:

“Question: From when until when, and in what capacity, were you working for the Defendant Frick?

“Answer: From the 18 March 1936 until the arrival of the Allied Troops on 29 or 30 April 1945, as an employee of the Reich Security Service, as guard and escort.

“Question: Did you always accompany him on his travels for his personal protection?

“Answer: From 1936 until January 1942 only intermittently, but from January 1942 as office chief, I accompanied him on all his trips and flights.

“Question: Do you know whether the Defendant Frick visited the concentration camp of Dachau during the first six months of 1944?

“Answer: To my knowledge, Frick did not visit the Dachau concentration camp.

“Question: Would you have known it had that been the case, and why would you have known it?

“Answer: I would have had to know it had that been the case. I was always close to him; and my employees would have reported it if he had left during my absence.

“Question: Do you still have the log book of the trips you made, and can you produce it now?

“Answer: From about 1941 log books were no longer kept. Instead of that, monthly reports of trips were sent to the Reich Security Service in Berlin. The copies which were kept in my office were, according to orders, burned with all the rest of the material in April 1945.

“Question: Do you know whether the Defendant Frick ever visited the Dachau camp?

“Answer: To my knowledge Frick never visited the Dachau Camp.

“Moosburg, 23 March 1946”.—Signed—“Max Gillhuber”—Signed—“Leonard N. Dunkel, Lieutenant Colonel, Infantry.”

To comment on the question whether an official visitor to a concentration camp could always get a correct picture of the actual conditions existing there, I ask permission to read an unsolicited letter which I received a few days ago from a Catholic priest, Bernard Ketzlick. This letter which I have submitted as Supplement Frick Number...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, the Prosecution makes objection to this because it is a character of evidence that there is no way of testing. I have a basket of such correspondence making charges against these defendants, which I would not think the Tribunal would want to receive. If the door is open to this kind of evidence, there is no end to it.

This witness has none of the sanctions, of course, that assure the verity of testimony, and I think it is objectionable to go into letters received from unknown persons.

DR. PANNENBECKER: May I say just one word on this subject? I received the letter so late that I did not have an opportunity to ask the person concerned to send me an affidavit. Of course, I am prepared to submit such an affidavit later, if such an affidavit should have greater probative value.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that the letter cannot be admitted, but an application can be made in the ordinary way for leave to put in an affidavit or to call the witness.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. Then, at a later date, I shall submit a written request.

I shall not read Number 38 of the document book since it concerns a statement made by Frick; and I refer, finally, to an excerpt from the book _Inside Europe_ by John Gunther which will be submitted as Exhibit Frick-12 (Document Number Frick-12). The excerpt is contained under Number 39 in the document book I quote—it concerns a book which appeared originally in the English language, and I therefore quote it in English:

“Born in the Palatinate in 1877, Frick studied law and became a Beamter, an official. He is a bureaucrat through and through. Hitler is not intimate with him, but he respects him. He became Minister of the Interior because he was the only important Nazi with civil service training. Precise, obedient, uninspired, he turned out to be a faithful executive; he has been called the ‘only honest Nazi?’”

As the last document, may I be permitted to refer to an extract from the book _To the Bitter End_ by Gisevius. I believe I do not need to quote these passages individually, since the witness himself will be questioned. The extract will be Exhibit Number Frick-13 (Document Number Frick-13).

There are still left two answers to interrogatories by the witnesses Messersmith and Seger. I ask to be permitted to read these answers later, as soon as the answers have been submitted to me.

That concludes the presentation of documents. I believe there would be no purpose in calling the witnesses now.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Are you prepared to call your witness, Dr. Pannenbecker?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Mr. President, that is my request. I now ask permission to call the witness Gisevius. He is the sole witness in Frick’s case. I have especially selected witness Gisevius to clarify the question of the state of the police authority in Germany, as he, from the very beginning, has been on the side of the opposition and is best qualified to give a picture of the state of that authority in Germany at that time.

[_The witness Gisevius took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

HANS BERND GISEVIUS (Witness): Hans Bernd Gisevius.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, were you a member of the NSDAP or one of its affiliated organizations?

GISEVIUS: No.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Is it correct that you personally participated in the events of 20 July 1944, and that you were also present in the OKW at that time?

GISEVIUS: Yes.

DR. PANNENBECKER: How did you get into the police service?

GISEVIUS: In July 1933 I passed the state examination in law. As a descendant of an old family of civil servants I applied for a civil service appointment in the Prussian administration. I belonged, at that time, to the German National People’s Party and to the Stahlhelm, and by the standards of that day I was considered politically reliable. Consequently, at the first stage of my training as a civil servant I was assigned to the Political Police, which meant my entry into the newly created Secret State Police. In those days I was very glad to have been assigned to the police service. I had already at that time heard that abominations of all kinds were going on in Germany. I was inclined to consider these as the final outburst of the situation, akin to civil war, which we were experiencing at the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933. So I hoped to contribute to the re-establishment of a proper executive organization which would provide for law, decency, and order. But this happiness was doomed to be short-lived.

I had scarcely been 2 days in this new police office, when I discovered that incredible conditions existed there. These were not police who took action against riots, murder, illegal detention, and robbery; these were police who protected those guilty of such crimes. It was not the guilty persons who were arrested, but rather those who asked the police for help. These were not police who took action against the crime, but police whose task seemed to be to hush it up or, even worse, to sponsor it; for those SA and SS Kommandos who played at being police in private were encouraged by this so-called Secret State Police and were given all possible aid. The most terrible and, even for a newcomer, most obvious thing was that a system of unlawful detention was gaining more and more ground—a worse and more dreadful system than which could not be conceived.

The offices of the new State Police were in a huge building which was, however, not large enough to take all the prisoners. Special concentration camps for the Gestapo were established, and their names will go down in history as a mark of infamy. These were Oranienburg and the Gestapo’s private prison in Papestrasse, Columbia House, or, as it was cynically nicknamed, “Columbia Hall.”

I should like to make it quite clear that this was certainly rather amateurish compared with what all of us experienced later. But so it started, and I can only convey my personal impression by describing a brief incident I remember. After only 2 days I asked one of my colleagues, who was also a professional civil servant—he had been taken over from the old Political Police into the new one, and he was one of those officials who were forced into it—I asked him, “Tell me, am I in a police office here or in a robber’s den?” The answer I received was, “You are in a robber’s den and you can expect to see much more yet.”

DR. PANNENBECKER: Under whom was the Political Police at that time and who was the superior authority?

GISEVIUS: The Political Police was under one Rudolf Diels. He, too, came from the old Prussian Political Police. He was a professional civil servant, and one might have expected him still to retain the ideas of law and decency: but in a brutal and cynical way he set his mind on making the new rulers forget his political past as a democrat and on ingratiating himself with his superior, the Prussian Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Göring. It was Diels who created the Gestapo office; he suggested to Göring the issue of the first decree for making that office independent. It was Diels who let the SA and the SS enter that office; he legalized the actions of these civil Kommandos. But soon it became evident to me that such a bourgeois renegade could not do so much wrong quite by himself. Some very important person must have been backing him; in fact, I very quickly saw also that somebody was taking a daily interest in everything that happened in that office. Reports were written; telephone inquiries were received. Diels went several times daily to give reports, and it was the Prussian Minister of the Interior Göring who considered this Secret State Police as his special preserve.

During those months nothing happened in this office which was not known or ordered by Göring personally. I want to stress this, because in the course of years the public formed a different idea of Göring because he noticeably retired from his official functions. At that time, it was not yet the Göring who finally suffocated, in his Karinhall. It was the Göring who looked after everything personally and had not yet begun to busy himself with the building of Karinhall or to don all sorts of uniforms and decorations. It was Göring still in civilian clothes, who was the real chief of an office, who inspired it, and who attached importance to being the “iron” Göring.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, I believe you can describe some points more concisely. As to what you have just said, do you know this from your own experience, or where did you learn of it?

GISEVIUS: I not only heard and saw it myself, but I also learned much from a man who in those days was also a member of the Secret State Police, and whose information will play an important part in the course of my statements.

At that time a criminologist had been called into the Secret State Police, probably the best known expert of the Prussian police, Oberregierungsrat Nebe. Nebe was a National Socialist. He had been in opposition to the former Prussian police and had joined the National Socialist Party. He was a man who sincerely believed in the purity and genuineness of the National Socialist aims. Thus I saw for myself how this man found out on the spot what was actually going on and how he inwardly recoiled.

I can also state here, as it is important, the reasons why Nebe became a strong opponent, who went with the opposition up to 20 July and later suffered death by hanging. At that time, in August 1933, Nebe was ordered by the Defendant Göring to murder Gregor Strasser, formerly a leading member of the National Socialist Party, by means of a car or hunting accident. Nebe was so shocked at this order that he refused to carry it out and made an inquiry at the Reich Chancellery. The answer from the Reich Chancellery was that the Führer knew nothing of this order. Thereupon Nebe was summoned to Göring, who reproached him most bitterly for having made an inquiry. Nevertheless, when he finished these reproaches he considered it advisable to promote him, because he thought he would thereby silence him.

The second thing which happened at that time, and which is also very important, was that the Defendant Göring gave the Political Police so-called open warrants for murder. At that time there were not only so-called amnesty laws which gave amnesty for infamous actions, but there was also a special law according to which investigations, already initiated by police authorities and by the public prosecutor, could be quashed, on condition, however, that in these special cases the Reich Chancellor, or Göring, personally signed the pertinent order. Göring made use of this law by giving open warrants to the Chief of the Gestapo, with which all that had to be done was to fill in the names of those who were to be murdered. Nebe was so shocked by this that from that moment on he felt it his duty to fight against the Gestapo. At our request he remained with us there, and afterwards in the Criminal Police, because we needed one man at least who could keep us informed about police conditions in case our desire for a revolution should materialize.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, what did you do yourself when you saw all these things?

GISEVIUS: I, for my part, tried to contact those bourgeois circles which through my connections were open to me. I went to various ministries: to the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, to State Secretary Grauert, and several ministerial directors and counsellors. I went to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, to the Ministry of Justice, to the Foreign Office, and the Ministry of War. I spoke repeatedly to the Chief of the Army High Command, Colonel General Von Hammerstein. Among all these connections I formed at that time, there is one other who is particularly important for my testimony.

At that time I met in the newly formed intelligence department of the OKW a Major Oster. I gave him all the material which by then had already accumulated. We started a collection—which we continued until 20 July—of all the documents we could get hold of; and Oster was the man who from then on, in the Ministry of War never failed to warn every officer he could contact officially or privately. In course of time, by favor of Admiral Canaris, Oster became Chief of Staff of the Intelligence. When he met his death by hanging he was a general. But I consider it my duty to testify here, in view of all this man has done—his unforgettable fight against the Gestapo and against all the crimes which were committed against humanity and peace—that among the inflation of German field marshals and generals there was one real German general.

DR. PANNENBECKER: How did the work develop, according to your observations in the Gestapo?

GISEVIUS: At that time conditions in Germany were still such that people kept their eyes open in the ministries. There was still an opposition in the bourgeois ministries; there was still the Reich President Von Hindenburg. Thus, at the end of October 1933 the Defendant Göring was forced to dismiss Diels, the Chief of the State Police. At the same time a commission of investigation was set up in order to re-organize that institution thoroughly. According to the ministerial decree, Nebe and I were members of that commission. But that commission never met, for the Defendant Göring found ways and means to thwart this measure. He appointed as Chief and successor of Diels a still worse Nazi named Hinkler, who some time before had been acquitted in a trial because of irresponsibility; and this Hinkler acted in such a way that before 30 days had passed he was dismissed. Then the Defendant Göring was able to restore his Diels to the office.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Do you know anything of the events which led to the Prussian law of 30 November 1933, by which the functions of the Gestapo were taken away from the office of the Minister of the Interior and transferred to the office of the Prussian Prime Minister?

GISEVIUS: That was just the moment of which I am speaking. Göring realized that it would not serve his purpose if other ministries were too much concerned in his Secret State Police. Though he was Prussian Minister of the Interior himself, he was disturbed by the fact that the police department of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior could look into the affairs of his private domain; and so he separated the Secret State Police from the remaining police and placed it under his personal direction, thereby excluding all other police authorities. From the point of view of a proper police system this was nonsense, because you cannot run a Political Police properly if you separate it from the Criminal Police and the Order Police. But Göring knew why he did not want any other police authority to look into the affairs of the Secret State Police.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, did you remain in the police service yourself?

GISEVIUS: On that day when Göring carried out his little—and I can’t find another word for it—_coup d’état_ by assigning to himself a state police of his own, this Secret State Police issued a warrant of arrest against me. I had expected this and had gone into hiding. The next morning I went to the Chief of the Police Department of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, Ministerial Director Daluege—who was a high SS general—and said that it was really not quite in order to issue a warrant of arrest against me.

A criminal commissioner of the Secret State Police came to arrest me in the room of the Chief of the Prussian police. Daluege was kind enough to allow me to escape through a back door to State Secretary Grauert. Grauert intervened with Göring, and as always in cases of this kind, Göring was very surprised and ordered a thorough investigation. That was the usual way of saying that such incidents were to be pigeonholed. After that I was no longer allowed to enter the Secret State Police, but I was sent as an observer to the Reichstag Fire trial at Leipzig, which was just drawing to an end. During these last days of November I was able to get some insight into this obscure affair and having already tried, together with Nebe, to investigate this crime, I was able to add to my knowledge here.

I assume that I shall again be questioned about that point and, therefore, shall now confine myself to the statement that, if necessary, I am prepared to refresh Defendant Göring’s memory concerning his complicity in and his joint knowledge of this first “brown” _coup d’état_ and the murder of the accomplices.

DR. PANNENBECKER: On 1 May 1934 Frick became Prussian Minister of the Interior. Did you get into touch with Frick himself or his ministries?

GISEVIUS: Yes. Immediately after the Reichstag Fire trial was over—that is, at the end of 1933—I was dismissed from the police service and transferred to a Landrat office in East Prussia. I complained, however, to State Secretary Grauert about this obvious disciplinary punishment. As he and Ministerial Director Daluege knew of my quarrel with the Secret State Police, they got me into the Ministry of the Interior and assigned to me the task of collecting all those reports which were still being incorrectly addressed to the Ministry of the Interior and of forwarding them to the Prussian Prime Minister who was in charge of the Secret State Police and who dealt with these matters.

As soon as Göring found out about this he repeatedly protested against my presence in the Ministry, but the Minister of the Interior was adamant and I succeeded in keeping that post.

When Frick came I did not get in touch with him immediately as I was only a subordinate official. I assume, however, that the Defendant Frick knew about my activity and my views, because I was now encouraged to continue collecting all those requests for help which were wrongly addressed to the Ministry of the Interior, and a large number of these reports I submitted through official channels to Daluege, Grauert, and Frick. There was, however, the difficulty that Göring, in his capacity of Prime Minister of Prussia, had prohibited Frick, as his Prussian Minister of the Interior, to take cognizance of such reports. Frick was supposed to forward them to the Gestapo without comment. I saw no reason for not submitting them to Frick all the same, and as Frick was also Reich Minister of the Interior—and in this capacity could give directives to the Länder and, therefore, also to Göring—he took cognizance of these reports in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and allowed me to forward them to Göring with the request for a report. Göring protested repeatedly, and I know this resulted in heated disputes between him and Frick.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Is anything known to you about the fact that at that time the Reich Minister of the Interior issued certain directives to restrict protective custody?

GISEVIUS: It is correct that at that time a number of such directives were issued, and the fact that I say that a number of such directives were issued already implies that generally they were not complied with by subordinate authorities.

The Reich Minister of the Interior was a minister with no personal executive power, and I will never forget the impression it made on me, while training as a civil servant, that we officials in the Secret State Police were instructed in principle not to answer any inquiries from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Naturally, at intervals the Reich Minister of the Interior sent reminders, and the efficiency of a Gestapo official was judged by the number of such reminders he could show his chief, Diels, as proof that he did not pay any attention to such matters.

DR. PANNENBECKER: On 30 June 1934 the so-called Röhm Putsch took place. Can you give a short description of the conditions prevailing before this Putsch?

GISEVIUS: First I have to say that there never was a Röhm Putsch. On 30 June there was only a Göring-Himmler Putsch.

I am in a position to give some information about that dark chapter, because I dealt with and followed up this case in the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior, and because the radiograms sent during these days by Göring and Himmler to the police authorities of the Reich came into my hands. The last of these radiograms reads: “By order of Göring all documents relating to 30 June shall be burned immediately.”

At that time I took the liberty of putting these papers into my safe, and to this day I do not know whether or not they survived Kaltenbrunner’s attempts to get them. I still hope to recover these papers, and if I do, I can prove that throughout the whole 30 June not a single shot was fired by the SA. The SA did not revolt. By this, however, I do not wish to utter a single word of excuse for the leaders of the SA. On 30 June not one of the SA leaders died who did not deserve death a hundred times—but after a proper trial.

The situation on that 30 June was that of a civil war; on one side were the SA headed by Röhm, and on the other side, Göring and Himmler. It had been arranged for the SA, several days before 30 June, to be sent on leave. The SA leaders had been purposely called by Hitler for a conference at Wiessee that 30 June, and it is not usual for people who intend to effect a _coup d’état_ to travel by sleeping car to a conference. To their surprise they were seized at the station and at once driven off to execution.

The so-called Munich Putsch took place as follows: The Munich SA did not come into it at all, and at 1 hour’s driving distance from Munich the alleged traitors, Röhm and Heines, fell into the sleep of death completely ignorant of the fact that, according to Hitler and Göring, a revolt had taken place in Munich the previous night.

I was able to observe the Putsch in Berlin very closely. It took place without anything being known about it by the public and without any participation by the SA. We in the police were unaware of it. It is true, however, that 4 days before 30 June one of the alleged ringleaders, SA Gruppenführer Karl Ernst of Berlin, came to Ministerial Director Daluege looking very concerned and said that there were rumors going round in Berlin that the SA were contemplating a Putsch. He asked for an interview with Minister of the Interior Frick, so that he, Ernst, could assure him that there was no such intention.

Daluege sent me with this message to the Defendant Frick, and I arranged for this strange conversation where an SA leader assured the Minister of the Interior that he did not intend to stage a Putsch.

Ernst then set out on a pleasure trip to Madeira. On 30 June he was taken from the steamer and sent to Berlin for execution. I saw him arrive at the Tempelhof airport. This struck me as particularly interesting, because a few hours before I had read the official report about his execution in the newspaper.

That, then, was the so-called SA and Röhm Putsch. And because I am not to withhold anything, I must add that I was present when on 30 June the Defendant Göring informed the press of the event. On this occasion the Defendant Göring made the cold-blooded remark that he had for days been waiting for a code word which he had arranged with Hitler. He had then struck, of course with lightning speed, and had also extended the scope of his mission. This extension of his mission caused the death of a large number of innocent people. To mention only a few, there were Generals Schleicher—who was killed together with his wife—and Von Bredow, Ministerial Director Klausner, Edgar Jung, and many others.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, you were in the Ministry of the Interior yourself at that time. How did Frick hear about these measures, and was he himself in any way involved in the quelling of this so-called Putsch?

GISEVIUS: I was present when, at about half past 9, Ministerial Director Daluege came back quite pale after seeing Göring and having just been told what had happened. Daluege and I went to Grauert and we drove to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, to Frick. Frick rushed out of the room—it may have been about 10 o’clock—in order to go to Göring to find out what had happened in the meantime, only to be told that he, as Police Minister of the Reich, should go home now and not worry about further developments. In fact, Frick did go home, and during those 2 dramatic days he did not enter the ministry.

Once during this time Daluege drove over with me to see him. For the rest, it was given to me, the youngest official of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, to inform the Reich Minister of the Interior on that bloody Saturday and Sunday of the atrocious things which in the meantime had happened in Germany.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, you just told us of an instruction Frick had received not to worry about these things. Who gave him this instruction?

GISEVIUS: As far as I know, Göring gave or conveyed to him an instruction by Hitler. I do not know whether there was a written instruction; neither do I know whether Frick had asked about it. I should think that Frick, on that day, probably considered it would be wise not to ask too many awkward questions.

DR. PANNENBECKER: After these things had been concluded, did Frick in any way attempt to smooth matters over?

GISEVIUS: To answer this question correctly I have to say first that on Saturday, 30 June, we at the Ministry of the Interior knew very little about what had happened. On Sunday, 1 July, we learned much more, and after these bloody days had passed, there is no doubt that Frick had on the whole a clear idea of what had happened. Also, during these days he made no secret of his indignation at the murders and unlawful arrests which apparently had taken place. In order to stick to the truth I have to answer your question by saying that the first reaction of the Defendant Frick which I knew about was that Reich law in which the Reich Ministers declared the events of June 30 to be lawful. This law had an unprecedented psychological effect on the further developments in Germany, and it has its place in the history of German terror. Apart from this, many things happened in the Third Reich which a normal mortal could not understand, but which were well understood in the circles of ministers and state secretaries. And so, I have to admit that, after that law, the Defendant Frick made a serious attempt to remedy at least the most obvious abuses. Maybe he thought other ministers in the Reich Cabinet should have spoken sooner. I am thinking now of Reich War Minister Von Blomberg, two of whose generals were shot, and who, in spite of that, signed this law. I intentionally mention Blomberg’s name, and ask to be permitted to pause here to tell the Tribunal about an incident which occurred this morning. I was in the room of the defendants’ counsel and was speaking to Dr. Dix. Dr. Dix was interrupted by Dr. Stahmer, counsel for Göring. I heard what Dr. Stahmer told Dr. Dix...

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): May I ask whether a personal conversation which I had with Dr. Dix has anything to do with the taking of evidence?

GISEVIUS: I am not speaking...

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, don’t go on with your evidence whilst the objection is being made. Yes, Dr. Stahmer.

GISEVIUS: If you please. I didn’t understand...

DR. STAHMER: I do not know whether it is in order when giving evidence to reveal a conversation which I had with Dr. Dix in the Defense Counsel’s room.

GISEVIUS: May I say something to that?

THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly keep silent.

GISEVIUS: May I finish my statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep silent, sir.

DR. STAHMER: This morning in the room of the Defense Counsel, I had a personal conversation with Dr. Dix concerning the Blomberg case. That conversation was not intended to be heard by the witness. I do not know the witness; I didn’t even see the witness, as far as I can remember, and I don’t know whether this should come into the evidence by making such a conversation public here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This incident has been reported to me, and I think it is important that this Tribunal know the influence—the threats that were made at this witness in this courthouse while waiting to testify here, threats not only against him but against the Defendant Schacht. Now, the affair was reported to me. I think it is important that this Tribunal know it. I think it is important that it come out. I should have attempted to bring it out on cross-examination if it had not been told, and I think that the witness should be permitted. These other parties have had great latitude here. This witness has been subjected to threats, as I understand it, which were uttered in his presence, whether they were intended for him or not, and I ask that this Tribunal allow Dr. Gisevius, who is the one representative of democratic forces in Germany, to take this stand to tell his story.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to hear first of all anything further you have to say upon the matter. They will then hear what Dr. Dix has to say, if he wishes to say anything; and they will then hear whether the witness himself wishes to say anything in answer.

DR. STAHMER: I have no qualms about telling the Court exactly what I said. Last night I discussed the case with the Defendant Göring and told him the witness Gisevius...

THE PRESIDENT: We don’t want to hear any communications which you had with the Defendant Göring other than those you choose to make in support of your objection to this evidence that has been given.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President; but I must say briefly that Göring told me that it was of no interest to him if the witness Gisevius did incriminate him, but that he did not want Blomberg, who died recently—and I assumed it was only the question of Blomberg’s marriage—he, Göring, did not want these facts concerning the marriage of Blomberg to be discussed here in public. If that could not be prevented, then of course Göring, in his turn—and it is only a question of Schacht, because Schacht, as he had told me, wanted to speak about these things—then he, Göring would not spare Schacht.

That is what I told Dr. Dix this morning, and I am sure Dr. Dix will confirm that, and if I may add...

THE PRESIDENT: We will hear you in a moment, Dr. Dix.

DR. STAHMER: I said—and I was not referring to Schacht, to the witness, or to Herr Pannenbecker—I said, for reasons of professional etiquette, that I should like to inform Dr. Dix. That is what I said and what I