Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-164.02
Last-Modified: 2000/07/23

Q. Well, you need not repeat what you have already stated.

I am going to read into the record a certain statement by
Karl Hermann Frank of 26th November, 1945, connected with
the subject. It can be found on Pages 46 and 47 of the
Russian text. The English text will be submitted. Karl
Hermann Frank, giving evidence regarding this poster, the
text of which I have just read into the record, stated:

  "This document was dated 17th November, 1939, and was
  signed by von Neurath, who did not speak either against
  the shooting of the nine students ..."

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I draw your
attention to something connected with this document. The
document is neither dated nor is it signed, at least not the
copy I have. It does not make it at all clear from whom the
document originates, and I should like to take this
opportunity to protest against the reading of this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, is there not a
certificate about the document?

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Not in my copy.

THE PRESIDENT: Well ...

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, will you permit me to
explain this misunderstanding. Dr. Ludinghausen has the full
text of Exhibit USSR 60. The English text was also submitted
to the Tribunal. This document was quoted yesterday by Dr.
Ludinghausen. There is a certificate regarding the
authenticity of this document signed by the Plenipotentiary
of the Czechoslovak Government, and there is the date too.

Now, just to facilitate the proceedings, we have submitted
another copy of Frank's testimony to Dr. Ludinghausen, and
it would be very easy to determine that there

                                                  [Page 205]

is a certificate regarding the authenticity of this
statement, which is dated 17th November ....

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I should like to say the following
about this point. When I received this long indictment from
General Ecer of the Czech delegation, the document did not
have any additions or appendices, except texts of laws. I
then received only one annex to an appendix, or supplement
"No. 2"; the others I received in the same condition as the
one which I have here.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, will you wait a minute:
Will you kindly tell us what document it is you are
referring to?

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: It is Exhibit USSR 60.

THE PRESIDENT: USSR 60 - well, that is the Czech report, is
it not?

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: That is the Czech report, which is
about this thick (indicating) in German, that is the one in
question. Annexes have also been issued to this, and these
annexes, I repeat, were not made available to me, that is, I
made a personal effort to get them, but I only received one
which is not identical with this document and which I
received much later and in the same condition as that which
I hold in my hand now; that is to say, without a heading,
without a signature and without a date and most certainly
without any certificate as to when, where and by whom this
supposed statement of Frank was taken down.

THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear what General Raginsky has got to
say about it.

As I understand General Raginsky, he says there is a
certificate identifying that document and what is being
supplied to you is merely a copy, which may not have the
date and may not have the certificate on it, but which is
the same as the document which is certified.

Is that what you said, General Raginsky?

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you not show Dr. von Ludinghausen, the
certificate and the document which is certified?

GENERAL RAGINSKY: This certificate can be found on Page 44
of the Russian text in the appendix to Exhibit USSR 60, and
it is signed for General Ecer by Colonel Novack, General
Staff Corps. This certificate was submitted, in due course,
by us to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to take up the time of the
Tribunal about this particular document? It seems to me we
are wasting a lot of time.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: After all, it is important. Otherwise
I cannot find out whether it is genuine. That is certainly
my right.

THE PRESIDENT: I was asking General Raginsky whether he
wanted to persist in the use of the document. Is it worth
while? I do not know what the document is or what it says.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: I consider that is not necessary, because
this document has already been submitted to the Tribunal a
few months ago and accepted by the Tribunal as evidence. I
really do not understand the statements by Dr. von
Ludinghausen.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you not show Dr. von Ludinghausen that
there is a certificate which applies to the document which
you put in his hand?

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Yes, certainly, Mr. President. I am
holding in my hand the Russian text of the certificate. I am
quoting the Russian text and I can present it to Dr.
Ludinghausen, so that he can be convinced. The original
document has been submitted to the Tribunal and is in the
possession of the Tribunal.

                                                  [Page 206]

THE PRESIDENT: Well, is there not a German translation of
the certificate and does not the certificate identify the
document? Is there a German translation of the certificate?

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Just at the moment I do not have it, but
during the recess I shall be glad to produce the original
German document.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, the Tribunal is told
that this document was put in before and the certificate of
General Ecer was put in at the same time, certifying that
this document is a part of the Czech report. In those
circumstances, the Tribunal will allow the document to be
used.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, then I have another
objection to the use of this document.

As is known, if any interrogation transcripts or affidavits
from witnesses are presented, the defence has the right to
summon these witnesses for an interrogation. Former State
Secretary Frank, who has made this statement, is, however,
as is known, no longer among the living. Therefore, I also
object for this reason to the use of this document.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, this document was
offered and accepted in evidence during the lifetime of this
man, K. H. Frank. That is one reason for accepting it.

The document is admissible under Article 21 of the Charter
and was admitted under that article, and there is no such
rule as you have stated, that the defence are entitled to
cross-examine every person who makes an affidavit. It is a
matter entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal and
therefore that objection is rejected.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I do not want to keep you
any longer on this matter, but I wanted to show that this
was an unnecessary delay, as Dr. von Ludinghausen, used the
document himself to introduce some extracts from the
testimony of Frank in his document book.

Now I shall read into the record some statements made by
Frank. This document, I repeat, is in connection with the
warning dated 17th November, 1939, which we just exhibited
to this Tribunal, and signed by von Neurath, who did not
raise his voice either against the shooting of the nine
students, nor as to the number of students who were to be
sent to concentration camps, and he did not really request
any changes in this legislation.

BY GENERAL RAGINSKY:

Q. Did you hear the testimony, defendant?

A. Yes, I have read it.

Q. Do you deny this?

A. But most definitely. There was no possibility whatever of
my doing so because I was not in Prague and consequently I
could neither have had any knowledge of it, nor could I have
signed it or passed it on.

Q. Very well. You still insist in stating that the police
never informed you regarding the arrests which were made and
other police measures which were taken? Do you state that
firmly?

A. I did not say that they never informed me, but that they
always informed me afterwards. My information always came
from Czech sources.

Q. Was not the state of affairs such that the police
regularly reported to you regarding the important events
which took place?

A. Not at all. In particular I never learned anything about
what they were planning, at least, not until afterwards, or,
if I had learned it from Czech sources, I then made
inquiries of the police.

Q. Very well. I am going to read an extract from the
testimony of Karl Hermann Frank, dated 7th March, 1946. This
testimony was submitted by me

                                                  [Page 207]

to the Tribunal yesterday, and it was then partially read by
me. Will you give a copy of the testimony to the defendant,
please.

Frank states:

  "The Reich Protector, von Neurath, regularly received
  reports on the most important events in the Protectorate,
  which had some bearing on the Security Police, from me,
  as well as from the State Secretary and from the head of
  the Security Police. For example, von Neurath received
  information about a certain demonstration in the
  Sudetenland in November, 1939, both from me and from the
  head of the Security Police. This case dealt with
  Hitler's direct orders demanding the shooting of all the
  ringleaders. The number of ringleaders was to be fixed by
  the Prague Gestapo and the Reich Protector was to be
  informed of this. In this case the names of the
  ringleaders had to be announced by the State Police, that
  is to say, were subject to the approval of the Reich
  Protector. Reich Protector von Neurath signed the
  official dispatch announcing the execution of these
  students, thereby approving this action. I informed him
  in detail about the interrogation and he signed the
  poster.
  
  Had this not met with his approval and had he wished to
  revise it, to make it less severe, for instance, as he
  had the right to do, then I should have had to abide by
  his decision."

Now, do you deny these statements?

A. Yes, I do not know how many times I have got to tell you
that I was not in Prague at all.

Besides, I do not know under what sort of pressure Frank
might have made these statements. It does not give the date,
but you just said that he made this statement on 7th April,
and therefore a few days before his execution.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: I should like the Tribunal to note that
the defendant is deliberately distorting the facts. I
repeated several times that these statements were made by
Frank on 7th March and not On 7th April, or two days before
the execution, as you are telling me now.

The document is before you, and you can look at it yourself
and see the date.

A. All right, then 7th March instead of 7th April. I think I
said 7th April because I did not see the date at the top.
But as I have said ... I think I have already told you three
times, I could not have known anything at all about it
because I was not there.

Q. Well. But you are making too many mistakes. Yesterday
when giving testimony you were not very clear as to the
number of students, either.

A. I cannot remember what I said yesterday, but I could
hardly have made so many mistakes; I do not know if there
were one or two less.

Q. I would like to remind you. Yesterday, in reply to a
question by Sir David, who submitted to you Document 3858-
PS, from which it was evident that after the closing of the
higher institutions of learning, 18,000 students found
themselves out of school -

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go over Sir David's cross-
examination again? Surely we have said that we do not want
to go over the same subject twice.

MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I do not want to go
back to the very same thing, and I do not want to add
anything to the questions put by Sir David, who has carried
out a very detailed interrogation. I only, wanted to
establish the truth. When the defendant stated yesterday
that in the document which was submitted by Sir David there
was a mistake - that in Prague there existed only two
institutions of higher learning and that 12,000 students
could not have been arrested, this was not correct. The
question was not merely about the closing of two Prague
universities, but, on the basis of the order of 17th
November, 1939 there were closed the Czech University in
Prague, the Czech University in Brunn, the Czech Higher
Technical School in Brunn, the Czech Higher Technical School
in Prague ...

                                                  [Page 208]

THE PRESIDENT: We heard all this yesterday, and we do not
want to hear it again. We heard all about the closing of the
university in Prague.

MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY: Very well, Mr. President. I just
wanted to state that not two universities were closed, but
ten institutions of higher learning.

I have just a few questions left which I should like to put
to the defendant.

BY MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY:

Q. You received many awards from Hitler, as is evident from
the documents, and as you yourself stated. For instance, on
22nd September, 1940, you received the Iron Cross for
Military Service. For what kind of services did you receive
this award from Hitler?

THE PRESIDENT: Surely we went into this yesterday, did we
not, in Sir David's cross-examination, or in the examination-
in-chief; I forget which. I think it was the examination-in-
chief. All these decorations which were given the defendant.

MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I do not want to
revert to these orders, but I should like to ask the
defendant, for what special services he received the Iron
Cross from Hitler in 1940.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, ask him that.

THE WITNESS: Unfortunately, I cannot tell you. I cannot tell
you what sort of services I am supposed to have rendered.
The award of this order of merit was made generally to all
higher officials who were in service at the time.

BY MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY:

Q. Very well, I am not going to insist on your reply. I just
wanted to state here that you received this award in 1940
after the mass terror was applied against the Czechoslovak
population.

A. I do not know that I am supposed to have carried out a
mass terror.

Q. Very well, if you do not understand, we are not going to
argue about this question.

In February, 1943, in connection with your birthday, various
articles about you were published in many newspapers. I am
not going to submit all these papers to the Tribunal or
quote these articles, but I should like to read a few
excerpts from the newspaper Frankischer Kourier of 2nd
February, 1943. We shall submit to you one of the copies of
this so that you can follow me as I read this document into
the record.

MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY: This newspaper is being submitted to
the Tribunal under Number USSR 496.

BY MAJOR-GENERAL RAGINSKY:

Q. In connection with your birthday, it was stated:

  "The most important events in the field of foreign policy
  after Hitler's coming to power in which Baron yon Neurath
  played a most important role as Reich Foreign Minister
  and with which his name will always be connected, are:
  Germany's leaving the Geneva Disarmament Conference, the
  reuniting of the Saar to Germany, and the denouncing of
  the Locarno Pact."

And farther on:

  "Reich Protector Baron von Neurath was repeatedly
  decorated by the Fuehrer for outstanding services. He was
  decorated with the Golden Party Badge of Honour, received
  the rank of SS-Gruppenfuehrer, was a Knight of the Order
  of the Eagle, and received the Golden Badge of Honour for
  Faithful Service.
  
  In appreciation of his outstanding services in the field
  of military efforts in the post of Reich Protector for
  Bohemia and Moravia, the Fuehrer decorated him with the
  Military Cross, First Class."

Are the facts correctly stated in this article?

                                                  [Page 209]

A. If I had to investigate the correctness of every article
written by some journalist or other, I would have had a lot
to do. These statements are the opinion of a journalist and
nothing more.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor