Defending Nazis in Postwar Czechoslovakia

Life of K. Resler, Defense Councel Ex Officio of K. H. Frank

Jakub Drápal

• Editorial: Karolinum Press, Charles University
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9788024642307
• Categoría: History
• Categoría: World History

In this book, Czech lawyer and scholar Jakub Drápal tells the story of the life of Kamill Resler, an attorney who defended the most prominent Nazi tried in postwar Czechoslovakia: Karl Hermann Frank, who would go on to be executed for his role in organizing the massacres of the Czech villages Lidice and Ležáky in 1942. Celebrating Resler's lifelong commitment to justice—to honoring even the most nefarious criminals' right to a defense—Drápal highlights events that influenced Resler's outlook and legal career, important cases that preceded Frank's trial, Resler's subsequent defenses of other Nazi criminals, and the final years of Resler's life under the communist regime.

1. THE FIRST REPUBLIC

Defending K. H. Frank was the biggest case in Kamill Resler’s legal career. Although it wasn’t the most time-consuming or the most complicated case he handled, from a legal perspective, and it did nothing to secure him financially, but rather cost him a lot of money, it was exceptional in terms of the energy he had to put into it, and the effort it took to overcome his own and others’ distate. Kamill Resler had to defend a man who had been responsible for the death of his own relatives and acquaintances, a man whom he deeply detested. This is what makes Resler’s defence of K. H. Frank so interesting.

There is, however, far more to Resler and his life, than his defence of Frank. Prior to the notable Frank trial, Resler’s career and character had been formed over many interesting years. Examples of aspects of Resler’s life and work that are well worth a look at include his defence of politically and ethnically troublesome individuals during the First Republic, his assistance to his Jewish colleagues during the Second Republic, and the part he played in the resistance movement during the war. These events were certainly not just a prelude or prequel to the Frank defence, although it is clear that Resler’s character was shaped by these situations and that his stance in the Frank trial reflected his previous experience. Rather, it is worth seeing these events separately from their relationship with the later Frank trial. Several of Resler’s actions, such as the disciplinary suit Resler brought against Aryan lawyers on the day Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by the German army, arguably demanded greater courage and had a greater influence on the lives of others than his more famous defence of K. H. Frank. Therefore, while focusing on the Frank trial as the most interesting and significant of Resler’s career for the Czech nation, we will also look in detail at the rest of Resler’s life, which is necessary to give a fair and full picture of who Resler really was, and what he experienced as a lawyer. Kamill Resler’s legal career began at the time of the First Czechoslovak Republic, a time when Czechoslovakia was an island of democracy in Central Europe.⁸

DEFENCE OF ANTONÍN KIESEWETTER IN A TREASON CASE⁹

Three years before the start of the Second World War, Kamill Resler defended a client in a case that served as a model for the Frank trial. His client was a Czech German who was accused of treason, and the public therefore did not look positively on his defence lawyer. This was Resler’s most high profile pre-war case.

His client was arrested under the law on the protection of the Republic. This led to criminal proceedings in defence of the basic constitutional ideas and institutions of the state. Antonín Kiesewetter, general manager of the bank Kreditanstalt der Deutschen (KdD),¹⁰ was accused in 1935 of his bank having financed the subversive magazine Der Weg, and been complicit in other subversive acts.¹¹ The accusation was connected with a charge brought against Dr. Patscheider, a professor from Opava who had moved to Silesia from the Tyrol before the First World War, and had allegedly led a group that were preparing to annex German populations from the Silesia, North Moravia and North-Western Bohemia regions to the German Reich. This case was particularly fiery in the tense period leading up to the Second World War.¹²

For example, unsubstantiated threats were made that the court files would be stolen while being transferred from Opava to Ostrava (resulting in them having a police escort), and that certain imprisoned individuals would be forcibly freed. None of this in fact took place, and Resler was quite used to these sorts of threats; in one of his previous cases, similar messages had been sent by personal enemies of the accused himself, in order to make his time in custody more difficult.

In a later letter about the trial, Resler wrote: “the entire proceedings were dominated by strong-mindedness and rigorousness, which is rare for our courts; I recall only the decision, whereby all anonymous reports and statements were dismissed, which is and will long remain unique, and was sufficient on its own to inspire respect. Indeed, the way they handled personal contact with the defendant was also refined.”

Resler had at first been reluctant to take on the defence of a German accused of disloyalty to the Republic, and the only reason why he agreed to do so in the end was that a Czech colleague of his asked him to, personally vouching for Kiesewetter, and assuring Resler that he had not been part of any treacherous plots. Resler was also somewhat attracted by the opportunity the case offered for him to see how the Germans did things.¹³ And it was for this very reason that Kiesewetter had chosen him: it was important for him that someone should look at his case from the Czech perspective and be persuaded that he had not committed any wrongdoing.

After the year 1926, when Kiesewetter had resigned from a prominent position in the German National party and gone into banking, he had not been at all involved in politics. The magazine Der Weg had indeed been funded by the KdD bank, which he represented, but its purpose was to give a positive picture of contemporary political, cultural and social events – and not to promote subversive acts, as Resler argued in his submission to the Regional Criminal Court.

Resler worked on the defence together with Ostrava-based barrister JUDr. Rudolf Prchal, whom he had known for many years. They made sure they left out certain details from their written communication, however, for fear that third parties might intercept and misuse their letters. This applied in particular to their dealings with officers of the Ostrava court: they were trying to have the case assigned to judge Dr. Hahn, not so that he would in any way favour them, but because he was considered a very objective judge. They kept this strictly to themselves. In the end, the case was presided over by chief counsel Emil Kämpf, who Resler reported did a very good job of it.¹⁴

Resler’s opinion of the public prosecutor’s handling of the case, on the other hand, was somewhat different. He considered the prosecutor’s speech in court to have been weak, of little legal value, and of a style more fitting to a political speech in parliament or at a gathering.¹⁵ The presiding judge managed to quell the defence’s discomfort with the speech, but did so in such a way that it was clear to Resler that he could not hold it against the defendant. Ironically, Resler observed during the main hearing that the prosecutor’s speech was the most persuasive defence that could have been made.

Resler reported that the trial was very tiring and tense. The defence lawyers were extremely good, and so it was not easy even for Resler to compare favourably with them. Resler succeeded, however, despite the newspapers misnaming him as Rössler (an occurrence he had become familiar with).

Resler gave the last of the defence’s closing speeches, and therefore had a task somewhat harder than the others, since, as he claimed, he had “therefore not only to close the defence of his own client but the whole case.” In his speech he pointed out that according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the final speech in a trial is the most compelling, and it was therefore not undignified for him to speak last. He was the only defence counsel to give his closing speech in Czech, which a number of newspapers reported as a surprise, especially as he was known to speak perfect German. List Národní politika reported that “the gallery was full to bursting for his speech. (…) As the last speaker, he then appealed to the court to uphold its reputation as a democratic court by making a fair judgement that both Czechs and Germans would recognize as good work. Defender Dr. Resler concluded by proclaiming the honour of the Czechoslovak process.”¹⁶ Resler’s words were: “It is my wish that of the verdict that will here be made every person, whether Czech or German, might be able to say: ‘That is work worthy of credit’.”¹⁷ In his closing speech he also praised the careful handling of the trial, and mentioned that t...