dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR JONES: THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better adjourn now. We have already been 50 minutes. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 August 1946 at 1000 hours.] And that is signed by Oberkriegsgerichtsrat (military judge of the third rank) Lipski. And then there are purple pencil notes on the document: "To the Adjutant of the Commander-in-Chief of Army III," and a lead pencil note: "Telephone call from Oberkriegsgerichtsrat Dr. Satt-mann to the effect that so far as has been ascertained the Chief of the Army High Conunand will not confirm either sentence." Then added, in lead pencil- "The sentences have been dropped under the amnesty. Punishment was announced before the amnesty. Nine years penal servitude for the police sergeant major changed to 3 years' imprisonment. Three years' imprisonment for SS man, unchanged. Confirmed by Army headquarters." Now, that was a clear countenancing of mass murder by the judicial authorities of the German Army, was it not? REINECKE: In my opinion this document represents, in the second part where it gives an explanation for the mild sentences on the two SS men, a personal opinion of Kriegsgerichtsrat Lipski, who as the presiding judge passed the sentences. Therefore, since I do not know other details of the case, I am not in a position to say whether the reasons which the presiding judge gives deviate from the facts or not. MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans.
MAJOR JONES: THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better adjourn now. We have already been 50 minutes. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 August 1946 at 1000 hours.] And then there are purple pencil notes on the document: "To the Adjutant of the Commander-in-Chief of Army III," and a lead pencil note: "Telephone call from Oberkriegsgerichtsrat Dr. Satt-mann to the effect that so far as has been ascertained the Chief of the Army High Conunand will not confirm either sentence." Then added, in lead pencil- "The sentences have been dropped under the amnesty. Punishment was announced before the amnesty. Nine years penal servitude for the police sergeant major changed to 3 years' imprisonment. Three years' imprisonment for SS man, unchanged. Confirmed by Army headquarters." Now, that was a clear countenancing of mass murder by the judicial authorities of the German Army, was it not? REINECKE: In my opinion this document represents, in the second part where it gives an explanation for the mild sentences on the two SS men, a personal opinion of Kriegsgerichtsrat Lipski, who as the presiding judge passed the sentences. Therefore, since I do not know other details of the case, I am not in a position to say whether the reasons which the presiding judge gives deviate from the facts or not. MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans. REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here.
MAJOR JONES: The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ... REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter. According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it. But, at any rate, the end of this story was that the Army commander-in-chief crossed the whole thing? REINECKE: That is correct. MAJOR JONES: The sentences were dropped under the amnesty That is the end of this suit of murder by the Army judicial authorities-amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. I want you now to turn to, another document so the Tribunal can judge how zealous the German authorities were in the pursuit of the SS crimes. It is Document D-926, to be Exhibit GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not from the days when the Poles or the others who you said were responsible were operating. These were the pioneer days of the SS, 1933, when you joined them.
MAJOR JONES: 'this is a file relating to the deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It starts with a letter dated 2 June 1933, from the provincial court public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice. It is headed: "Deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau." It relates to the Schloss, Hausmann, Strauss, and Netzger cases: "In accordance with my instructions, I had a lengthy discus-sion on 1 June 1933, with Police Commander Himmler in his office at the Police headquarters, Munich, about the incidents at the concentration camp of Dachau, which I have already reported to the Ministry of Justice separately. I particularly reported to him briefly, by showing the photographs from the investigation files, about the Schloss, Hausmann, Strauss, and Netzger cases, of which he appeared to have been informed already. I pointed out that particularly the four above-men-tioned cases, in view of the result of the findings to date, offer good reason for strongly suspecting serious punishable actions on the part of the individual members of the camp guard and of camp officials, and that both the public prose-cution and the Police authorities to whose knowledge these incidents have come, are under the obligation, under the threat of heavy punishment, to carry out the criminal in-vestigation of the above-mentioned incidents without con-sideration for any persons whatsoever...." I don't think I need trouble you with the rest of that document. Document 2 is a letter from the provincial court public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice again. It is 11 August 1933. So you see, Witness, no action had apparently been taken from 2 June until 11 August.
MAJOR JONES: THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better adjourn now. We have already been 50 minutes. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 August 1946 at 1000 hours.] "The sentences have been dropped under the amnesty. Punishment was announced before the amnesty. Nine years penal servitude for the police sergeant major changed to 3 years' imprisonment. Three years' imprisonment for SS man, unchanged. Confirmed by Army headquarters." Now, that was a clear countenancing of mass murder by the judicial authorities of the German Army, was it not? REINECKE: In my opinion this document represents, in the second part where it gives an explanation for the mild sentences on the two SS men, a personal opinion of Kriegsgerichtsrat Lipski, who as the presiding judge passed the sentences. Therefore, since I do not know other details of the case, I am not in a position to say whether the reasons which the presiding judge gives deviate from the facts or not. MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans. REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here. The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly.
MAJOR JONES: THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better adjourn now. We have already been 50 minutes. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 August 1946 at 1000 hours.] Now, that was a clear countenancing of mass murder by the judicial authorities of the German Army, was it not? REINECKE: In my opinion this document represents, in the second part where it gives an explanation for the mild sentences on the two SS men, a personal opinion of Kriegsgerichtsrat Lipski, who as the presiding judge passed the sentences. Therefore, since I do not know other details of the case, I am not in a position to say whether the reasons which the presiding judge gives deviate from the facts or not. MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans. REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here. The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ...
MAJOR JONES: REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter. According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it. But, at any rate, the end of this story was that the Army commander-in-chief crossed the whole thing? REINECKE: That is correct. MAJOR JONES: The sentences were dropped under the amnesty That is the end of this suit of murder by the Army judicial authorities-amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. I want you now to turn to, another document so the Tribunal can judge how zealous the German authorities were in the pursuit of the SS crimes. It is Document D-926, to be Exhibit GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not from the days when the Poles or the others who you said were responsible were operating. These were the pioneer days of the SS, 1933, when you joined them. 'this is a file relating to the deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It starts with a letter dated 2 June 1933, from the provincial court public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice.
REINECKE: In my opinion this document represents, in the second part where it gives an explanation for the mild sentences on the two SS men, a personal opinion of Kriegsgerichtsrat Lipski, who as the presiding judge passed the sentences. Therefore, since I do not know other details of the case, I am not in a position to say whether the reasons which the presiding judge gives deviate from the facts or not. MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans. REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here. The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ... REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter.
REINECKE: According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it. But, at any rate, the end of this story was that the Army commander-in-chief crossed the whole thing? REINECKE: That is correct. MAJOR JONES: The sentences were dropped under the amnesty That is the end of this suit of murder by the Army judicial authorities-amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. I want you now to turn to, another document so the Tribunal can judge how zealous the German authorities were in the pursuit of the SS crimes. It is Document D-926, to be Exhibit GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not from the days when the Poles or the others who you said were responsible were operating. These were the pioneer days of the SS, 1933, when you joined them. 'this is a file relating to the deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It starts with a letter dated 2 June 1933, from the provincial court public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice. It is headed: "Deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau." It relates to the Schloss, Hausmann, Strauss, and Netzger cases: "In accordance with my instructions, I had a lengthy discus-sion on 1 June 1933, with Police Commander Himmler in his office at the Police headquarters, Munich, about the incidents at the concentration camp of Dachau, which I have already reported to the Ministry of Justice separately.
MAJOR JONES: But just for a moment: Do you appreciate that for the murder of 50 Jews-and if the facts as reported in this German document are true it could have been nothing but murder -there was, first of all, a finding of manslaughter? You as a lawyer will appreciate what I am implying. And secondly that this Army judge passed a sentence of 3 years' penal servitude for the murder of 50? He was one of your legal colleagues of the Army and I suggest to you that this is typical of the attitude of you-particularly the SS' and the Army's judicial authorities, to the murder of what you pleased to call subhumans. REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here. The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ... REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter. According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it.
REINECKE: May I say the following: A question of law as to whether the verdict is based on manslaughter or on murder is undoubtedly at issue here. The actual grounds which caused the judge to convict the men of manslaughter instead of murder are not indicated in the document. For that reason I cannot take a stand on the question put to me. MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ... REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter. According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it. But, at any rate, the end of this story was that the Army commander-in-chief crossed the whole thing? REINECKE: That is correct. MAJOR JONES: The sentences were dropped under the amnesty That is the end of this suit of murder by the Army judicial authorities-amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. I want you now to turn to, another document so the Tribunal can judge how zealous the German authorities were in the pursuit of the SS crimes. It is Document D-926, to be Exhibit GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not from the days when the Poles or the others who you said were responsible were operating.
MAJOR JONES: But, you know, it is indicated perfectly clearly. The reason why it was reduced to manslaughter was that this man Ernst, being an SS man, was particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, and therefore it was just a youthful adventure, that is the that was operating in the judge's mind. You know it is perfectly clear. You ... REINECKE: I should like to say that as the document states, the prosecution in this case obviously asked for a verdict of murder and for the death sentence. The presiding judge did not, in his verdict, convict the men of murder but of manslaughter. According to the German penal law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action carried out after previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person, while manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. The judge, after con-sidering the circumstances described here, based his verdict on this latter legal qualification. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I am obliged to you for your disserta-tion on the difference between manslaughter and murder. I think the Tribunal is familiar with it. But, at any rate, the end of this story was that the Army commander-in-chief crossed the whole thing? REINECKE: That is correct. MAJOR JONES: The sentences were dropped under the amnesty That is the end of this suit of murder by the Army judicial authorities-amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. I want you now to turn to, another document so the Tribunal can judge how zealous the German authorities were in the pursuit of the SS crimes. It is Document D-926, to be Exhibit GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not from the days when the Poles or the others who you said were responsible were operating. These were the pioneer days of the SS, 1933, when you joined them. 'this is a file relating to the deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It starts with a letter dated 2 June 1933, from the provincial court public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice.