dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
two sentences "Defendant Pook was chief dental surgeon in office D III, all dental surgeons of concentration camps were subordinate to him. One of their tasks was the removal of gold teeth from deceased prisoners", and, "Defendant Pook was chief of the dentists who were supervising the extractions of gold teeth of corpses in all concentration camps by authority of the WVHA". Notwithstanding, I am far from adhering to an illusion with regard to the severity of the accusation against this defendant too. In clear and concise formulation the standpoint of the prosecuting authority is presumably the following: Defendant Hermann Pook is accused by reason of his responsible position in the field of dental surgery, to have contributed in a criminal manner to the "institution for violence, wholesale crime, and human vileness" as the prosecution describes the system of concentration camps. 2. In order to clarify the responsibility according to criminal law of defendant Hermann Pook it is necessary in the first in stance to define his official position. This will show the following: The subordination for a dental surgeon in the Waffen SS as well as in the army was threefold as far as the health service was concerned, he was subordinate to the physician of the unit; in all matters relating to discipline he was subordinate to the commander of the unit; and professionally he was subordinate to the leading dental surgeon of the superior association. He could, therefore, receive orders from three different offices, and he was responsible to three different offices. If one of these offices gave an order to the dentist, this same office was, of course, responsible for the order given and not the other two offices. The leading dental surgeon of the superior association on his part was likewise responsible to three different offices. He had a separate superior on each field: medical, disciplinary, and professional. Dr. Hermann Pook was the leading dental surgeon of office D III. What does the position of leading dental surgeon of the Waffen SS entail? The main office of the entire dental service of the Waffen SS was office XIV (Dental Service) in the office group D of the Operational Main Office
medical, disciplinary, and professional. Dr. Hermann Pook was the leading dental surgeon of office D III. What does the position of leading dental surgeon of the Waffen SS entail? The main office of the entire dental service of the Waffen SS was office XIV (Dental Service) in the office group D of the Operational Main Office (Medical Service of the Waffen SS). This office XIV was competent and responsible for the dental service throughout the SS, not only within the sphere of the Operational Main Office, but also for the action spheres of the other main offices of the SS, therefore also for the sphere of the WVHA. He had to attend to the installation and staffing of dental clinics as well as to the supply of the necessary materials and medical supplies, and besides he had to attend to the professional supervision of dentists and dentists' personnel. Owing to the expansion of the dental service of the Waffen SS during the war it became necessary to create the position of leading dental surgeons. This was an intermediate instance which in the case of larger units, such as divisions supervised the dentists employed, in order to relieve the central instance, office XIV. After the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was incorporated to the WVHA as Office Group D, it became necessary to create also in office D III (medical service of the concentration camps) the position of a leading dental surgeon as intermediate instance for the supervision of the camp dentists and as professional adviser to the superintending physician and chief of office Dr. Lolling. The defendant Hermann Pook held this position since the end of 1943, being professionally subordinate to office XIV (dental service of the Waffen SS) as every other leading dental surgeon, and receiving therefrom his orders and instructions concerning the dental professional field. It is not merely to dispute words if, contrary to the statement of the prosecution, it is emphasized that defendant Hermann Pook was not chief dental surgeon of the WVHA. There was no chief dental surgeon in the whole of the Waffen SS. A chief dental surgeon, i.e., a dentist with independent authority to direct subordinated dentists was not necessary and would have been in contradiction to the idea
is emphasized that defendant Hermann Pook was not chief dental surgeon of the WVHA. There was no chief dental surgeon in the whole of the Waffen SS. A chief dental surgeon, i.e., a dentist with independent authority to direct subordinated dentists was not necessary and would have been in contradiction to the idea of a centralized organization of the dental service of the Waffen SS. Details will show that Hermann Pook, as leading dentist of Lolling, had no real authority to act independently, especially that he could not give any independent orders to camp dentists, nor did he ever do so. It would be foolish on my part if I would expect to be able to exculpate by this evidence alone defendant Hermann Pook for ill-treatments or other atrocities which the camp dentists are alleged to have committed on prisoners, because after all it was Pook's duty as leading dental surgeon to exercise adequate professional supervision over the dentists. However, there is a marked difference whether responsibility arises from the position of chief, who acts independently and is generally responsible for his subordinates, or merely from the position of a supervising officer in the professional-technical field. Furthermore the accusation against Hermann Pook does obviously not stress particularly dental ill-treatment committed on living prisoners, but concerns the removal of gold teeth from corpses of prisoners. In this connection it is of the greatest importance to realize that Pook was merely leading dentist and as such only had to supervise the camp dentists in a professional-technical manner. A double concept results therefrom: (a) He was not in a position to give orders for the removal of gold teeth from deceased prisoners (it is a fact that he actually never gave such an order); and (b) The order issued to the camp dentists which reached them either through medical service or official channels, went actually beyond the professional sphere of influence of the defendant. 3. Defendant Hermann Pook does not know to this day what kind of orders have been given for the removal of gold teeth from deceased prisoners, especially not which office issued them and when. He himself never has given such an order, nor has he supervised the
the professional sphere of influence of the defendant. 3. Defendant Hermann Pook does not know to this day what kind of orders have been given for the removal of gold teeth from deceased prisoners, especially not which office issued them and when. He himself never has given such an order, nor has he supervised the removal. What he does know and already knew during his activity in office D III is, that by way of the camp administration such gold came from the camps and was passed on by administrative channels viz, not by office D III. He learned about it through the monthly reports of the camp dentists which he forwarded to office XIV (dental service). However, the quantities of gold mentioned therein were so small that it seems out of the question and never occurred to him that the gold did not come of such inmates only who died a natural death. In the further course of proceedings I will have to state that the removal of gold teeth of prisoners who died a natural death, does not constitute a criminal action at all. As early as in 1925 for instance there were lively debates in German dental-publications with regard to the necessity and suitability of such a measure. Already then distinguished German dentists gave lively support to such a measure. 4. The evidence concerning the activity of the defendant in office D III will show that Pook in fact was just an intermediate office of the dental administration and nothing else. The following were his principal official duties: to review the monthly work and personnel reports, which the camp dentists submitted, and to pass them on to office XIV; to direct to office XIV the monthly requests for supplies and medicines, which were sent in by the chiefs of the dental clinics, to examine the applications for artificial teeth for prisoners submitted by the camp dentists and finally to forward the so-called gold-books to office XIV for examination. This will give us an insight at the same time of the principles governing dental treatment of prisoners; in the monthly requests for material and medical supplies there, no difference whatsoever was made between prisoners and members of the SS. Every dental clinic had to keep a separate gold account on the gold for dental
give us an insight at the same time of the principles governing dental treatment of prisoners; in the monthly requests for material and medical supplies there, no difference whatsoever was made between prisoners and members of the SS. Every dental clinic had to keep a separate gold account on the gold for dental purposes received from office XIV for teeth repairs and used by the dentists, which was carefully examined-by office XIV and later on by Pook himself. The result of this examination was recorded in the personal file of the dentists. An additional important task of Dr. Pook was the examination of bills of civilian dentists for the dental treatment of prisoners who worked in out stations and who, having no dental clinic in their camp, could not be treated by a camp dentist. What purport would have had all these activities of Dr. Pook if the point of view would have been, that for the dentist the inmate in the concentration camp is merely a subject for cruel tormenting and lucrative gold production? 5. Dr. Pook was leading dental surgeon in the office D III with Dr. Lolling, the head of the medical service for concentration camps. I do not think that it can be seriously asserted that Dr. Pook, who was a dental surgeon and not a doctor, had been Lolling's deputy and therefore, or for any other reason, was responsible in the eyes of criminal law, for this man's actions. I shall, however, state and prove that Dr. Pook was not Lolling's deputy but that Lolling was represented by a doctor, if unable to attend or act himself, furthermore that Dr. Pook stood neither in any official nor personal relations to Lolling, which exceeded the essential official contact in dental matters, and that in the summer of 1944 Pook applied for a transfer from office D III on account of his strained relations with Lolling. To complete the picture it will have to be proved what else Dr. Pook's work entailed. It will be seen that his activity in the office with Dr. Lolling only took up the lesser part of the day and that, for the rest as first dental surgeon of the Station Dental Post Oranienburg, he had to cope with a considerable dental practice every day, and that he devoted the rest of the day and the remainder of
that his activity in the office with Dr. Lolling only took up the lesser part of the day and that, for the rest as first dental surgeon of the Station Dental Post Oranienburg, he had to cope with a considerable dental practice every day, and that he devoted the rest of the day and the remainder of his strength to his own private practice in Berlin-Lichterfelde. 6. Over and above his responsibility for his own actions and for his department, the indictment attempts to hold the defendant responsible for collective actions perpetrated by other persons or with other persons. This is done on two assumptions: (a) because all defendants were essentially connected with concentration camps, whose existence and working in itself meant murders, atrocities, tortures, enslavement, and other inhuman acts ( indictment ), (b) because all defendants in agreement with each other intentionally and deliberately for a common purpose have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so that they are personally responsible for their own actions and for all actions perpetrated by persons in pursuance of the common purpose (indictment). To (a), it will have to be stated that the establishment of concentration camps as such is to be attributed neither to the defendants nor to the National Socialist regime, furthermore, that one cannot get away from the fact that the concentration camps of the Hitler regime had a legal foundation, moreover, that it would be going far from historical truth to maintain that these concentration camps from the very beginning, fundamentally and in general were conducted on criminal and bestial lines; furthermore it will have to be stated that not everything, caused by the growing hardships and necessities of war in the concentration camps, can be considered today as individual criminal guilt, and finally that the insane mass crimes, which actually happened then in the concentration camps, cannot be summarily attributed to each defendant. Insofar as the conditions in the concentration camps developed into crime, they were carefully and cunningly kept secret from everyone not directly concerned. It would mean underrating the intelligence of the system, to believe that at least in the WVHA everyone working there must have had
to each defendant. Insofar as the conditions in the concentration camps developed into crime, they were carefully and cunningly kept secret from everyone not directly concerned. It would mean underrating the intelligence of the system, to believe that at least in the WVHA everyone working there must have had an insight into all or part of what the accusation consists of today. Nothing would be more unjust than to assume without positive evidence a knowledge of the committed crimes in the case of each defendant, thus too of the defendant Hermann Pook, and to declare him guilty and to sentence him on the basis of such hypothetical knowledge. The defendant Hermann Pook although he worked in office D III, knew as little and as much of the criminal conditions and actions in the concentration camps as every average German at the time. Perhaps that seems incredible, but it will be proved just as the further fact that the defendant Hermann Pook never took part in conferences of the office chiefs or in other conferences of the office group D III, furthermore, that from the men sitting in the prisoners' dock with him, he knew only two personally, and even these only slightly, others he knew only from seeing them occasionally. However, most of them he did not even know by name, so for this reason alone the assumption of a conspiracy must be dropped with regard to the defendant Hermann Pook, that very defendant who only towards the end of 1943 was transferred to the office D In view of the enormous quantity and seriousness of the committed crimes the prosecution has perhaps the comprehensible desire to prove as simply as possible the responsibility of the accused men, by saying: The defendant who held a post in the central administration of the concentration camps knew about this and that; at least his knowledge can be assumed, or at any rate he should have known about it, consequently he is to be held responsible, and therefore he is to be considered guilty of the committed crimes. The same tendency can be found in the Control Council Law No. 10 , which not only in a manner as general as possible established summaries of facts in regard to criminal law, but which in various points also seems to think in
and therefore he is to be considered guilty of the committed crimes. The same tendency can be found in the Control Council Law No. 10 , which not only in a manner as general as possible established summaries of facts in regard to criminal law, but which in various points also seems to think in terms of a kind of automatic responsibility in the eyes of criminal law. Here looms the serious danger that, by a too generous treatment of the question of guilt, the general principles of penal law as they are envisaged in the penal codes of all cultured nations (indictment) are violated. On account of this danger, I may be permitted now to make in short some legal expositions, which will indicate which fundamental lines are followed by me in my defense, also their legal aspect. 1. The Control Council Law No. 10 , which bears the heading "Punishment of persons guilty of war crimes, crimes against peace and against humanity," constitutes a big synthesis of political power and of law. It is an authoritative decision pronounced by the victors, whereby the facts for what is considered to be a crime against international law are established furthermore, whereby the individual responsibility of statesmen, of officials, and of soldiers is established and which finally establishes the competence of the Allied tribunals. By that, many of the customary conceptions about international law, are done away with and something new is created against which it would be entirely senseless to fight in the present trials. But at the same time, the victors submitted to the law, by granting legal proceedings to the persons accused of such crimes. Now this is done with a double aim: One wishes to treat those accused of crimes against the international rules of law, humanity, and ethics, according to these very rules and not according to political power and political interest, but also: The war crimes trials and also this trial have a much bigger task to fulfill than to mete out legal retribution in the individual case; the verdict should be a convincing contribution to a revival of the feeling of legal responsibility and the legal conscience of all nations. 2. The carrying through of legal proceedings, however,
also this trial have a much bigger task to fulfill than to mete out legal retribution in the individual case; the verdict should be a convincing contribution to a revival of the feeling of legal responsibility and the legal conscience of all nations. 2. The carrying through of legal proceedings, however, would be entirely meaningless if on the one hand factual evidence were admitted for the defendants, but on the other hand they were deprived of the possibilities to make legal depositions based upon the so far customary conception of penal law. Obviously it is not the purpose of the Control Council Law No. 10 to create something new with respect to the examination of individual responsibility of each defendant in the eyes of criminal law, it does not aim at breaking with the principles of the past in this respect but it aims at decisions about the guilt of each defendant bed on the generally applied legal principles, existent already before the Control Council Law No. 10. A criminal culpability according to these principles can only be affirmed if the circumstance of knowledge and the circumstance of will are existent; ignorance and error therefore exclude an intentional criminal culpability in the same way as does involuntary action. The knowledge, moreover, must include the knowledge of the prohibited nature of the action, the perpetrator must also know that his action is against a rule, that it is illegal and prohibited. If the Reich court in permanent administration of justice declared the error in the eyes of criminal law as irrelevant and, in the question of guilty or not guilty only considers the error outside criminal law, I, with my point of view, am in no way in contradiction thereto. In my opinion no defendant can use the excuse that he did not know the laws of the German penal code, as far as the knowledge of the articles of the German penal code is not concerned, but rather the consciousness of the violation of international law, proof of such consciousness cannot be waived for the simple reason that no international law code is in existence which defines the summaries of facts of international crimes. These considerations will undoubtedly apply to every defendant
but rather the consciousness of the violation of international law, proof of such consciousness cannot be waived for the simple reason that no international law code is in existence which defines the summaries of facts of international crimes. These considerations will undoubtedly apply to every defendant in this trial. In the case of the defendant Hermann Pook, for instance, the following questions must be decided in accordance with these considerations: Can he legally be punished solely on the basis of the facts that he was knowingly employed in the central administration of the concentration camps; or for the reason that he knew that the inmates of the concentration camps had to work; or because he knew, that the gold was removed from the dentures of deceased inmates? 3. The problem of the consciousness of illegality leads to the problem of illegality itself. Here I represent the following point of view: Illegal is not only what constitutes the facts of a case in the technical sense, as say, the facts of a case of the German penal code. The thesis is also rejected that only the state may determine what is right and wrong: what conforms with its purpose and its interests is right, and what is detrimental to the interests of the state is wrong. This view by the way, is no National Socialist invention, but is as old as the philosophy of state and law itself. The German jurist, Otto Gierke, already has said decades ago concerning this subject: "The high name of the law would in case of such an interpretation right is what the state proclaims to be right only reserve the purpose of veiling the bare fact that among men there exists no other order than the might of the strong over the weaker." There exists an ethical world order which supersedes every national conception of right and wrong, there is a legal conscience of nations and an unwritten international law (common law of nations) to which every individual and every state is subordinate in peace and in war in their actions. What is contrary to law in the individual case, that again is decided by the judge according to his estimate and his standards, according not only to the opinion of his time but also of his people; he decides accordingly what his people