dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR PELCKMANN: It does mean that the members of the SS who were questioned could not make a statement on that point at all, because they did not know anything about it; they could give an answer neither in a negative nor in a positive sense, and for that reason they passed it without making any statement at all. HERR PELCKMANN: Do you think, judging by your knowledge of the various branches of the SS and their activities and of the attitude of the bulk of the SS men, that these 136,000 or so affidavits represent the average knowledge of the bulk of the SS men, even though the entire strength of the SS was, of course, considerably more than 136,000? REINECKE: One must bear in mind that most of the men and junior officers who represent the bulk had already been released at. the time when the affidavits were deposed. It must also be con-sidered that in many camps a great many technical difficulties existed and inquiries were not made everywhere on uniform lines. In addition, statements of opinion from the Russian Zone and from Austria are missing altogether. In spite of these considerable defi-ciencies, I believe that I can say on the strength of my own knowl-edge of the typical activities of the SS that the whole picture which these affidavits present can be considered as typical of the SS. HERR PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, I have no further ques-tions to put to this witness. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.] DR.LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I ask for permission to put a question to the witness in order to clear up one point which came up during this examination? It will take about three minutes. THE PRESIDENT: What is the point, Dr. Laternser? DR. LATERNSER: I should like to ask the witness about a point which came up during the direct examination by the defendant's counsel for the SS and which concerns the guarding of concentration camps. THE PRESIDENT: How does that affect the High Command? DR. LATERNSER: There could be a connection through the higher official channels, a connection which might possibly in-criminate the accused organization.
HERR PELCKMANN: THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal reject your application. Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine? MAJOR JONES: Witness, you were an SS man from 1933 on, were you not? REINECKE: Yes. MAJOR JONES: And during most of that time you were con-nected with the SS legal &tem? REINECKE: Yes. MAJOR JONES: Would a serious view have been taken in the Waffen-SS or the German Army about the murder of Jews by SS men? REINECKE: I did not understand the question. MAJOR JONES: I will repeat it. Would a serious view have been taken in the Waffen-SS or the German Army about the murder of Jews by SS men? REINECKE: If the extermination of the Jews on Hitler's orders had been known in the SS, or as you say, in the Wehrmacht, I am certain that there would have been concern. MAJOR JONES: If an SS man had murdered 50 Jews, would that have resulted in a death penalty being inflicted on him? REINECKE: I cannot answer this question in simple words, because it touches on a basic problem. MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at the document dated September 1939, which shows the tolerance of murder in the SS by the highest judicial authorities and the German Army. It is Document D-421, which will be Exhibit GB-567. The first page of the memorandum: "The Chief of the Army Judiciary announces by telephone. The Field Court Martial of the Kempf Armored Division has sentenced an SS man of an SS artillery regiment to 3 years' imprisonment, and a military police sergeant major to 9 years' penal servitude for manslaughter. After about 50 Jews, who had been used during the day to repair a bridge, had finished their work in the evening, these two men drove them all into a synagogue and shot them all without any reason. The sentence is submitted to the Commander of the 3rd Army for confirmation. The proposal of the representative of the prosecution is capital punishment for murder." Then there follow initials.
HERR PELCKMANN: Then there is a marginal note: "General Halder requests information on the decision of the Com-mander of the 3rd Army." Then purple pencil notes: "To the Adjutant of the Commander of Army III." And on the next page you will see the course of this history: "Telegram ... to the Oberstkriegsgerichtsrat (military judge of the fourth rank) attached to the Quartermaster General in Berlin .... SS Sturmmann Ernst is granted extenuating cir-cumstances because he was induced to participate in the shooting by a corporal handing him a rifle. He was in a state of exasperation owing to numerous atrocities committed by Poles against persons of German race. As an SS man, he felt at the sight of the Jews the anti-German attitude of Jewry very deeply and therefore acted rashly as a hot-blooded youth. An excellent soldier not punished before." 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.
HERR PELCKMANN: 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.
HERR PELCKMANN: 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. 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.
HERR PELCKMANN: 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. And then the provincial court public prosecutor, in the last sentence of that letter, after referring to the dossiers relating to Schloss, Hausmann, Strauss, and Netzger, says: "Should the dossiers not be required at present, I would request the return of these files for the purpose of examining whether the decree of 2 August 1933 regarding the granting of immunity, from punishment has to be applied." I need not trouble you with the third document, or the fourth. If the Tribunal turns to Page 5 of its copy, and if you, Witness, turn to Document 8, which is the next I wish to refer to-that is a report again, from the provincial public prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice: "Death of the prisoner in protective custody, Hugo Handschuch, in Dachau Camp." Have you found that, Witness? REINECKE: Yes, I have found it. MAJOR JONES: I am reading from Page 5 of the English text: "Subject: Death of the prisoner in protective custody, Hugo Handschuch, in Dachau Camp. "The judicial autopsy ordered by me took place in Dachau on 23 September 1933."I am reading from Page 5 of the English text now.
HERR PELCKMANN: --"It showed that death was due to a brain injury owing to hemorrhage in the soft membrane and that this hemorrhage was caused by blows with a blunt instrument, which hit the skull particularly in the region of the left temple and the back of the head. In addition, profuse bleeding was established on the corpse round the left cheek, in the right shoulder and left upper arm regions, on the buttocks and the upper thigh and of the lower part of the left thigh -the results of blows on the body of the deceased with a blunt object, while alive. On the findings based on the post mortem, the preliminary medical opinion gave grounds for assuming outside responsibility. "I intend to continue the further necessary search for the per-petrators in collaboration with the Political Police." And it is brought to the attention, as you see, of the Prime Minister with a request to take note and forward to the Reich Governor in Bavaria. And then there is a notice given to the State Minister of the Interior. Then Document 11, Page 9 of the English text-proposal made by the Minister of the Interior to quash the inquiry into the deaths of the protective custody prisoners, Handschuch, Franz, and Katz. Handschuch, you'll remember, Witness, was the subject of the autopsy which indicated outside responsibility. This is a letter from Adolf Wagner to the Defendant Dr. Frank, the representative Nazi jurist. The letter, which has been in Court, is dated 29 November 1933. THE PRESIDENT: What Dr. Frank do you refer to? MAJOR JONES: That is the Defendant Frank, My Lord. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. MAJOR JONES: "The Commander of the Political Police in the Ministry of the Interior presented to you, on 18 November 1933, a proposal according to which the inquiry into the cases of the prisoners in protective custody, Hugo Handschuch, Wilhelm Franz, and Delvin Katz, should be quashed for State political reasons. In connection with this case you sent to me the liaison man of the State Ministry of Justice with the Bavarian Political Police, Public Prosecutor Dr. Stepp.
HERR PELCKMANN: Meanwhile, in a dis-cussion with the Commander of the Political Police, Reichsführer SS Himmler, I have ascertained once more that by the pursuance of this inquiry the reputation of the National Socialist State would greatly suffer, because this inquiry would be directed against members of the SA and SS, and thus the SA and the SS, as the main pillars of the National Socialist State, would be directly affected. For these reasons, I support the proposal of the Commander of the Political Police in the State Ministry of the Interior for quashing the inquiry presented to you on 18 November." I don't think I need trouble with the rest of that letter. It states that the inhabitants of the concentration camp are almost exclusively criminal types. The next document, Document 10 of the German pile ... THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, the document you have just been reading from, which is on Page 9 of the English text, is dated 29 November 1933. Is that a misprint? MAJOR JONES: No, My Lord, that ' is correct. THE PRESIDENT: The document on Page 5, which you read before, from the public prosecution, is dated 26 September 1936. Is that correct? MAJOR JONES: No, My Lord, that is a misprint and I should have called Your Lordship's attention to it. That should be 1933, My Lord, and I am much obliged. THE PRESIDENT: That is Page 5. In referring to the document, you should state that the pages which you did not refer to, Pages 3 and 4, show that the other dossiers, in connection with the public prosecutor, Provincial Court, Munich, were apparently lost and were not forthcoming and that inquiries were going on about them until 1935. MAJOR JONES: Yes, My Lord. Much obliged. I was trying to deal with the essential contents of the file. THE PRESIDENT: Go on then. MAJOR JONES: I want you, Witness, to look at Page 6 of the English text and Document 10 of your file. That is a memo from Dr. H.
THE PRESIDENT: I cannot hear what the reference is. Is it "D", dawn, or "G"? THE INTERPRETER: "E", easy-168. THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number? HERR PELCKMANN: I beg your pardon, I cannot give you this number at the moment. In that document it says among other things: "With such a high death figure the number of detainees can never be brought to the level demanded by the Reichsführer SS. The senior camp medical officers must use every means at their disposal to reduce the death rate in the various camps considerably. The best medical officer in a concentration camp is not the man who believes that undue harshness must be applied, but rather the one who, by means of careful control and interchanges at the various places of work, main-tains a high standard of efficiency. "Medical officers in the camps should check the food of the prisoners more often than before, and with the approval of the administration they should submit to the camp com-mander suggestions for improvements. Naturally these must not merely appear on paper, but camp medical officers should make regular checks. Apart from that, the medical officers should see to it that the working, conditions at the various places of work are improved as much as possible. It is necessary, for that reason, that medical officers should thoroughly inspect the places of work and investigate work-ing conditions. The Reichsführer SS has ordered that the death rate must be reduced at all costs." THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, didn't you understand that we don't wish to have-can't you hear? HERR PELCKMANN: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has indicated to the Prosecution they don't want to hear these documents read which have already been put in evidence, and there you are reading every word of this document. HERR PELCKMANN: I understand, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Surely you can summarize it-if you have question to put upon it, that must be possible. HERR PELCKMANN: Do you know, Witness, whether such in-structions were actually carried out in the concentration camps?
THE PRESIDENT: REIN`ECKE: The investigating commissions of the head office "SS Courts" have repeatedly confirmed to me in personal reports that such instructions were in fact put into practice in the concen-tration camps. They reported to me that accommodation, hygienic conditions, medical care, feeding, and also the treatment and the physical appearance of the detainees were for the most part good. They also confirmed that the strict prohibition of ill-treatment of detainees was repeatedly made known in the camps, and was, in fact, observed. The picture of the concentration camps under normal conditions is, therefore, quite a different one. To the outsider, the cleanliness and the smooth functioning of the working program was noticeable. If crimes have been committed in concentration camps, then they occurred in a way in which they remained hidden from the outside world and even from the inmates of the camp unless they partic-ipated in them. THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that you personally received this letter or that you had these facts before you? REINECKE: I received reports from these investigating com-missions, which were submitted to me personally, and from these reports I was able to gather the facts which I have just related. THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you knew in December 1942 that 70,000 arrivals in concentration camps out of 136,000 had died, did you? REINECKE: No, that I did not know. I shall, have to supplement my testimony by giving now an answer which I was to have given in connection with a later question, namely, that the head office "SS Courts" instituted these investigating commissions for the disclosure of crimes committed in concentration camps only as from the second half of 1943. THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said in answer to my question, "These facts were known to me." Go on, Dr. Pelckmann. HERR PELCKMANN: In this connection, I draw the attention of the Tribunal to my affidavit Number SS-65 to 67 which was translated in its entirety at my request.
THE PRESIDENT: It was deposed by a judge who conducted the investigations and it contains numerous additional details. [Turning to the witness.] To what extent were the legal authorities of the SS responsible for the administration of the law in con-centration camps? REINECKE: The SS jurisdiction did not apply to the detainees in concentration camps. Only the regular German courts had responsibility for them. To a certain extent the SS legal authorities also had to administer justice to the political prisoners in the con-centration camps, but with the proviso that the Reich Security Main Office, in this case, had the preference in making investigations. Guards and members of the commander's staff in concentration -camps came under the jurisdiction of the SS legal authorities to the full extent laid down by military courts. HERR PELCKMANN: You have already mentioned, Witness, that the legal authorities began prosecuting crimes committed in concentration camps in 1943. When in 1943? REINECKE: In the second half of 1943 the legal authorities, while following up a case of corruption in which the former camp commander Koch was involved, came upon clues to crimes leading to other camps. It was from that moment that the legal authorities became active. HERR PELCKMANN: How was it that the legal authorities became active so late? REINECKE: So-called legal officers were attached to concentra-tion camps for purposes of supervision. These legal officers, who were the instruments of the appointing authority concerned, had the duty of writing so-called reports of evidence, if crimes of any sort occurred, and of submitting such reports to the courts so that they might take over the prosecution of the crimes. HERR PELCKMANN: One intermediate question ... THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, I don't think he gave an an-swer to your question at all. Your question was: How was it that it was so late as the second half of 1943 that these investigating commissions began to become active? He did not answer that ques-tion at all. HERR PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, the witness has not yet finished.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just going to put an intermediate question, and in his further explanations the matter will become quite clear. [Turning to the witness.] I want to pat an intermediate question, Witness. Were these legal officers subordinated to you, to the head office "SS Courts", or to the SS legal authorities, or to whom were they subordinated? Can you give names? REINECKE: The legal officers were not subordinates of the legal authorities, but they were officials of the chief justice making the investigations. HERR PELCKMANN: Who was that in the case of the concentration camps? REINECKE: In the case of concentration camps it was Oswald Pohl, who was already mentioned yesterday. HERR PELCKMANN: Now, will you please continue with the answer to the question, why did the legal authorities learn of these atrocities at so late a stage? REINECKE: The reason was that earlier the legal authorities had not had any suspicions, owing to the fact that these legal officers, during the years until 1943, were continuously handing in such reports of evidence to the courts. These reports of evidence were very detailed. In cases of unnatural death of detainees, they con-tained photographs of the place of the crime, medical reports, evidence by detainees and guards. These reports were so detailed that the suspicion that other crimes could be committed behind the backs of the legal officers could not arise. These reports of evidence which were submitted led in every case to the trial and sentencing of the criminal, and such sentences were pronounced throughout all the years. HERR PELCKMANN: Might not the reports of evidence have been forged, and might not the actual facts have been covered up in that way? REINECKE: In part this was the case. I just said that during the second half of 1943 we began investigations in the camp at Buchenwald. Already in 1941 we had carried out such an investiga-tion in Buchenwald, which, however, had no result.