dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
REINECKE: You, however, discovered in your investigations that individual persons and a small circle of persons committed the crimes which you described. Is it possible, as far as you know, that this comparatively small circle of persons is also responsible for the extermination of these millions? REINECKE: Investigations of the head office "SS Courts," particularly the final stages of the investigations just before the end of the war, show that individual persons and a small circle of -persons are also exclusively responsible for these things. Other-wise, these outrageous things could not possibly have escaped the attention of the legal authorities for so long. HERR PELCKMANN: Did you, in your conversations with Dr. Morgen, gather any further information which might support this assertion? REINECKE: Dr. Morgen was a judge before me, who during all the years was attached to the Reich Criminal Police Department in order to carry out investigations in the concentration camps from there. Dr. Morgen has extensive knowledge. I know today that he himself talked with those responsible for these mass exterminations, and he gained a clear insight into all these matters. He can prove ,that the origin of the extermination of the Jews is not to be found in the SS but in the Chancellery of the Führer. THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, I understood from you that you put-that you were putting in two affidavits from Dr. Morgen, is that right? HERR PELCKMANN: Three, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Well, three-five, if you like; but this witness cannot tell us what Dr. Morgen says. Dr. Morgen must speak for himself from his affidavits. HERR PELCKMANN: In that case, perhaps I may return to this when I submit the affidavits. [Turning to the witness.] It is alleged by the Prosecution that these acts could not have been deeds of individuals, but that the logical application of the Party Program regarding the Jewish ques-tion had to lead to these crimes at Auschwitz. What can you say to that from your own knowledge and experience of the fight against these crimes?
REINECKE: REINECKE: I have already said that Himmler always showed the SS only his ideal face, and these ideals were considered by the SS as the expression of the Party Program. Hitler's order for the biological extermination of Jewry, as I know it today, is an absolute ... THE PRESIDENT: He said that over and over again about Himmler showing his ideal face to the SS. He said it before, you know. He should not have to say it more than once. HERR PELCKMANN: May I ask him, Mr. President, what his attitude is on the allegation of the Prosecution that the extermina-tion of Jews in Auschwitz was considered by members of the SS as a logical outcome of the principles which the SS had learned? THE PRESIDENT: How can he give evidence about that? He can tell us what he saw and what he did. He hasn't told us yet whether he has ever been in the concentration camps. HERR PELCKMANN: Witness, did you know anything about the activity of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police and the SD in the East, as they have been mentioned here in this Trial? REINECKE: I knew nothing about them. I only knew that the Security Police was stationed in the operational zone in the East, where it was carrying out security measures, and I believed that this was the task of the Security Police in that area. The legal authorities never knew of any other orders in that connection, and it was only here that we heard of these things for the first time. HERR PELCKMAN14: Was it possible for members of the Waffen-SS to leave the Waffen-SS if they did not agree with the tasks which they were given or the orders which were issued? REINECKE: A possibility of this sort did not exist at all. Service in the Waffen-SS was military service, legally established and legally recognized. Even members of the Waffen-SS who had joined as volunteers were later subject to general conscription and bound by compulsory military service. It was therefore possible to leave the Waffen-SS only by means of desertion, and then the deserter would have had to expect the full consequences of the law.
REINECKE: HERR PELCKMANN: It is stated by the Prosecution that the criminal activities of- the SS were so extensive and applied to so many cases of illegal acts that their illegality could not have remained hidden from the members of the SS. Is that correct? REINECKE: The SS was not a single unit. I have already de-scribed the various organizations of the SS, and the individual mem-ber of the SS had no insight into the various organizations. He saw his General SS and his Waffen-SS, in which such crimes were not committed, and so he could never hold the belief that he belonged to a criminal organization. He could actually not have any idea of the crimes which were established here. HERR PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, finally may I be allowed to put one question to the witness arising from the fact that together with a staff of assistants he was occupied with the compiling of affidavits. If the High Tribunal desires to hear how these affidavits were obtained and compiled, then this witness can give information about it. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. You may ask him. HERR PELCKMANN: 136,213 affidavits were compiled and entered on printed forms in various files, together with a survey of the various fields dealt with and a numerical classification of the affidavits in the individual groups of subjects. Witness, who com-piled these affidavits? REINECKE: They were evaluated and compiled under my direction by 15 SS internees who were judges. Some 170,000 of the statements sent in were evaluated. Of these, 136,213 affidavits and applications to appear as a witness were compiled to form a collec-tion of documents. The rest are only requests for a hearing, et cetera. Those 136,000 statements in the collection were classified according to the various subjects, and they form part of the defense case of the SS. HERR PELCKMANN: Where did you obtain this considerable number of affidavits? REINECKE: Mostly from camps in the American and British Zones; to a smaller extent from the French Zone; none at all from the Russian Zone and from Austria.
REINECKE: HERR PELCKMANN: What procedure did you adopt in evalu-ating and compiling these affidavits? REINECKE: I have just explained that in outline. HERR PELCKMANN: Yes, we do not need details. Thank you. Did the selection ... THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, what I understood the wit-ness to say was that there were 170,000 statements utilized, and somehow, from these 170,000 statements, 136,000 affidavits were obtained. Well, how were they obtained? The Tribunal would like to know. Before whom were they sworn? HERR ~ PELCKMANN: The witness will be able to explain that, Mr. President. REINECKE: These 170,000 affidavits were sworn by interned members of the SS. Of this total figure of 170,000 these 136,213 affidavits were, in fact, utilized by my colleagues. The remaining affidavits were not used, because they were either irrelevant or submitted inaccurately or too late. THE PRESIDENT: You mean the whole 170,000 were sworn affidavits? HERR PELCKMANN: Sworn before whom, Witness? REINECKE: Part of these 170,000 affidavits were not sworn. The 136,000 affidavits, however, were all sworn. We knew the decision of the High Tribunal that an affidavit sworn before a German lawyer would only be valid if it had been sworn before May of this year, and that after May of this year affidavits would have to be sworn before an Allied officer. That, however, was not done in all the camps. After May 1946 some affidavits were still sworn before lawyers and courts and in accordance with the decision of, the High Tribunal those had to be discarded as invalid. For that reason, only 136,000 affidavits remained. HERR PELCKMANN: Were the affidavits selected and evaluated with a view that only affidavits favorable to the defense of the SS should be considered? REINECKE: No, all affidavits were fully considered. HERR PELCKMANN: How is it that on some subjects many thousands of statements are available, whereas on others only a few affidavits are contained in the list? REINECKE: From the mass of the affidavits submitted, it is evident that the bulk of the SS members did not understand the Indictment.
REINECKE: They cannot imagine, for example, that they were active in a conspiracy; they cannot imagine that they were preparing a war of aggression. For that reason, members of the SS testified only on such subjects which appeared to them typical of their work in the SS, the combat soldier on his experiences at the front, and the member of the General SS on the nature of his work in the years from 1933 to 1939. HERR PELCKMANN: To give an example-the Tribunal will be able to see it later from the affidavits-under IV, Numbers 1 to 9, here the question is raised: "Was ill-treatment in concentration camps forbidden?" Now, if there are only two statements on this point, does that mean that only two out of hundreds of thousands of members of the SS can confirm this prohibition, while all others- and this would be important-know the opposite to be true? REINECKE: No, that is just what it does not mean. 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.
REINECKE: 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. 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.
REINECKE: 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. 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.
REINECKE: 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. 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.
REINECKE: 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.
REINECKE: 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. 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.
REINECKE: 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. --"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.
REINECKE: 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. 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.