Z Stg. 10-9-35
Subject: Suit against Rudolf Jaehnichen and others for Mistreatment of Inmates of the Hohnstein. Concentration Camp.
A further investigation which was ordered as well as a new verification of already known facts showed that the mistreatment of inmates which has led to the conviction of the accused were not carried out for any political purposes (to obtain a confession, to punish disciplinary infractions, etc.) or in response to previously suffered wrongs inflicted by Communists but .were merely malicious torture or expressions of sadistic brutality.
A few cases of mistreatment occurred, however, where enemies of the State were involved. The Court in its sentence, however, considered that mistreatments in such cases to a certain extent were justified or at least understandable. But it expressly stated further that the mistreatments which occurred during interrogations had taken on proportions which were in no accord with the desired objective and that the defendants not only attempted to wring confessions from the inmates but that they acted in sheer lust for torture. (Compare Page 100 of the Sentence Document. )
The overwhelming majority of Cases, however, over which sentences were pronounced, represent mistreatments which occurred when the inmates first entered the institution, when they re-
785-PS
ceived their prison clothing, or during drill hours. These mistreatments were carried out without rhyme or reason. The fact that the defendants in these cases were motivated neither by political purposes nor by personal revenge against outrages suffered formerly can be learned from the following circumstances.
1. ' Amongst the mistreated persons there were quite a number that never belonged to any parties of the left. Some of them were even old members of the movement. The following cases are proof of that:
2. Case Prueger .
On 6.3.1934 the Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front for the food industry, member of the Nazi -Party, was brought in for offending the Kreisleiter and two other persons. When being brought in, Türke beat his face with his fist and subsequently, in a small room, he was heavily beaten with sticks, whips and other instruments. * * * .
* * * 2. The methods as well as the detailed circumstances of mistreatment show that lust for torture was the only motivation in a great number of cases. The following case illustrates that fact especially well.
The defendant Schupp frequently had to supervise the drill of inmates. On 5 or 6 March 1935 he called the inmate Lindner out of formation without any apparent reason and asked him for his name and domicile. Then he pressed, without any cause, his burning cigarette upon the end of Lindner's nose with the result that the latter received a burn for which he later required medical treatment. The court in this case, as in several others, expressly maintains that Schupp only acted out of sheer lust of torture.
* * * Furthermore, may I state as far as the question of
further mitigation of sentences are concerned that the court in pronouncing sentence has already weighed to the fullest extent all possible mitigating circumstances, the awful consequences of cruel mistreatment of human beings should otherwise result in a far more severe judicial expiation. Also it must not be overlooked that altogether only those members of the concentration camp staff were brought into court who took an especially active and cruel part in the mistreatments. Furthermore, the sentence was not aggravated by the fact that the Court affirmed, for purely judicial reasons, that the defendants were officials and sentenced them for committing bodily harm while carrying out a public office. The sentence expressly states that the court did not stress the fact that the accused SA men were officials in determining the punishment because they had not received proper
565
785-PS
training as officials and they probably do not wish to be referred to as such. (Compare page 144 of the Sentence). In these ^circumstances the mitigation of sentences already granted in the decree of 31 October 1935 seem an extensive favor. If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence, based upon new evidence of some of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that, according to circumstances, the defendants in one or the other case of mistreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives.
As to what parts the individual defendants played in these criminal acts I refer to the last two columns in the table handed over with the report of 28 August 1935. The following statements as to the individual defendants may be made.
1. Jaehnicken:
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.
Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 4 years
6 months. .
Jaehnichen is an old member of the S. A. who through his bad example has fostered the increase of excesses, but at first he was motivated undoubtedly by a certain revolutionary anger and by the fact that he wanted to maintain exemplary discipline amongst the inmates. A further mitigating fact is that his participation in the unusually serious mistreatment of the Jew Ambross, who later committed suicide, was inspired by the belief that he was dealing in this case with a despoiler of German girls. With these facts, being what they are, a further reduction in sentence, amounting to one year, seems justifiable.'
2. Putzler:-Sentence: 3 years 9 months imprisonment.
Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 2 years
6 months.
His sentence is based essentially on the especially cruel mistreatments during questionings of inmates. Even though his acts in this connection seem to be pure vindictive torture, as for example the use of the dripping device, one may, nevertheless, say that at least at first he was motivated by the desire to obtain truthful statements. On the other hand, Putzler participated in serious excesses also during times other than the questioning periods and played a leading part in them. To give an example, he tore out inmate Ricke's beard. A further reduction of the sentence by 6 months seems under these circumstances a far going favor * * *
* * * I want to remark, in conclusion, that the defendants as well as the defense, believe since 29.11.1935 that all defendants had been finally pardoned by the decision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. It is further to be learned from remarks by defendants not in custody that in case of a complete pardon those still in custody would leave prison under the accompaniment of a band or would be solemnly received by a band on return to their home town.
566
785—PS
Appendix
Upon application of the Reich Minister of Justice I hereby grant in the case against Rudolp Jaehnichen and others, for mistreatment of persons committed to protective custody in Ilohn-stein Concentration Camp (16. St. A. 3431 34 Dresden prosecutor) the following mitigation of sentences as enumerated in Column 6:
# Name Sentence Prison Term Mitigation of Sentence granted thus far. To'be released conditionally after New Suggestion of the Reichs Minister of Justice. To be Released Conditionally after Decision of The Fuehrer & Chancellor
YrS. Mos. Yrs. Mos. Yrs. Mos.
1 Jaehnichen 6 , 4 0 3 6
2 Putzler 3 9 3 2 6
3 Hanz Meier 3 2 0 2
4 Herbert Meier 3 3 2 0 No furth sr reduct.
5 Tuerke 3 2 0 No further reduct.
6 Lehman 3 2 6 No furth er reduct.
7 Leuschirer 2 ' 6 2 1 3
8 Rohmkopf 2 6 2 - No furth 3r reduct.
10 Haensel ' 2 6 1 6 No furth( îr reduct.
11 Karge 1 8 1 4 1
12 Sikora 1 0 1 2 1 28 days 1
13 Stachowski 1 0 No rec uction No reduc :tion
14 Schupp 1 0 1 2 No furth< 3r reduct.
15 ileinicker 1 6 1 2 9
16 Hausch 1 4 8 6
17 Kuehnel 1 9 6
20 Schmeling 1 _ 9 * No further reduct.
21. Kahnis 1 9 No further reduct.
22 Uhleman 1 0 No further reduct.
23 Stuerzkober 10 0 No further reduct.
Berlin December 1935 THE FUEHRER AND CHANCELLOR
567
Memorandum on the case against Jaehnichen and others for mistreatment of inmates at the Hohnstein camp
Authors
Franz Guertner (Dr., Minister of Justice 1932-41)
Franz Guertner
Government minister of Germany (1881-1941)
- Born: 1881-08-26 (Regensburg)
- Died: 1941-01-29 (Berlin)
- Country of citizenship: German Reich
- Occupation: jurist; politician
- Member of political party: German National People's Party; Nazi Party; Q15787248
- Participant in: Aktion T4
- Position held: Baviarian Minister of Justice (member of cabinet: Q1719960, Q1719961, ..., Q1720104; period: 1922-08-04 through 1932-06-01; replaced by: Heinrich Spangenberger); Reich Minister of Justice (period: 1932-06-01 through 1941-01-29; replaced by: Franz Schlegelberger; replaces: Curt Joël)
- Educated at: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Date: 1935
Literal Title: Subject: Suit against Rudolf Jaehnichen and others for Mistreatment of Inmates of the Hohnstein Concentration Camp.
Total Pages: 3
Language of Text: English
Source of Text: Nazi conspiracy and aggression (Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946.)
Evidence Code: PS-785
Citation: IMT (page 255)
HLSL Item No.: 450203
Notes:For other documents on the case, see PS 783-784 and PS 786. The document book table of contents states that the memo is Guertner's. The appendix (pages 2-3) is a table listing the sentences given, including space for changes that Hitler might decide to make..
Trial Issues
Conspiracy (and Common plan, in IMT) (IMT, NMT 1, 3, 4) Concentration camp system (administration, forced labor, abuse of inmates)… IMT count 1: common plan or conspiracy (IMT) Nazi regime (rise, consolidation, economic control, and militarization) (I…
Document Summary
PS-785: Unsigned, undated proposal from the Reich Minister of justice to Hitler concerning the mitigation of punishment of certain defendants found guilty in the trial of JÄhnichen and others for ill-treatment of inmates of Hohnstein concentration camp