The fact that the discriminatory law against Poles was involked in this case is established. The opinion signed by Oeschey states:
"Under paragraph III, Section 2, of the Penal Law against Poles, the death sentence must be passed if the law threatens with it."
Concerning Wdowen, who was a Ukrainian and therefore could not be sentenced under the law against Poles, the court commented on the fact that he know that the German economy, on account of war-time conditions, was dependent on foreign labor, "in particular labor from the Eastern territories". The court drew the conclusion that Wdowen, who had used at most only a little force in attempting to protect Kaminska, was guilty of having taken advantage of extraordinary war-time conditions and of violating the law against violent criminals. Both defendants were sentenced to death by the defendant Oeschey. The associated judges in the Kaminska and Wkowen case were Doctors Gros and Pfaff. They are guilty of having signed the judgment. Both submitted affidavits and both were cross examined before this Tribunal. Dr. Gros stated that Oeschey demanded the severest counter-measures in similar cases. "We associate judges were powerless towards such an attitude. It must be mentioned that none of the defendants had criminal records and that they were eliminated in a most objectionable way by Oeschey for racial and political reasons."
The other associate judge, Dr. Theodor Pfaff, spoke of the Kaminska case as "the most terrible of my entire career. *** The sentence of death and the consequent execution of these Poles offended my sense of ethics and has continually preyed upon my con science.
I would like to state here that Oeschey forced his will upon us."
The two associate judges are to be condemned for their spineless attitude in submitting to the domination of the defendant Oeschey, but we cannot fail to give weight to their statements, which in effect amounted to confessions of their own wrong doing.
In this case Oeschey, with evil intent, participated in the governmentally-organizcd system for the racial persecution of Poles. This is also a case of such a perversion of the judicial process as to shock the conscience of mankind.
The progressive degeneration in the administration of justice came to a climax in 1944 and 1945. A decree by Thierack on 13 December 1944 abrogated the rules concerning the obligatory representation of accused persons by defense counsel. It was left for the judge to decide whether defense counsel was required. On 15 February 1945, as a final measure of desperation and in the face of imminent defeat, the law was passed for the establishment of civilian courts martial. The statute provided that sentence should be either death, acquittal, or commitment to the regular court. Pursuant to this law Gauleiter Holz set up a drumhead court martial in Nurnberg. It consisted of the defendant Oeschey as Presiding Judge, with Gau Inspector Haberkern and a major in the Wehrmacht as associate judges. On 2 April 1945 Karl Schroeder was appointed prosecutor. The judges and prosecutor then wont to the office of the Gauleiter, where he delivered a speech in which he stated:
"That the main point was to stop the American advance; one could count upon introduction of new weapons, and that he expected that the court martial would give the necessary support to the army at the front by applying the severest measures."
The officials were sworn in on 3 April. The affidavit of Schroeder, who later appeared for cross examination, discloses that Holz intended that the first case he tried on the third day of April.
Schroeder stated this would be impossible because he would need time to examine the case. The first case to be tried was that of Count Montgelas. Schroeder states that the case was the most difficult in his practice, but that it had to be tried "because the Gauleitung pressed for a quick decision of this matter." The defendant Oeschey testified concerning the court martial procedure as follows:
"Proceedings were to follow the provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure which had been very strongly simplified. Nevertheless, courts martial had observed in their proceedings the most important principles of protecting the interest of the defendant. The defendant's right to be heard, oral trial, admission of defense counsel, thorough presentation of evidence, a vote among the judges, and so forth."
The procedure followed by Oeschey as Presiding Judge in the case Montgelas did not conform to the following statement. Count Montgelas had for some time been represented by defense counsel Eichinger, who had an office in the courthouse adjacent to that of the prosecutor, and who had dealings with the prosecutor concerning the Montgelas case. The defendant Oeschey testified that he had directed that Eichinger was not notified concerning the trial, but in any event Eichinger was not notified and Oeschey informed the prosecutor that he would conduct the trial without defense counsel because the "legal prerequisites for trial without defense counsel did exist". He apparently had reference to Thierack's decree of 13 December 1944, supra. Eichinger, as attorney for Count Montgelas, received his first information concerning the trial after Montgelas had been convicted and shot.
The statute creating civilian courts martial specifically provided that they should consist of "a judge of a criminal court, as president***." At the time of his appointment, Oeschey was a soldier serving in the Wehrmacht and was not a judge of a criminal court. He testified that the statute meant only that it was necessary "that a man be appointed who has the qualifications to exercise the function of a judge."
The Nurnberg civilian court martial functioned for the first time on 5 April, held ten sessions, and disposed of twelve defendants, ten of whom were charged with political offenses. On 16 April the American Army was approaching Nurnberg, and on that date at noon the civilian court martial ceased to function.
An exhibit was offered in evidence containing the results of an official investigation of the defendant Oeschey and Prosecutor Schroeder for perversion of justice, conducted in August 1946, before German judicial authorities. An objection to the receipt of the exhibit was first made by counsel for Oeschey but was later withdrawn. The exhibit was received and is before us for consideration. From this exhibit we learn that Dr. Wilhelm Eser was the investigating judge in the Montgelas case. He states that at the hearing of Montgelas a Gestapo official was present, and that if Montgelas had not been arrested the official would have taken him back to the Gestapo "as it was demanded in the record of the investigation ***." Eichinger, who appeared as a witness before the Tribunal, had been employed in February by Countess Montgelas to defend her husband. He stated that he had conferred with Prosecutor Dr. Mueller and had been informed that the prosecutor recognized "the competence of the People's Court and therefore he submitted the record of the case to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court for a decision.
I asked him to inform me immediately after the record was returned, respectively after receiving the decision of the Chief Public Prosecutor.
He promised me this, and I was completely reassured."
At this time Montgelas was in the sick ward of the prison for solitary confinement. On 10 April Eichinger went to the prison office to examine the files in the Montgelas case, whereupon the Director of Nurnberg Prison informed him confidentially that Count Montgelas had been summoned before the court martial on 5 April at two p.m., sentenced to death, and shot the next day. The crime for which Count Montgelas had been shot consisted of remarks made by him in a private room in the Grand Hotel to a lady, Mrs. Pfleger of Bamberg. The Count had made insulting remarks concerning Hitler, among others to the effect that his true name was Schickelgruber. He also expressed approval of the attempt upon Hitler's life of 30 July 1944. We are convinced from the testimony of Eichinger before this Tribunal that if any serious effort had been made he could have been notified prior to the trial of his client. Eichinger expressed the opinion, with which this Tribunal concurs, that a summons issued at 1400 hours to appear at 1500 hours before a court martial is an offense against justice. The only witness who appeared against Count Monteglas was an SS Fuehrer, who had been shadowing him for many days in an attempt to secure evidence against him. By concealing himself in an adjoining room and by the use of a mechanical device, he was able to overhear the conversation between Montgelas and the lady and to testify concerning it. Eichinger states that the statements of the SS Fuehrer who was the cavesdropper at the hotel were "in important points contradictory" to tho statements Montgelas had made to his attorney and that the latter had already proposed to summon the lady with whom Montgelas had made to his attorney and that the latter had already proposed to summon the lady with whom Montgelas had conversed as a rebuttal witness in behalf of tho Count.
The wife of the martyr Montgelas stated in the official investigation that Chief Prosecutor Schroeder told her that "There had A Dec 1947-A-MSD-22-3-Goldberg not been time to comply with my husband's urgent request to get a defense counsel". Schroeder also told the Countess that she was not to be given any information on the disposal of the body of her husband because he had died a dishonorable death.
Thus, on the last days of the war, when the American Army was almost at the gates of Nurnberg, and within a month of the total collapse of German opposition, a sickman, after solitary confinement, is indicted on 3 April, tried on 5 April, and shot on 6 April without the knowledge of his counsel, in secret proceedings, and without the benefit of witnesses who wuold have testified for him. Such a mock trial is not a judicial proceeding but a murder.
It is provided in C.C. Law 10 that persecutions on political as well as racial grounds are recognized as crimes. While the mere fact alone that Montgelas was prosecuted for remarks hostile to the Nazi regime may not constitute a violation of C.C. Law 10, the circumstances under which the defendant was brought to trial and the manner in which he was tried convince us that Montgelas was not convicted for undermining the already collapsed defensive strength of the defeated nation, but on the contrary, that the law was deliberately invoked by Gauleiter Holz and enforced by Oeschey as a last vengeful act of political persecution. If the provisions of C.C. Law 10 do not cover this case, we do not know what kind of political persecution it would cover.
We have already indicated that we will not convict any defendant merely because of the fact, without more, that he participated in the passing or enforcement of laws for the punishment of habitual criminals, lo*ters, hoarders, or those guilty of undermining the defensive strength of the nation, but we also stated that these laws were in many instances applied in an arbitrary and brutal manner shocking to the conscience of mankind and punishable here. This was the situation in a number of eases tried by Rothaug and Oeschey, but concerning which we have no transcript of testimony and we must, therefore, of necessity rely upon statements of associates and close observers.
In this connection we shall have reference to affidavits and to testimony of associates of the defendant Oeschey. We shall refer to statements of affilants only in these cases in which the affilant was also brought to court and verbally cross examined concerning his statements.
Dr. Hermann Mueller was a prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg. He said:
"He (Oeschey) frequently insulted the defendants and presented the crimes to them as if these crimes were already a proven fact. His behavior was often so extreme that one might well believe he was a psychopathic case. The abusive insults that he inflicted upon the defendants were, to the highest degree, unworthy of a court trial. He wielded such influence over the form of the administration of justice through his close Party affiliations that the other officials of equal rank at the Nurnberg Administration of Criminal Justice were almost always forced to yield."
Mueller mentions several cases in which Oeschey announced before trial that the defendant would be executed. In a case against Schnaus he states that Oeschey:
"told me that, as a result of a discussion with government officials, he was certain to obtain the death sentence. At that time I was still unaware of the changed situation at the Special Court occasioned by the war, and turned to my immediate superior for information. He then informed me of the very close relations existing between judges and the prosecutors."
Concerning the case Montgelas, Mueller stated:
"Concerning the case of Montgelas it must be pointed out that this was a case of political extermination, which was handled in a most hideous fashion."
Again, he said:
"Oeschey was the most brutal judge that I have ever known in my life and a most willing instrument of the Nazi terroristic justice."
Dr. Armin Baur was the medical officer at the Special Court. He said:
"One always had the impression that the verdict was already previously decided upon and that Oeschey and Rothaug were just playing cat and mouse with the defendants for hours. No occasion was missed to insult the defendants in the filthiest way."
This medical expert dealt with cases which were tried both by Rathaug and by Oeschey. In the Katzenberger case the defendant Rothaug told the doctor that he wanted the defendant examined but that the examination was a matter of pure formality because the Jew "would be beheaded anyhow", and he added, "It is sufficient for me that the swine said that a German girls sat on his lap." Dr. Baur states that "foreigners were generally dealt with by Rothaug and Oeschey as inferior beings whose task it was only to serve the German Master Race."
Hans Kern, defense counsel, stated "that foreigners were told at the beginning and throughout the trial that they were to be annihilated". Again he said:
"Rothaug and Oeschey declined, as a matter of principle, to believe Polish citizens who were under accusation. They were branded as liars. It was assumed that their inmate tendency made liars of them."
He describes Oeschey as a "nororious Pole biater".
Dr. Gustav Kunz, leading court doctor at Nurnberg, was an excellent and reliable witness. He stated:
"Insult, humiliation, and mental torture of the defendants' were routine and the two judges, especially Oeschey, did not even renounce them in cases in which -- according to the legal situation -- the verdict had to be and actually was acquittal or an insignificant sentence."
Kurt Hoffmann, prosecutor at Nurnberg, states that Oeschey was severe as to the German defendants and was:
"even more severe with regard to sentences against foreigners and much mere furious in his conduct of their trials, especially in the case of Polies."
Adolph Paulus, former public prosecutor, speaks of the "brutality of which only Oeschey was capable".
Friedrich Doebig, who was President of the District Court of Appeals at Nurnberg, later Senate President of the Reich Supreme Court, stated that "Oeschey like Rothaug was a fanatical Nazi, who consistently interpreted and enforced the law in accord with Nazi ideologies".
Dr. Herbert Lipps served with defendant Oeschey on the Special Court, Nurnberg. He states that Oeschey was autocratic and would not tolerate contradiction.
"Defendants were insulted by Oeschey in the most abusive manner and death candidates were told by Oeschey right at the beginning of the session that they had forfeited the life.
"Towards foreigners, particularly Poles, Oeschey was especially rigorous and here upheld the National Socialist theory of liquidating where rationals of the occupied territories were concerned. I remember a ease in which a Polish farmhand was ill-treated by his employer and defended himself. Oeschey told the defendant that a Polo was not allowed to oppose a German."
Dr. Franz Gros was an associate judge at Nurnberg. He states that Oeschey followed the harsh procedural methods of Rothaug and was a "fanatic National Socialist who pursued his dishonorable motives with conviction and who willingly lent his hand to bloodthirsty National Socialist jurisdiction".
Dr. Pfaff was an associate judge at Nurnberg and corroborates the statements of Dr. Gros.
Dr. Joseph Mayer was a Referent in the prosecutor's office at Nurnberg. Concerning Oeschey, he said:
"Oeschey *** was obviously of Rothaug's school. Outwardly he gave the impression of being morose and unrelenting. I cannot remember ever having had a personal conversation with him. As a rule he began the proceedings with a pre-conceived opinion to which he adhered. Anyone who tried to oppose this opinion was overridden by him in the most brutal way. He insulted the defendants all the time in a most offensive manner, informing them repeatedly all the way through, what he intended to do with them. He had an extensive vocabulary of invectives for that purpose, the use of which he developed to a fine art. *** It was literally tormenting if one had to listen to this tirade often for hours at a time. When his face became distorted into a repulsive mask by his continual scolding and abusive language, Faust's words to Mephistopheles would often quite involuntarily come to my mind: 'Thou freak of filth and fire'." Foseph Eichinger, defense attorney at Nurnberg, stated:
"His prejudice was so strong that he did not consider, seriously the statements of the defense and dismissed them rudely or ironically. Even during the trial he repeatedly addressed the defendant thus: 'People such as you deserve to be exterminated', 'You will be convicted or he called the defendant insulting and humiliating names such as 'criminal', 'scoundrel', 'enemy of the people'."
Again, he said:
"As leader of the Gau Legal Office (Gaurechtsamt) and, after the latter's disbanding, as member in the Gau Staff (Gaustabe), he enjoyed a special position of power which enabled him to hold the defense strongly in check; it was well known that a sign from the Gau authorities, instigated by Oeschey, was sufficient to have a lawyer turned over to the Gestapo."
"I had the impression that he supported, knowingly and willingly, the policy of Hitler to 'decimate' (Dezimierung) alliens, especially Poles, by increasing the number of death sentences against them **x*."
On cross examination Eichinger admitted that he did not know of any lawyer who had been turned over to the Gestapo by Oeschey. It is clear that in his statements Eichinger was relying only upon general information as the of his opinion. We think however, that his opinion merits consideration.
Dr. Karl Mayer, defense counsel, said that Rothaug was judge of the worst Special Court in Germany and used to tell defendants even during the trial that they would be exterminated. He adds that after Rothaug was transferred to Berlin Oeschey even surpassed him in the spitefulness of his manner. Space does not permit the discussion of the other cases which illustrate Oeschey's ruthless exercise of arbitrary power. Mention should, however, be made of the trial of a group of foreign boys who had some fights with boys in the Nuernberg Hitler Youth Home. Dr. Mueller characterizes the action of the boys as harmless pranks. At worst they were indulging in street fights with the Hitler Youth. Oeschey held that they constituted a resistance movement and several of the boys were sentenced to death.
The defendant Oeschey is charged under Count four of the indictment with being a member of the Party Leadership Corps at Gau level within the definite of the membership declared criminal according to the Judgment of the first International Military Tribunal in the case against Goering, et. al.
We have previously quoted the findings of the first International Military Tribunal which define the organizations and groups within the Leadership Corps which are declared to be criminal. Oeschey was provision commissioned with the direction of the legal office of the NSDAP in the Franconia Gau and served in that official capacity for a long time. In has testimony he states that from 1940 to 1942 he was solely in charge of the Gnu legal office as section chief.
The evidence clearly establishes the defendant's voluntary membership as the chief of a Gau staff office subsequent to 1 September 1939. The judgment of the first International Military Tribunal lists among the criminal activities of the Party Leadership Corps the following:
"The Leadership Corps played its part in the persecution of the Jews. It was involved in the economic and political discrimination against the Jews which was put into affect shortly after the Nazis came into power. The Gestapo and SD were instructed to coordinate with the Gauleiters and Kreisleiters the measures taken in the pogroms of 9 and 10 November 1938. The Leadership Corps was also used to prevent German public opinion from reacting against the measures taken against the Jews in the East. On 9 October 1942, a confidential information bulletin was sent to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters entitled 'Preparatory Measures for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe -- Rumors Concerning the Conditions of the Jews in the East'. This bulletin stated that rumors were being started by returning soldiers concerning tho conditions of Jews in tho East which some Germans might not understand, and outlined in detail the official explanation to be given. This bulletin contained no explicit statement that the Jews were being exterminated, but it did indicate they were going to labor camps, and spoke of their complete segregation and elimination and the necessity of ruthless seventy. * * * "The Leadership Corps played an import ant part in the administration of the slave labor program.
A Sauckel decree dated 6 April 1942 appointed the Gauleiters as plenipotentiary for labor mobilization for their Gaue with authority to coordinate all agencies dealing with labor questions in their Gaue, with specific authority over the employment of foreign workers, including their conditions of work, feeding, and housing. Under this authority tho Gauleiters assumed control over the allocation of labor in their Gaue, including the forced laborers from foreign countries. In carrying out this task the Gauleiters used many Party offices within their Gaue, including subordinate political lenders.
For example, Sauckel's decree of 8 September 1942, relating to the allocation for household labor of 400,000 women laborers brought in from the East, established a procedure under which applications filed for such workers should be passed on by the Kreisleiters, whose judgment was final.
"Under Sauckel's directive the Leadership Corps was directly concerned with the treatment given foreign workers, and the Gauleiters were specifically instructed to prevent 'politically inept factory heads' from giving 'too much consideration to the care of Eastern workers'.
"The Leadership Corps was directly concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war. On 5 November 1941 Bormann transmitted a directive down to the level of Kreisleiter instructing them to insure compliance by the army with the recent directives of the Department of the Interior ordering that dead Russian prisoners of war should be buried wrapped in tar paper in a remote place without any ceremony or any decorations of their graves. On 25 November 1943 Bormann sent a circular instructing the Gauleiters to report any lenient treatment of prisoners of war. On 13 September 1944, Bormann sent a directive down to the level of Kreisleiter ordering that liaison be established between the Kreislciters and the guards of the prisoners of war in order 'better to assimilate the commitment of the prisoners of war to the political and economic demands'. * * * "The machinery of the Leadership Corps was also utilized in attempts made to deprive Allied airmen of the protection to which they were entitled under the Geneva Convention.
On 13 March 1940 a directive of Hess transmitted instructions through the Leadership Corps down to the Blockleiter for the guidance of the civilian population in case of the landing of enemy planes or parachutists, which stated that enemy parachutists were to be immediately arrested or 'made harmless'."
As to his knowledge, the defendant Oeschey joined the NSDAP on 1 December 1931. He was head of the Lawyers' League for the Gau Franconia and a judicial officer of considerable importance within the Gau. These offices would provide additional sources of information as to the crimes outlined.
Furthermore, these crimes were of such wide scope and so intimately connected with the activities of the Gauleitung that it would be impossible for a man of the defendant's intelligence not to have known of the commission of these crimes, at least in part if not entirely.
We find the defendant Oeschey guilty under Counts three and four of the indictment. In view of the sadistic attitude and conduct of the defendant, we know of no just reason for any mitigation of punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Harding has consented to continue with the reading.
JUDGE HARDING: (Reading) The Defendant Altstoetter Joseph Alstotetter was born 4 January 1892.
He was educated for the bar and passed the State examination in jurisprudence in Munich. Ho subsequently served in the Bavarian and in the Reich Ministries of Justice. In 1932 he was promoted and was sent to the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig. In 1933 he was a member of the Appeals Criminal Senate. In 1936 he was a member of the Reich Labor Court. From 1939 to 1943 he served with the Wehrmacht. In 1943 he was assigned to the Reich Ministry of Justice where he was made Chief of the Civil Law and Procedure Division in the Ministry of Justice with the title of Ministerialdirektor and served in that capacity until the surrender. He had been a member of the Stalhelm prior to the Nazi rise to power. When the Stahlhelm was absorbed into the Nazi organization, he automatically became a member of the SA. Prior to Lay 1937 he resigned from the SA to become a member of the General SS. His membership in the SS, from his personnel files, dates from 15 May 1937. He applied for membership in the NSDAP in 1938 and his membership was dated back to 1 May 1937. He was awarded the Golden Party Badge for service to the Party.
Upon the evidence in this case it is the judgment of this Tribunal that the defendant Altstoetter is not guilty under Counts two and three of the indictment.
The question which remains to be determined as to the defendant Altstoetter is whether, knowing of its criminal activities as defined by the London Charter, ho joined or retained membership in the SS, an organization defined as criminal by the International Military Tribunal in the case of Goering, et al.
The evidence in this case as to his connection with the SS is found primarily in ills personnel record which covers a groat many pages, in his correspondence with SS leaders, and his own testimony. From this evidence it appears that the defendant, upon the request of Himmler, joined the SS in May 1937. He stated that Himmler told him he would receive a rank commensurate with his civil status. The record does not indicate what rank in the SS was commensurate with his civil status as a member of the Reich Supremo Court, but on 20 April 1938 ho was promoted to Untersturmfuehrer, which corresponds to a second lieutenant in the army. He was subsequently promoted on 20 April 1939 to Obersturmfuhrer; on 20 April 1940 to Hauptsturmfuehrer. On 12 March 1943, according to a letter to the SS Main Personnel Office, signed by Himmler, he was promoted to Sturmbannfuehrer, effective 25 January 1943 and, by the same letter, to Obersturmbannfuehrer as of 20 April 1943, and it was directed that he be issued a skull and crossbones ring. In June 1943 he wrote to the Chief of the SS Main Office, SS Gruppenfuehrer Berger, thanking him for this ring bestowed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. In this letter he wrote:
"Both this promotion and the honoring of this decoration with the skull and crossbone ring I will take not only s a token of the Reichsfuehrer's most distinct proof of trust in me, but also as an incentive for further active proof of my loyalty and for strictest adherence to my duties in my career as an SS man."
On 11 February 1944 he wrote SS Gruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen SS, Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt, a letter containing the following paragraph:
"One more personal remark: You kindly promoted me SS Oberfuehrer. It is not that far yet. At least I did not get to know it until now. I merely tell you this because I do not want to claim anything for me which does not correspond to facts."
By letter dated lb June 1944 he was notified that the Reichsfuehrer SS had promoted him to the rank of Oberfuehrer, effective 21 June 1944.
The defendant stated that he was assigned to the legal staff of the 48th Standarte and later to the legal staff of the SS Main Office. He stated that he had no actual duties. However, part of his service credentials dated 14 March 1939, under the heading of qualifications, signed by Dalski, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, the following is stated:
"So Untersturmfuehrer Altstoetter is frank, honest, and helpful. His ideology is firstly established on a National Socialist basis. A. was a loader of the staff of the 48th Standarte and there at all times performed his duties in a satisfactory manner."
In a report from Leipzig, dated 10 June 1939, it is stated that he was awarded the "badge of honor for legal service in silver", effective 19 April 1938, signed Sachse, SS Untersturmfuehrer and Adjutant.
The defendant was evidently highly regarded by Himmler who, on 18 September 1942, at a meeting with Thierack and Rothenberger, referred to him as a reliable SS Obersturmfuehrer.
It also appears that his appointment to the Ministry of Justice was at the suggestion of Himmler and that the defendant's relationship with Himmler was one which Thierack fostered for purposes of his own.
At the instance of Thierack, he visited Himmler at his headquarters and was present at a speech given by Himmler at Kochem, where he attended a dinner for twelve people, including SS Standartenfuehrer Rudolf Brandt and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
He visited Berger, a high SS official, at Berger's request. He carried on considerable correspondence with high officials in the SS, including Himmler, SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS Gruppenfuehrer Berger, and Kaltenbrunner, Chief of the Security Police and SD.
On 25 May 1940 Altstoetter wrote to the Reichsfuehrer SS as follows:
"If I can contribute my small part towards helping our Fuehrer to accomplish his great task for the benefit of our nation, this causes me particular joy and satisfaction, especially in my capacity as SS officer."
According to a letter to Gebhardt, Himmler had instructed the SS leaders to request Altstoetter's advice in certain matters.
On 6 June he wrote Gebhardt, congratulating him upon a recent award. In this letter he states:
"I am especially glad about your distinction, especially because I do not see only in it a recognition of your great war service as a physician and surgeon but also as a research scientist and organizer and which is attributed to our old and trusty friend."
The evidence in this Case clearly establishes that the defendant joined and retained his membership in the SS on a voluntary basis. In fact it appears that he took considerable interest in his SS rank and honors. The remaining fact to be determined is whether he had knowledge of the criminal activities of the SS as defined in the London Charter. In this connection we quote certain extracts from the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal in the case of Goering, et al, as to the SS:
"Criminal activities: SS units were active participants in the steps leading up to aggressive war. The Verfuegungstruppe was used in the occupation of the Sudetenland, of Bohemia and Moravia, and in Memel. The Henlein Free Corps was under the jurisdiction of the Reichsfuehrer SS for operations in the Sudetenland in 1938, and the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle financed Fifth Column activities there.
"The SS was even a more general participant in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Through its control over the organization of the notice, particularly the Security Police and SD, the SS was involved in all the crimes which have been outlined in the section of this Judgment dealing with the Gestapo and SD. * * * The Racce and Settlement Office of the SS, together with the Volksdeutsche Mittolstelle were active in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied territories according to the radial principles of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationals. Units of the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen operating directly under the SS Main Office were used to carry out these plans.
These units were also involved in the widespread murder and illtreatment of the civilian population of occupied territories. * * * "From 1934 onwards the SS was responsible for the guarding and administration of concentration camps.
The evidence leaves no doubt that the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt. There is evidence that where manpower considerartions permitted, Himmler wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would he instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After 1942 when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the WVHA they were used as a source of slave labor. An agreement made with the Ministry of Justice on 18 September 1942 provided that anti-social elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the SS to be worked to death. * * * "The SS played a particularly significant rule in the persecution of the Jews.
The SS was directly involved in the demonstrations of 10 November 1938. The evacuation of the Jews from occupied territories was carried out under the directions of the SS with the assistance of SS police units. The extermination of the Jews was carried out under the direction of the SS Central Organizations. It was actually put into effect by SS formations. * * * "It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities.
The Allgemeine SS was an active participant in the persecution of the Jews and was used as a source of concentration camp guards. * * * "The Tribunal finds that knowledge of those criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organization to the extent hereinafter described.
It does appear that an attempt was made to keep secret some phases of its activities, but its criminal programs were so widespread, and involved slaughter on such a gigantic scale, that its criminal activities must have been widely known.
It must be recognized, moreover, that the criminal activities of the SS followed quite logically from the principles on which it was organized. Every effort had been made to make the SS a highly disciplined organization composed of the elite of National Socialism. Himmler had stated that there were people in Germany "who become sick when they see these black coats' and that he did not expect that 'they should be loved by too many'. * * * Himmler in a series of speeches made in 1943, indicated his pride in the ability of the SS to carry out these criminal acts. He encouraged his men to be 'tough and ruthless'; ho spoke of shooting 'thousands of leading Poles', and thanked then for their cooperation and lack of squeamishness at the sight of hundreds and thousands of corpses of their victims. He extolled ruthlessness in exterminating the Jewish race and later described this process as 'delousing'. These speeches show that the general attitude prevailing in the SS was consistent with these criminal acts. * * * "In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS, including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS.
* * * "The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who become or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter * * *."In this regard tie Tribunal is of the opinion that the activities of the SS and the crimes which it committed as pointed out by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal above quoted are of so wide a scope that no person of the defendants intelligence, and one who had achieved the rank of Oberfuehrer in the SS, could have been unaware of its illegal activities, particularly a member of the organization from 1937 until the surrender.