It will be considered as equal to the knowledge of the use for criminal purposes, if somebody, in his capacity as a member, was involved in the objective characteristics of an offense, without realizing this, but if the circumstances were likely to make the purposes for which the organization was used, appear as criminal, in short, if somebody was constrained to know the criminality of the organization on account of all circumstances.
In the meaning of the verdict of the International Military Tribunal anybody acted voluntarily who would have been able to take any decision, without being afraid that the state would be seriously prejudiced against him as a result.
Not affected by the above stipulation is anybody who has made himself guilty of the objective characteristic of the offense in any other way than by membership. Thus, the great number of guilty members of the SS who are in such manner still to be found out is declared to be a criminal group of persons.
The Defendant Scheide had no direct knowledge of the purposes of the SS, as far as the above-mentioned objective characteristic of the offense is concerned. It must be examined, however, whether he had to know such a purpose according to the above-mentioned extension of the definition of knowledge.
We have heard a great number of witnesses here with regard to the question of presumption of knowledge of crimes according to Count II and II of the Indictment.
I have never made a secret of it that I think this question of presumption of knowledge, in particular about crimes in the concentration camps - as this is nearest - to be the decisive point of the trial for the defendant Scheide, represented by me, with regard to Count IV of the Indictment.
I therefore have interrogated each of the witnesses on this question. Among the witnesses interrogated there were witnesses for the prosecution and witnesses for the defense, and some of the defendants themselves have to a certain extent stated their point of view on the question of presumption of knowledge.
The following turned out to be the essential result.
Among the witnesses who gave their point of view as former inmates of a concentration camp as far as the question of presumption of knowledge is concerned, there is first of all the witness Kogon.
Kogon was an inmate of the concentration camp Buchenwald from 1937 to 1945; he is the author of the book "Der SS-Staat" ("The SS-State").
Answering my question whether an administrative officer of the SS within a concentration camp for instance had to know exactly about individual crimes, the witness stated as follows:
"An administrative officer who was employed in the camp or outside the camp in the administration office, well, that depended upon the circumstances, upon his own will. This was just like with the inmates themselves. You should be in a camp as an inmate for years and years, and not bother about anything as far as you were not directly concerned yourself, and if then you were among the survivors, of course you knew only fragments and small details, more or less nothing at all, compared with the whole."
Well, Kogon speaks about an administrative officer who was employed in the camp or outside the camp in the administration. At any rate, this is somebody who was in direct contact with the concentration camp. The defendants who are in the dock here, in general were even further removed from these things.
At any rate, the defendant Scheide never entered any concentration camp.
In order to have to know the objective facts, he depended upon external impressions which he got. Without seeing and hearing anything that would have had to attract his attention to things, one cannot say that he must have known about the real conditions in the concentration camps.
If he did not see those conditions, he still might hear of them.
In this connection it is important to mention that drive for secrecy Hitler was so particular about.
This pervaded all branches of public life, to start with. In all places the secrecy order of 11 January 1940 was exhibited. This order decreed that secret matters should be disclosed to nobody unless it could not be avoided in the interest of official duties.
Conditions in the concentration camps were a matter to be kept most secret. Significant is the fact that no person was supposed to enter a concentration camp without permission, that the highest dignitaries of the Third Reich, as for instance the Minister of Justice, Thierack, could not visit a concentration camp without the personal permission of Himmler;that to all extermination camps, as e.g. Auschwitz and Treblinka a special system of concealment was applied, by way of camouflage, cordons, great distance of the plants from the centres of the Reich and special selection of the guards, that the Reich Security Main Office itself declared in answer to an official question by the Reich Ministry of Justice about the fate of the Jews in the years 1942/43 that all that was nothing but lies, that nothing was allowed to leak out from the concentration camps themselves about the true conditions there through the prisoners.
To prove the above statements I offer the following evidence:
1. That the former representative of the personal referent of the Reichsfuehrer SS, August Meine, declared:
"The Reich Minister of Justice did not have the right to enter a concentration camp on his own initiative. He and his officials needed express personal permission from the Reichsfuehrer SS, because camp commanders and other office chiefs could *** give the necessary permission. Therefore the Reich Minister of Justice directed such a request to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
The Reichsfuehrer SS gave the permission in an accommodating way, but at the same time he ordered by inter-office communication through the Reich Security Main Office that the shelters for Jews and other politically important places (meaning especially the area with extermination installations) should unobstrusively be kept out of the sight of the Reich Minister of Justice and his officials. After the visit had taken place he wished to receive an immediate report that the secrecy had been kept according to instructions.
The visit took place as arranged and the Reichsfuehrer SS received the report as requested."
2. The former judge at a Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgerichtsrat in the Reich Ministry of Justice), Dr. Rudolf Kuhn, declared:
" In 1942 or 1943, at rate at a time when Jews were being evacuated from Berlin to the East, a man was reported for spreading the rumor that Jews were to be killed by gassing in the East. I considered this allegation to be monstrous and untrue. Nevertheless I inquired at the Gestapo whether these allegations were based on some actual occurrences which would make the execution of proceedings seem risky. I had made the experience that such inquiries brought out facts which explained the origin of such rumors, which is important for the judgement of the matter. My inquiries received a negative reply from the office of the Secret State Police, confirming that this rumor had been invented without factual proof."
3. The former SS-Judge Dr. Konrad Morgen stated with regard to the camouflaging of the extermination camp:
"The cooperation of members of the SS was therefore restricted to the Commander, the physician, the driver, the exterminator and the guards. Germans in this operation were only the commander, the physician and the exterminator. Thus it was again assured that secrecy was maintained not only by compulsory discretion under oath, but also by the difficulties with regard to a linguistic understanding, between the majority of those informed about the events and the German population or the German members of the SS."
4. The witness Engler, who from 1941 to 1945 was a prisoner in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen, confirms that it was impossible 1. to write letters in which the true conditions were described, 2. to approach visitors coming to the camps and to describe the conditions prevailing there.
Engler says here literally: "This was possible only for one resolved to bid farewell to his life."
3. that every prisoners on being released had to sign an undertaking to the effect that he would disclose nothing of what he had seen or experienced in the concentration camp, that means that he would say nothing to any third person.
Asked, whether in his opinion did keep this undertaking, he said literally:
Since the entire German people did not dare, or rather, the major part of the German people had not the courage to say anything surely those who knew that to disclose the facts would mean to them to be returned to the camp and consequently to be removed from life, could still less be expected to do so".
Another important question this witness dealt with was the differ ence in the treatment and conditions in the various concentration camps according to time and place.
Replying to a question about this matter the witness said literally:
"My opinion is that conditions in camps which were in connection with quarries, were notably worse than for instance those in a camp where there was no opportunity for such a work."
Asked, whether this possibly also depended on the camp commandant, witness stated:
"My opinion is that the treatment of the prisoners varied according to the individuality, mentality and character of the camp commander, so that it depended on the judgment of the commander, as we found out from our own experience at Sachsenhausen."
This shows that conditions were not the same in each camp so that it should have been possible to know more of one camp and less of another one.
But what could lead out from a concentration camp, were rumors.
About these Hans Fritsche, the radio commentator of the Third Reich said:
"Rumors never prove anything. But rumors may contain a grain of truth. They have often been very troublesome in the Third Reich, so that sull-scale campaigns against the rumors were started and it was tried to discredit the rumor-mongers."
But that was it. Not only that the truth about the concentration camps would never have been admitted in the press and the radio, rumors about these things were opposed in the most resolute manner, so that they could never spread. Some people in Germany knew them, a great many did not. The truth was known only after the war.
In as far as it was known before, it appeared so enormous that it was generally disbelieved.
A fitting example for this is the statement of the defendant Hohberg. Hohberg stated that he had been informed that at the end of 1942 by an administration leader who was devoted to him about the extermination of the Jews.
Hohberg says that he forwarded this information to about 25 trustworthy people. About the results he says:
"By some people whom I told these things, I was simply considered not normal. There was a number of people who thought I was telling them tales.
This, in spite of the fact that my information was authentic."
Soo even there where the truth became known, it still remained restricted to the person in question and a few other people. The majority got to know only rumors.
The same picture is shown by the few statements we have from the highest places and which could help to disclose the truth. There are two speeches of Himmler known. These are the speeches made at Metz and at Posen. Both speeches were secret and had been addressed to a small circle of persons only.
How strict concealment was in this case, is shown by the Posen speech by Himmler of which the former SS-Obersturmfuehrer Rudolf Gerhard Schneider, who happened to be present literally says: -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Hoffmann, was the speech at Cracow pretty well known-- You mention the speech at Posen and the speech at Metz. There was a speech at Cracow, which seems to have been pretty well known. It appears in our document books.
DR. HOFFMANN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHEIDE): Well, you see, I was only thinking about these speeches, the one in Posen and the speech in Metz. Was there a speech at Cracow?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes, we noticed in our document books there was such a speech.
DR. HOFFMANN: Very well, Your Honor.
Schneider literally said, and I quote:
"Even at a later date nothing could be undertaken by any participant because everyone, including myself, was bound to strictest secrecy even with respect to our supervisors. I had to sign a paper according to which I and my entire family would be exterminated if I were to violate the order for secrecy."
Only the highest SS leaders were, invited to that speech. The above mentioned former deputy of the personnel adviser of the Reichfuhrer SS said literally: I quote, "As former deputy of the personal adviser of the Reichsfuehrer SS I declare that usually only those leaders who held higher posts at one of the main offices within the sphere of command of the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police and who held at least the rank of SS Gruppenfuehrer were invited to these so-called SS Gruppenfuehrer conferences."
But even those who had been invited to those conferences could sometimes not make head or tail of such a speech.
The former General of the Waffen-SS S**** who had listened to part of the Posen speech, and had, among other things, heard Himmler speaking of a march to the Urals, which the whole army was in retreat, declare verbally:
"To me all that appealed so unreal that I was absolutely flabbergasted, nonplussed, telling myself, but this is impossible how can one the situation being what it is, speak of an advance towards the Urals."
Asked, whether he would have been able to forward such a speech to the people under him, provided that he would have been allowed to do so, witness declared literally:
"But certainly on no account, such a madness cannot be forwarded, because, if you say to a unit which is in retreat, that they have got to advance to the Urals, they surely think their commander has become quite mad."
One may as well presume that things were not different with the Metz speech.
Even these two official speeches of Himmler were as I have shown, not able to spread the knowledge about war crimes or crimes against humanity beyond a certain circle of person, so that it would not be possible to say that from them there resulted necessarily a reasonable presumption fora knowledge of these crimes.
It remains to examine the official propaganda of the 3rd Reich in this respect. The prosecution has submitted a booklet with the title "The Subman". It also referred to some SS-manuals and finally to Hitler's book "Mein Kampf."
As far as Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is concerned, the Secretary of State in the Bavarian. Liberation Ministry, Dr. Camillo Sachs declared literally:
"I had read the book "Mein Kampf" which, unfortunately, a great many Germans had not done. Even many members of the NSDAP never read that book."
This proves that the knowledge of this book was far from being wide-spread, as one would be led to infer from **** number of printed copies.
As far as booklets are concerned of the kind of the booklet submitted by the Prosecution, "The Subman", the public was utterly insensitive against compilations of that sort on account of the training received through many centuries.
Hans Fritsche, whom I quoted above, declared, when shown the booklet "The Subman" as a witness that this had been the worst kind of propaganda.
So it was, and there is no reason to assume that the effects of such a propaganda in general resulted in actions and that it led people to the conclusion that war crimes and crims against humanity were to be perpetrated. May I point out, your Honors, the general public did not even then abandon the laws of humanity - apart from very small exceptions - when night after night the bombs were dropped on the German cities, killing thereby women and children. They were even asked to do so, so insensitive was the German people in general against bad propaganda.
The Prosecution will point to the fact that the peculiar ideology of the SS should have imparted the knowledge of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Certainly, there were SS-manuals, there were the 12 commandments of an SS-man, there was the Engagement and Marriage-Instruction.
But where do they contain objective elements of a crime? The opinions and thoughts they contained were more or less violently rejected by the world around them. Nobody had the imagination to foresee what was really to happen.
Not a word was to be found in the SS manuals or in other places about the Jews to be gasses, about mass killings to be carried out in the concentration camps. If today it is said, one should have read between the lines, well, the question arises, why did the Weimar republic not exhibit a poster above **** barracks, to read:
"Attention" Murder Incorporated No. 1."
No, the individual SS-man was not in a position to realize before the event that Himmler was capable of perpetrating crimes of the sort as have now come to the light.
The truth was disclosed only after the war. Up to that time it leaked out only gradually and remained unknown to most of the people even up to the very end. In this connection even the question is of no relevance, at what date a man joined the SS.
It is also essential not to neglect but to consider the personality of each individual SS-man when trying to judge him, or else testimonials of the kind presented by the witness Ackermann would be disregarded. The witness Ackrmann, who had been arrested by the Gestapo on various occasions beginning from 1933 and who was in a concentration camp, who was kept in concentration Camps continously from 1939 to 1945, declared as a Prosecution witness: I quote:
".....just as it has to be proclaimed in public for once, and I feel boud to do so, that amongst the SS man there were not only dirty swines, but quite a number of decent people and beyond that SS-men who were our best friends."
Quite consistently the witness Kogon surely an unbiased witness, declared:
"The facts with regard to the question, how far the individual SS man had the necessary knowledge and the possibility to interfere have certainly to be examined in each individual case."
The Prosecution has not submitted a single document against the defendant Scheide which shows his name. He has not been mentioned by any witness. No evidence has been submitted which would show his individual guilt.
Whether, under these circumstances, a conviction can be arrived at according to Control Council Law No. 10, if all Scheide can be charged with is membership in the SS, will be decided by this High Tribunal.
DR. SCHMIDT (Attorney for the Defendant No.* ): Mr. President, Your Honors, with the definite permission of my client, I would like to make the following statement: That in the interest of saving time, I shall not read my written final plea. I am making this statement with the hope that the Tribunal will adhere to its statement of yesterday that the court will still consider and take judicial notice of all the things in the final pleas not read by the defense.
As far as the final plea of the prosecution is concerned, I would only like to give an oral statement now:
I agree with the prosecution that the question concerning the veracity of the defendants is probably the most important question in this trial. That is the reason why in the case of my client I have explicitly examined and dealt with the veracity of my client in my final plea. I have reached a conclusion which is in contradiction to the prosecution's contention.
The prosecution in their final plea, with reference to Vogt, used him as a typical example of the non-veracity of the defendants. I am afraid I have to protest such an allegation against my client.
In my final plea, I have stated that my defendant has not said a lie which could be proved. This, in particular, also applies to the rebutal the most important parts of the affidavit of 16 January 1947, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 8.
The prosecution, surprisingly enough, stated that they waited without success for the introduction of the pre-trial examinations which were in my hands.
The prosecution apparently forgot that the excerpts of these pre-trial records were introduced by me in the session of 15 September 1947 as Defense Exhibit Vogt No. 21, 22, and 23, and also that the Tribunal accepted these exhibits into evidence. If I introduced those records not in their entirety, but duly in excerpts, this was not done because the remaining parts of the record might incriminate my client, but only for technical reasons, in order to save the trouble to the Translating Department of translating irrelevant parts and passages.
The excerpts from those pre-trial records, which I introduced, proved explicitly that the most important and more pressing passages of the affidavit where a culpability for my client can be deducted are based on statements of his own by my client.
I only stated a small example when introducing those records. I could multiply that example and give you many more. Some of those examples are contained in my final plea.
According to my investigations in the affidavits there are not less than 13 very remarkable sentences, which are literally based on formulations by the interrogator. If one considers that the Defendant Volk, according to the medical affidavits, which I have introduced, at the time was in a physical and psychological state of exhaustion, one will understand very clearly just how the probative value of this testimony can be impeached by the defendant. Then it will be understood that the defendant while testifying as a witness in his own behalf told the truth and testimony should be referred to this state of affairs. It was his own right, and it is my duty as defense counsel to make those statements in the interest of the truth.
In this connection, I believe I have the right to make the following statement: The case of the Defendant Vogt is not a typical example for the non-veracity, in other words, for the incorrectness of the defense of the defendants. I am of the opinion that the case of Vogt in particular has shown and proved just how important and valuable it can be to actually check up on things to their very bottom.
THE PRESIDENT: We have yet to hear the arguments of counsel for Kiefer, Klein, Mummenthey, and Tschentscher, and that is all. None of these counsel are here right now.
DR. HOFFMANN: I have spoken with the Defense Counsel of Kiefer, Dr. Maier.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you rather begin -
DR. FROESCHMANN: May it please Your Honor, I just found out that my final plea will be translated by this afternoon at the latest. I would appreciate it if we could get the translation of that final plea before we read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know when this afternoon, at what hour?
DR. FROESCHMANN: I did not understand?
THE PRESIDENT: At what time this afternoon will the translation be ready?
DR. FROESCHMANN: That I couldn't tell you, Your Honor. I will have to inquire.
DR. HOFFMANN: Defendant Kiefer's defense counsel has spoken to me. He can begin in the afternoon session, after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: After the recess, about quarter of two. Dr. Froeschmann, I suggest that you go down to Defense Information Center before you return to court and find out how soon you can get your copy.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, indeed, Your Honor. Very well, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time until a quarter to two, at which time we will hear Counsel for Defendant Kiefer.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing resumed at 1345 hours, 19 Sept.
1947)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR.MAYER (for defendant Kiefer): Your Honor, the Tribunal told me yesterday that I was to read my final plea tomorrow. However, I would like to announce at this time that I do not want to read it, and I ask the Tribunal -- in accordance with this suggestion - to take judicial notice of my speech which I shall submit in writing. If my unofficial translation has been completed at the end of today's session I shall present it.
THE PRESIDENT: That is agreeable, and we will give your written document every consideration.
DR. MAYER: Thank you very much, your Honor.
DR. PRIBILLA(for defendant Tschentscher): Your Honor, my final plea is not an oral speech, but I have written it down in the form of a closing brief. For factual reasons I would prefer it if this closing brief would be studied by the Tribunal, and if it would form the basis for the Tribunal's verdict. However, I would like to take a look at the translation first so that I can correct it. Unfortunately, however, that is not possible anymore because I have heard that the translation has only been completed so far in one copy, in handwriting. However, I assume that the Court will permit me to turn again to the Tribunal if any corrections should be necessary in the translation. I therefore request that I be permitted to submit my official plea to the Tribunal in writing, and that the verdict of the Tribunal be based on my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you going to do now?
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, I believe that it will be sufficient for me to state on my part, that the translation will be submitted in writing to the Tribunal this afternoon or tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you will have an opportunity to make any corrections that you wish in the translation, at any time.
DR. FROESCHMANN (for defendant Mummenthey): Your Honor, in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal I have made inquiries at the Translation Department, and I have been informed that the translation of my final plea will be completed by 1700 hours this afternoon. I therefore ask the Tribunal for instructions on what I am to do now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it now appears that we should hear from Dr. Froeschmann and Dr. Bergold with translations tomorrow morning. And that will be the last. Should we all go swimming?
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, during the recess I received an inquiry from the Secretary-General about my document books. May I clarify the matter? For Tschentscher the following have been submitted: Document Book I and Document Book III. Book II was not submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: That is understood.
There being no alternative, the Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on September 20, 1947, at 0900 hours, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
DR. SEIDL (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT POHL): Your Honors, on next Monday morning the last statements of the defendants are to be heard. If I understood the Tribunal correctly, the Tribunal has set three hours to dispose of all the statements of the defendants. A schedule has been set up to show just approximately how long the last words of the defendants will take. The results are that less than three hours will probably be necessary, less than three hours. Quite a number of the defendants here will only speak for five minutes instead of ten minutes.
Under these circumstances, Your Honors, may I understand that the Tribunal will raise no objection if the Defendant Pohl, due to the fact that he was the Chief of the WVHA, would require a few more minutes than ten minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is perfectly agreeable. If some of the defendants want to give some of their time to other defendants, that is quite agreeable. Ein Moment.
Judge Phillips suggests, Dr. Seidl, that Mr. Pohl speak last, and then he will know just how much time he has left.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I believe that this will not be necessary We have a schedule which is rather very accurate and from this it can be seen that we shall need a little more than two hours. The Defendant Pohl will probably only speak for a few more minutes than are granted him.
I am only making this application to the Tribunal, because something had been mentioned about ten minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll convene at 9:30 then on Monday morning, and do you understand that we are to use Court Room No. 1, the Court room where the medical case was tried, and we'll convene at 9:30 and hear the statements of the defendants in whatever order that you agree upon.
DR. SEIDL: A bulletin was affixed to the bulletin board of the defense counsel, according to which this final session will take place in Tribunal No. 1.
DR. GAWLIK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS VOLK AND BOBERMIN): May it please your Honors, I made the request of the Secretary General to have the English record changed. As far as the Defendants Bobermin and Volk are concerned, the record contains a certain irregularities and certain mistakes, and I have it all, Your Honors. I would like to give you a copy of my corrections. There are two applications, Your Honors, one is for Dr. Volk and the other for Dr. Bobermin.
Your Honors, there is something else I would like to mention. This afternoon we won't be able to speak to the defendants. However, it is absolutely necessary that we speak to them, in view of their last statements before Monday. I would appreciate it, if the Tribunal could rule on giving us the permission to see the defendants this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Why can you not see them this afternoon?
DR. GAWLIK: On Saturday there is no possibility to see the defendants in the afternoon, only in the morning. As we are having a session this morning we won't be able to see them. This applies to every Saturday.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. I'll take care of it.
DR. MEYER (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT KIEFER): May it please Your Honors. Since the Translation Department has not translated my final plea as yet, I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would accept a translations which I have had made and I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would read it and take judicial notice of it, as they said yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Translation Department is going to translate your final plea.
DR. MEYER: Yes, but I don't know when it will be ready and the translation will be ready to introduce it in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FROESCHMANN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT MUMMENTHEY): Your Honors, before I start with my final plea, I would like to make a very short statement. Complying with the President's wish, I have also made up my mind, to read only certain massages from my written final plea. This resolution is based on the fact that the Tribunal is governed by the principle publicity and that have certain objections, if the final pleas are not submitted orally to the Tribunal, the prosecution had the opportunity also to repeat in public in their final plea the charges against all their defendants, including Mummenthey. If Your Honors please, I shall now begin with my final plea.
Mr. President, Your Honors, in the opening speech, the prosecution called the DEST one of the most murderous exploiters of the concentration camp inmates and designated the defendant Mummenthey in his capacity as Business Manager of the DEST as -- and I quote, "a master in the slave labor economy." The course of the trial has made the judgment of the prosecution ridiculous.
Mummenthey today no longer stands in the spotlight of this trial as the conscienceless and unscrupulous champion of a slave labor program, who valued production and gain more highly than human lives. From all sides Mummenthey was shown to be the very image of a man who not only had a warm benificent heart, a strong humame feeling for the prisoners, their needs and wants, but who firmly translated his humane impulses into effective deeds, even at the danger of personal disadvantages.
This judgment coincides with the general impression which everyone participating in the trial in this court room must have gained from hearing about Mummenthey's character.
It is characteristic of this trial, that with the exception of the Defendant Hohberg, all the defendants were members of the SS, which has been declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal. From the beginning of the trial this fact meant a serious charge for all the defendants. Its effect becomes still more intensified by the sentence of Military Tribunal No. I in the doctor's trial, which sentenced all the defendants, insofar as they belonged to the SS, to death or to long terms imprisonment.
The thinking of all of us has not yet attained sufficient distance from the events of those years. The real facts of the case are still far too little unravelled with regard to time and facts and too greatly dominated by seemingly logical combinations. There is therefore the great danger, of subordination from the incarnation of all evil, whatever bore even the mere name of the SS or stood in any sort of relationship whatsoever to it, as represented in the person of Himmler to subordinate everything not only purely legally but also morally, prima vista to the verdict of the Military Tribunal, and to put it onto the index of the world public. Nothing, however, would be more in error than to regard the SS -- as the Witness Bickel emphasized, by virtue of his extensive knowledge of it -- as a structure complete in itself, and thereby to consider the hundreds of thousands who once wore the uniform of the SS as criminals, only because they were members of the SS, who were dishonored by the ruthless activity of a few thousands.
In the final deliberations of my final plea I have developed the idea that according to the Nurnberg verdict the sentencing of an SS member under Count 4 of the indictment can only take place if apart from having personally committed a crime is at least one activity of abetting in a war crime or crime against humanity.