The atrocities of which he is accused at present were then unknown to him. In front of the doors of the concentration camp stood the Camp Commandant who refused him entry and, therefore, a clear understanding For him Mummenthey was no more than a little Obersturmbannfuehrer, whose rank did not entitle him to ask for confirmation. Had Mummenthey known what was going on behind the barbed wires, his honest nature would have found a way out, even though he himself would have lost his freedom and his life in the effort. He only knew what his fellow workers and the plant-manager told him. But that was not enough to make him escape his sphere of action by going to the front. He had no such connections as Salpeter.
Mummenthey, therefore, stayed at his post and did as much good as he was able to do. In spite or, perhaps, because of his service degree in spite of his description "Chief of the office" he was and never became anything else but a Co-director of the DEST, taking his orders from the DWB, a victim, but not a criminal neither our of laziness nor on purpose. He believe in the righteousness of men, in the integrity of the institutions of the State and of its leading men. His kind nature could not believe in other people's inhuman attitude.
Mummenthey was free of the conceit of the upstarts which possessed so many of the other SS-leaders who had come into power; irreproachable and modest in his conduct and way of life but always anxious to help wherever possible, tactically and constructively. Spirit and action were perfectly balanced, like power and matter, one only to be created out of the other and creative, in itself - thus Mummenthey's personality appears before us today.
The Prosecution has done everything in its power to bring witnesses against DEST and Mummenthey. Although no less than 14,000 prisoners were working for the DEST, none of them was able to bring up anything immediately incriminating against them.
But one of them, the crown witness, was convicted of perjury.
If is a fundamental idea in the life of all peoples that only the criminal attitude, the criminal action, may be punished. Where has such an attitude been found in Mummenthey's life; where such an activity been proved? Mummenthey need not fear the consequences of his own guilty. His entering will was concentrated on the improvement of the fate of the prisoners. The "Powers of meanness, stupidity and an empty heard" to speak in terms used by a famous German writer who still lives in exile, were stronger than Mummenthey's human endeavor. That is the tragic issue, but not the crime in Mummenthey's life.
I ask that the defendant be acquitted.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal 2 is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Arrangements have been made for Defense Counsel to interview their clients in Room 57 between one-thirty and four o'clock this afternoon.
DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant H. Klein): May it please the Tribunal, when I realized that in this case against Oswald Pohl and the members of the WVHA perhaps I should have to speak the last word that would reach Your Honors before pronouncing the verdict, I did not shrink from it. But my work became more unreal to me. For some learned men had to speak before me, so that my statements really would be nothing more than repetitions, nothing but echoes of words that had died already. But what can be more ghostly than an echo?
It then weighed upon my soul that by such a process this trial would become even more unreal than it is already now. It seems to me that, as time passes, the justice for which we are looking here flees away into the Fata Morgana of the heated air of a fight which is being decided a new, though in the intellectual field, between our nations.
Indeed, it is quite evident, that no longer the acts of the individual defendants are concerned, but that the defendants themselves stand more and more for the idea of a Germany that, on her part reproaches most seriously the victor powers and points to many a crime, without having the power of an authorized charge. But thus your courts would lose the general mandate of humanity which seemed to be definitely at the beginning of the trials.
I say these words from a deep sorrow. For a court that does not touch the perplexed heart of the defendant is anyhow unreal and void. The time will come perhaps when, in the countries of the victors too, the mistake in this kind of looking-for-justice is recognized.
But then judgeship should be given bank into the hands of the German people, though on condition that simultaneously certain crimes that have been committed by subjects of the victor powers during the war or after should be prosecuted by the courts on demand of the German authorities.
This may be considered to be an immense, Utopian claim. I do not speak from any nationalistic feeling. I think it to be the supreme duty of mankind to once demand before the ears of the public, that the severest justice should be meted out before a court of mankind.
The disastrous moral harms of our time cannot be cured by the usual means but only by the unusual, by what the supreme leaders of mankind, such as Jesus, Buddha and Laotse and others would recommend in such a situation. But these would say that before justice there were neither victors nor vanquished foes, and that justice could only be indivisible. Perhaps they would even say that a one-sided justice would cause the worst danger for the souls of men condemned by it; that is, the feeling of being a victim and not a sentenced person. But is justice authorized to endanger the souls?
But as long as the law, according to which Your Honors have to judge exists in its present form, which you did not create, all of us can only overcome the threatening internal danger by absolutely restricting ourselves to the individual case of the individual defendant and putting aside anything and everything that would make the individual defendant only the representative of a greater generality, starting from general knowledge. We must not examine what is valid for many - or at least ought to be valid -- but only what is valid for the individual defendant in question here.
I should not have said all this if I had not myself gained the sure confidence from your former decisions that you were also as deeply stirred as I was by the same motive. This decision of yours by which you cancelled Count 1 of the Indictment, the charge of Conspiracy in the case in question, has shown to me that your wisdom finds also justice only in judging the individual defendant in his individual case and that you try to avoid all generalizing.
If I now turn to the defendant Horst Klein, who is defended by me, then I believe that I am able to state that I have shown proof for my description of the defendant and his activities in the opening speech.
The defendant Horst Klein was chief of Office in the WVHA, Chief of Office in W-8, Special Tasks. I remind the Honorable Court of the testimony made by the defendant in which he described in detail what activities he had to perform. All the societies and homes of which he was in charge had nothing, yes, nothing at all to do with the general, aims and aspirations of the WVHA., This is evident already from the name of the office itself. According to its name, it was supposed to deal with special tasks. These special tasks, however, did not belong to the group of ill-famed Special Measures. They were rather separate tasks, tasks, therefore, which , according to the German sense of the word, did not coincide with the general tasks of the WVHA. The aims of these societies have been described in detail by the defendant.
There was, first of all, the society "Association for the Promotion and Preservation oF German Cultural Monuments" the purpose of which was to take care of monuments of historical value, a task which is carried out in other countries by historians of art. The association has a large amount of such historical art objects under its care. The Wewelsburg was only me of the objects, among many others. The next association is the so- called Externstein institution, which had as its task the came for the remains of an old-Germanic, early-Christian relic. Another association is represented by the King Henry institution which held festivals in the Cathedral of Quedlinburg, and contributed to the maintenance of the Cathedral. The last society which the defendant was in charge of was the society Convalescent Homes for Natural Recovery and Standard of Life, the aim of which was to operate convalescent homes for women and children, and to administer SS hospitals. It is clearly evident that these societies and homes could have been operated just as well outside the WVHA.
They were never interested in economic, but always only in ideal and charitable aims. In no case whatsoever did they have to serve the purpose of financing the Schutzstaffel as such. On the contrary, they were purely subsidized enterprises. Their activity never aimed at financial gains. If the Society for the Promotion and Preservation of German Cultural Monuments would not have had a connection with the Wewelsburg,nobody would have thought of connecting the associations and homes managed by the defendant with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The evidence has not shown that the defendant Horst Klein, or associations managed by him respectively, participated in crimes committed in the countries occupied after the start of the war. Whatever may have happened in these countries with regard to inhumane acts, Horst Klein did not even know anything about them. He did not have any share in crimes and offenses against the health, life or property committed in violation of the laws or customs of war; neither in the murders nor maltreatment of the civilian population of the occupied territories; nor in their deportation for the purpose of forced labor or other purposes; nor in the use of slave labor in the occupied territories themselves; nor in the murders and maltreatment of prisoners of war and persons on the high seas; not in the killing of hostages, the plunder of public and private property in the occupied territories; nor in the intentional plundering of towns and villages or in devastations which were not justified by military necessities. Neither the defendant nor his associations can be made responsible for all these crimes. It has not even been proved that he knew anything at all about such crimes.
It has obviously, and with certainty, been shown that the associations managed by the defendant never had any contact with the territories or their inhabitants affected by the wars of aggression; nor did the office of the defendant have anything to do with the set-up of the concentration camps.
It was not in charge of the management, the operation and administration of the camps, nor did it have anything to do with the construction of new camps. It was not responsible for the feeding, clothing or housing of the inmates, nor for the sanitary equipment or the medical care of the prisoners, nor for the order, organization and discipline of their life, and was not authorized to ask for the death penalty if rules of any kind were violated.
The Office W-8 never worked for the procurement of forced labor and for the allotment of prisoners to working places. This office also was never in charge of the transport of inmates and never did the defendant and his office participate in murders, tortures, and ill-treatments of concentration camp inmates. Even the Prosecution was unable to assert that the defendant and his office participated in any way in the terrible medical, surgical and biological experiments.
Here I would like to add that on page 61 of the English transcript there is a mistake as the word "not" was left out. The answer there should be: "Was not in Wewelsburg at that time." This also becomes evident on page 6137 of the German record. And I continue.
Finally, the defendant never supported plans and executions which aimed at the subjugation and elimination of whole races and nations, be it through murders, castration, sterilization or the so-called euthanasia treatment.
The fact alone that, according to his own statement even regarding the camp Wewelsburg, which he never entered, he did not know who had to stay in this camp, proves clearly the insignificant connection of the defendant Horst Klein with all these war crimes. His statement shows that he was only informed about the fact that in this camp offenders sentenced to security detention and habitual criminals were employed. He was expressly told that political prisoners were not kept there because the danger of escaping was too great in these branch camps.
He also never heard that prisoners of war or foreigners were sent to concentration camps.
Right here I have to point out that the English record of Klein's statement, on page 6151, contains a very serious translation error. There the word "Sicherungsverwahrung" has been translated by the same English term used for "Schutzhaft", namely by "protective custody". However, "Sicherungsverwahrung" should be translated by "security detention." The defendant himself declared in his statement that "Sicherungsverwahrung" (security detention) was inflicted by the public courts on habitual criminals as the highest penalty which could be pronounced in Germany. This corresponds exactly to the German laws. The security detention has always, and only, been inflicted by courts in the regular criminal procedure.
If now the defendant Klein did not know anything about the fact that prisoners of war and foreigners were brought to the concentration camp; if, especially regarding the camp Wewelsburg, he did not know anything about this, how then could any connection be made between him and war crimes? The activities Horst Klein was charged with were peaceful ones. They were not in any way connected with the terrible events of the war. The only thing which Klein connected with the war was the management of the hospitals. But to take care of hospitals is no war crime, and for this activity the defendant did not have to commit crimes.
As therefore the defendant cannot be held responsible regarding all cases just mentioned, the indictment in Count II is entirely unjustified.
If a Count of the Indictment deserves serious consideration, then this can only be Count III of the Indictment, namely, the count of the indictment referring to crimes against humanity; i.e., in connection with the camp Wewelsburg. May I first take the liberty of reminding the Court of the legal questions which it has considered the important ones in the case of Milch; the examination of which is necessary in order to determine the guilt of a defendant.
It has not been denied by the defendant nor by me that crimes have been committed in the Wewelsburg camp. If there had been no crimes in the Wewelsburg camp the defendant could not have been brought into this court. The first legal question to be examined is: whether the defendant Horst Klein participated personally in the crimes committed at Wewelsburg.
The Prosecution has not proved that the defendant has participated in person. The defendant himself has deposed that he never set foot into the camp; nor has any person ever seen him in the camp. The Wewelsburg prisoners who were interrogated: the witnesses Krause, Radkowski and Specht, stated unanimously that they never saw Horst Klein in the camp, that they had not even heard his name, and that they saw him here for the first time. These witnesses had been inmates of the camp during the whole period of its existence.
Your Honors, no one in the world has been better informed about the criminals responsible for the conditions and misdeeds in the camp than the prisoners in the camp themselves. If three witnesses who had been in the Wewelsburg camp during the whole time of its existence unanimously confirm that they never knew the defendant, it may be assumed with certainty that they never knew the defendant, it may be assumed with certainty that the statement of the defendant Horst Klein - that he never entered the camp - is correct. The witness Schwarz gave at first an affidavit that contains a statement to the contrary. But he later withdrew this affidavit without having been influenced by anyone, saying that his statements had only been conclusions and tales from hearsay. Apart from the fact that this in itself makes his deposition quite worthless, it can be said that the witness has proved to be a person of so little conscientiousness and seriousness that no person conscious of his responsibility should be able to base his verdict on his statements.
Thus, it is in no way proved that the defendant has participated in the crimes committed in the Wewelsburg camp, as a principal or as an accessory to the commission of such crimes - that is, that he participated in person.
The next question to be examined would be whether the crimes committed in Wewelsburg were carried out under the direction of Klein or at his orders. Also in this respect the evidence has unmistakably shown that such a charge cannot be made against Klein.
By the statements of the witness Gen. Wolff (Exhibit Horst Klein No. 5) it is proved that in the Main Office Personal Staff Reichsfuehrer SS, there existed at least since 1938 a separate office Wewelsburg; that this office was located at Wewelsburg, that the SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the SS, Taubert, was the Office Chief of this office and that one of the departments of this office was the so-called "Bauleitung Wewelsburg" (Construction Bureau Wewelsburg), the chief of which was the architect and SS Standartenfuehrer Bartels.
I should like to point out that Bartels had held, as SS Standartenfuehrer, a higher rank than Horst Klein. Furthermore, Wolff confirmed again as a witness, on page 2126 of the English record, that Bartels was a member of the Personal Staff Reichsfuehrer SS. This Personal Staff was a Main Office of the same level as the WVHA, if not superior to it. Moreover, Wolff explicitly stated that the defendant Klein never had any authority of command over Herr Bartels. The most significant part of Wolff's statements, however, is the one in which he says that the defendant Klein never was a superior of the prisoners' camp or of its commandant Haas. Please do not forget either that Wolff was saying the truth when he stated the construction work for Wewelsburg was ordered exclusively by Himmler on the suggestion of Bartels, and that not even Pohl had any say in fixing the extent, and the execution, of the construction plans. The installation of the prisoners camp had also been ordered by Himmler at Eicke's suggestions.
The affidavits of Johannes Steuer, the permanent secretary of the defendant Klein (Horst Klein Exhibit No. 6) and of Kurt Kraemer, the commercial manager of the Construction Bureau Wewelsburg (Horst Klein Exhibit No. 7, pages 20 and 21 of the English Document Book Klein) also unanimously confirm that Horst Klein had no say whatsoever in the constructional measures at Wewelsburg, nor in the employment of prisoners, because the construction bureau Wewelsburg and the Wewelsburg camp were not subordinated to him. The same statement has been made by the defendant himself. This statement is certainly the truth, because it is confirmed by the statements of the other witnesses.
Thus the fact has been established that the defendant had no power of direction or authority of command with regard to the construction plans of the Wewelsburg camp. Thus he cannot have ordered the commission of the crimes.
But, in addition to this, he took no part at all in the planning of the crimes. You have heard that at the beginning prisoners were not to be used for the construction work at the Wewelsburg, but rather the manpower of the German Labor Service, a para-military organization into which every fit young German was conscripted. Only, when at the beginning of the war those members of the German Labor Service were used for purposes of war, Himmler ordered (according to the statement of the witness Wolff) at the suggestion of Gruppenfuehrer Eicke that prisoners should be used. Wolff stated furthermore that it was the Construction Chief Bartels who urged Himmler to further increase the number of inmates. This proves that the defendant was not instrumental in the employment of prisoners for the construction of the castle, nor in the continuous increase of the number of prisoners who were forced to work there.
The question arises whether it could not be said that the defendant Klein did take part in the crimes by the fact that he had as Chief of Office W-VIII and as representative of the Society for the Furtherance and Care of German Cultural Monuments, been compelled according to orders to acquire sites for the purpose of enlarging the castle area or for the SS settlements which were to be built at a future time in the neighborhood of the castle, and that he had to place at the disposal of the construction bureau Wewelsberg at its request sums of money out of a credit from the Dresnder Bank?
In my opinion the answer to this question has to be in the negative. It is obvious that the acquisition of plots of land could not have caused the atrocities committed at Wewelsburg, the less so because these plots were only meant for future construction work, and had, for the present, no connection with the construction work. But it is also obvious that placing gums of money at the disposal of the independent construction bureau does not involve taking part in atrocities. The witness Wolff has stated on page 2201 of the English record, that it was Himmler himself who had ordered the financing of the construction plants and that the negotiations about the credit of the Dresdner Bank had been started in peace-time by Wolff on Himmler's orders, at a time when there were no prisoners employed, and that the credit initiated in this way was carried through. By this it is proved that firstly the credit had been obtained by the Dresdner Bank at a time when there were no prisoners working at Wewlsburg, and, in the second place, that Klein had nothing to do with it. Klein, was, according to his own statement, charged with the financial administration of the company as late as in April 1940 that is, long after the credit had been obtained by the Dresdner Bank. That is page 6111 of the English record-- and at that time the inmates had already started working. According to Klein's own statements, as well as according to the witness Steuer, Klein's Exhibit No. 6, page 11 of the English Document Book Horst Klein and of the witness Kramer, Klein's Exhibit No. 7, page 21 of the English Document Book Horst Klein, the defendant had to do nothing but to place at the disposal of the construction bureau larger sums which it required from time to time without informing the defendant for what purpose the money would be employed.
The witness Stewer stated in the above-mentioned passages of his affidavit that Bartels even expressly declined to account for the use of the money. He only gave general information about the use of the money. Pohl instructed the defendant even expressly not to bother about anything but only to hand out the money and to ask for a receipt. This would be the limits of his responsibility. All that has been stated by the Witness Steuer.
How could the defendant be blamed for anything in this respect? The placing of sums of money at the disposal of the construction bureau has never been causative of the commission of atrocities. It should have really been possible to carry out the construction work without committing crimes against humanity. In addition, it would have been of no use if the defendant had refused to hand those sums of money over to the Construction Chief Bartels. General Wolff brought to light in the course of his interrogation as a witness, that by refusing the sums requested from him, Klein could not possibly have achieved that the construction work would have been stopped, that, on the contrary, Klein would, in this case have been at once taken to task by Himmler and punished for having sabotaged an order by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Thus, there is no denying that it was not in Klein's power to prevent the execution of the construction work.
I would like to point out here that in the judgment of the Honorable Judge Musmanno against Milch, on page 96 of the English Document, he states that it was never the intention of the American Court to compel a man to choose a way which could end in the loss of his life. This opinion of Judge Musmanno is obviously in accordance with a wise opinion generally known in American legislature. I here refer to the sentence of the Supreme Court in the case of McIntosh, which, as far as I am informed, is dated 25 May 1931, and in which the Supreme Court of the United States says about the following:
"A citizen cannot be internationally compelled to a behavior which is, according to penal law, punished by death within the state as high treason, treason, sabotage, or resistance against the state authority. It would not be consistent with the sense of justice to place him before one of these two alternatives: either to obey inside his state the laws of his country and thereby to become internationally a criminal liable to punishment, or, following international regulations, to be compelled to attempt a civil war and thereby since such an attempt is always hopeless, in a state, to accept martyrdom for himself and his family. There ought to exist according to international principles of law at least some international agency which would protect him, if he violates national laws in order to be able to obey international laws."
Your Honors, the English literature (CDh Cole) emphasizes this connection between protection and obedience, warning that the power of obligation of a community depends on its objective power of protection (protego, ero obligo). This applies, of course, also to international regulation May I point out that even according to the laws of your state even judges are bound to disregard the provisions of international law, that means, to violate them, if the American law is incompatible with it.
In view of the observation of such sublime and just principles it is obvious that the defendant Klein cannot be blamed for having acquired plots of land for the project Wewelsberg, and for having placed at the disposal of the construction bureau sums of money according to orders, without real knowledge of their use.
He could not have been of use by refusing to obey the order and thus it would have been unnecessary to jeopardize his life. It is ture it could be said that he might have relinquished his position, but even this was impossible. The defendant explained in this statement on page 6204 of the English record, that in the fall of 1939 or the spring of 1940 Pohl called the whole staff of the WVHA together on the site at the Leibstandarte in Lichterfelde.
He told them that from now on all applications for transfer or discharge, even applications for transfer to the front line, were prohibited and that any violation of this order would be punished by him with sending them to the concentration camp.
This proves that Klein was not even in a position to evade the obligation thrust upon him within the sphere of his duties for the Society for the Furtherance and Care of German Cultural Monuments, namely, the procurement of money. Therefore, even by neglecting to retire, he did not omit to act in a manner that could be duly expected of him. He could not be expected to expose himself to the penalty of confinement in a concentration camp for actions, which were in themselves quite innocuous and as has been shown above were not causative of the atrocities.
However, it is significant for the person of Klein that at the beginning of the war, that is, at the beginning of 1940, his influence to try to have the construction work discontinued, although he had no idea at all that atrocities had been committed. The witness has stated that Klein as early as Spring 1940 suggested to Himmler that the construction work should be discontinued at a time when the work of the prisoners had just started. According to Klein's statements, the work has in fact been suspended for some time, until it was again resumed by an order of Himmler at the instigation of Bartels. If the suspension had lasted, no atrocities would have been committed at Wewelsburg. Exhibit 638 of the prosecution shows that in 1940 hardly any prisoners died. A stoppage in 1940 would therefore have prevented any misdeeds.
Although I believe I have shown that Klein cannot be blamed in any way for inhumane acts committed in Camp Wewelsburg, I still want to examine the question whether Klein knew, before the work began, that it would become endless and inhumane.
I am sure that this question too will be answered in the negative according to the evidence submitted.
What did Klein know at all about this inmate labor? He knew that the inmates performed work on the castle itself. He received reports from Bartels concerning the construction work. He did not even know how many inmates there were in Camp Wewelsburg, because the strength of labor reported by Bartels was always under 500. Then, on the few occasions that he himself inspected the construction work at the castle proper, he saw small groups working consisting of 20 to 30 men. The men looked well, did not do excessively hard work and were supervised by civilian foreman. That was all. But from this he could not know that atrocities would occur in the performance of the work. He was always in Wewelsburg for too short a time to really make his own reliable observations. The witness, von Ruppert, has confirmed that from 1939 to 1944 the defendant was in Wewelsburg only about 3 or 4 times. The affidavit of the defendant's wife, Horst Klein Exhibit 14, page 34 of the English Document Book Horst Klein has clearly shown that Klein was in Wewelsburg hardly once in the first seven months of 1942, especially not when the witness Schwarz was at Wewelsburg. The defendant himself has stated that from 1939 to 1940 he was in Wewelsburg about once every four months and in 1941 about four times. In 1942 he was, according to his statement, in Wewelsburg one in March, to negotiate with the owner of Boddecken, a Herr von Mallinkrodt, and then again in Boddecken in August 1942. Outside of this, he was not in or near Wewelsburg during the entire year. In 1943 the defendant, according to his own statement, was in Boddecken once, in August 1943, and in 1944 he was in Wewelsburg twice. The truth of this statement is shown, aside from the testimony of other witnesses by the fact that at that time Klein had many other big tasks to perform especially in 1942, with building up the Heimeverin with its many recreations homes and hospitals. Furthermore, the truth of these statements can be determined from the fact that the purchase of real estate ended when Boddecken was acquired. The majority of atrocities happened in 1942 until April 1943.
This was exactly the period during which the defendant was in Boddecken only twice. It was also proved by his statement that he never remainded at Wewelsburg over night. This is shown on page 61 and 62 of the English record. I have already shown that as far as the defendant saw the inmates at work, they were occupied with normal construction work. It has not been proved that the accused ever heard about the high mortality rate in Camp Wewelsburg. The witness Ebbers from whom he could have found this out, had never seen nor heard the name of the defendant until he arrived in Nurnberg to be a witness. This points out the fact that the defendant was seldom in Wewelsburg and essentially had nothing at all to do with the camp.
The defendant also did not know that the prisoners were flayed with the horrible whip of hunger. Your honors, you have heard from the defendant Klein himself that he had in 1942, after the Boddecken property had been acquired, ordered the estate to arrange its agricultural activities according to the needs of the camp. He said that he did not order this because he had heard that the food in Camp Wewelsburg was bad, but only because he desired to assure a good customer for the estate.
This is on page 6145 of the English record. The witness Steuer confirms the same thing (Horst Klein Exhibit 6, page 13, English Document Book Horst Klein.)
But Klein also did not know that Pohl had ordered exhaustive work for the prisoners in May 1942. Klein himself, in his statement -English record on pages 6143-6144, as well as the witness Steuer, the defendant's secretary (Horst Klein Exhibit 6, pages 13 and 14, English Document Book Horst Klein) have confirmed that Klein knew nothing of Pohl's order of May 1942. If you further confirmed that Klein has been altogether, but once in the vicinity of wewelsburg, at the Boeddecken estate, in the period between May 1942 and April 1943, in which month Wewelsburg camp was broken up - then any thoughtful person can see that he could not have known about an excessive use of inmates as laborers. The Prosecution presented at the conclusion an affidavit by the Wewelsburg inmates wherein they testify that most of the deaths occurred in the winter 1942 - 1943 i.e., between October 1942 and April 1943.
Your Honors, the defendant Klein has not been in wewelsburg once during this period. How and where in the world should he have found out about these atrocities? No one may be credited with supernatural gifts unless these can be clearly proven. I am of the opinion that I have shown here by my deliberations that the defendant Horst Klein knew, and could know, nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about the atrocities.
Honorable Judges, I want to recall to your memory the description of that grotesque scene which the defendant revealed to you. This is the scene in which he and his father joyfully and relieved drank a bottle of wine together on the evening they heard about the so-called clemency granted to the sister of the defendant the witness von Rouppert to be committed into a concentration camp. This was the English Record page 6206.
At that time, in November 1943, the two men throught that thereby the life of their daughter and sister had been saved; they even thought that their daughter and sister was better off in Ravensbrueck than in a German city fail because she would be sheltered from Allied air raids.
If, at that time, in November 1943, the defendant and his father - who rejected the Party so bitterly - had the slightest suspicion of atrocities; if the defendant had even only known through insinuations that prisoners were to be worked to death -- do you not believe that the defendant would have trembled at the thought of the future fate of his sister? Can one really presume that he would been have had the heart to celebrate with his farther? The most cruel person trembles for the life loved ones. Look at the defendant. Does he impress any one as a monster? Therefore, nothing illustrates more clearly the ignorance of the defendant concerning the atrocities committed in the camps than the fact just described.
What did the defendant actually know? Only this -- namely, that the inmates had to work in the concentration camps -- he believed, as I have already shown, that there were in the concentration camps mainly hardened criminals, persons under security confinement, and political prisoners; the last ones because they had, like his sister violated the regulations of the National Socialistic Reich. He had no idea that a person could be committed to a concentration camp by an arbitrary decision of the Gestapo. He thought the protective custody proceedings to be a sort of chamber justice that differed from a regular court trial only in that it was not public. The proceedings against his sister did not prove the contrary. Just because he was able to find out that in his sister's case, too, extensive interrogations had taken place and that witnesses had been heard - he had to believe even more firmly that this was not an arbitrary measure. Are we not forced to think twice when we consider that the witness von Rouppert also at the concentration camp Ravensbrueck met mostly women, who had a proper trial? She met only Russian and Gypsy women who had been sent to the concentration camp without any special proceedings. All the others had been tried.
The witness stated this upon the question of the Honorable Judge Musmanno on 12 August 1947. But Horst Klein did not meet Gypsies and Russians; he did not even know they were being sent to concentration camps. Therefore, the defendant had to deduce from what he did know, that inmates of a protective custody camp got there after a particular process - either a trial before a court or after special police proceedings. He never learned that inmates had been arbitrary herded together in order to be used as slaves. Could he, under these circumstances, consider the employment of the inmates as criminals. The Honorable Judge Musmanno declared in his verdict against Milch that the employment of the inmates could not yet be considered punishable.
This view is correct because all over the world prisoners are put to work. I am of the opinion that the use of prisoners becomes a crime after the strength of the prisoner has been excessively and inconsiderly abused, accompanied by hunger and torture. But the defendant Horst Klein had no knowledge of this. It is also a fact that concentration camp inmates were not maltreated everywhere. I refer to the Ruff affidavit (Horst Klein Exhibit 15, page 56, English Record Document Book Horst Klein). This statement proves that the prisoners were often treated very well in such outside camps.
The fact that the prisoners did not receive full reimbursement for their work could also not brand their employment, so far as Klein was concerned, as a crime. He who had worked during his training period for a short while in the administration of a prison of the Justice Department, and who had assumed that all the prisoners had been committed into the camps through regular proceedings, had to consider this as correct -according to his knowledge of prison administration. All over the world such prisoners do not receive their full pay. In Germany, at least, prisoners received - even under the Weimar Republic - only a very meager reimbursement which they could not even legally claim.
Therefore, I can state that Horst Klein did not know, before the prisoners were put to work in Wewelsburg, that they would be worked without end, and inhumanely, nor did he know of the later excesses.