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.
I would like to mention, on the side, that I do not believe Horst Klein could be accused of participation in the crimes in Wewelsburg, even if he knew of them because, as has been shown, he had no direct connection with them in any sense, because he had no power to issue directives or orders to either the Construction management or the camp, and he could do nothing to prevent the crimes.
I must also raise the question whether he could not learn of these crimes through the reports which from time to time he had to submit to Pohl, and whether he thereby participated in the crimes. I would like to add here that on page 6299 of the record there is a mistake. It should read correctly "The construction management". And that is on page 2634 of the German record.
The report, Exhibit 455, Document 547, Document Book 17 of the Prosecution, contains for any unprejudiced viewer no word by which it could be proved that Klein had knowledge of the crimes. They contain with regard to Wewelsburg, only bare facts - only the fact that inmates were employed and the extent of such employment. Furthermore, Klein did not actually know these facts first-hand but had learned them from copies of reports which the Construction managements sent to Himmler, and or the Main Office Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Here I refer also, besides Klein's own testimony, to the English Record 6168 - especially also to the statement of Klein's secretary, the witness Steuer. (Horst Klein Exhibit 6, page 12, English Document Book Horst Klein.) Could it now be said, however, that Klein had made himself an accessory to these atrocities which were unknown to him, by passing on these reports to Pohl?
He who seeks justice must deny this. The reports contain nothing that even remotely resembles a consent to, or a demand for the commission of crimes. Before I go on from this point may I remind the Court that, according to the exact exposition of the defendant, the reports have not been presented to the Court in the correct sequence of the pages.
In bringing up the last form of participation according to Article II, paragraph 2, of the Control Council Law No. 10, it must be clear that the defendant did not participate either in these crimes through consent. He who is ignorant of something cannot consent to it. Furthermore, the attitude of the defendant, for instance, concerning racial persecution, is just what proves that he is not a man who would have condoned crimes. In the case of racial persecution he stood up for racially persecuted people, thereby exposing himself to danger.
I can justly say, at the end of this plea, that the defendant Klein has not involved himself, in regard to employment of inmates, in any participation in crimes.
The prosecution has attempted to blame Klein for being involved in the acquisition of the Lawkowicz property, or at least a part of it. In this respect it must be remembered that during the activity of the defendant nor through his efforts, no such purchase by the SS has been effected. Further to be remembered is that this property had been confiscated by the competent Reich agency a long time before the defendant worked on this case, and this according to the regulation which was legally binding for all citizens, according to which the property of men who were German citizens was to be confiscated if they should work against the German Reich in a foreign country.
And here I want to include something. The documents submitted in Document Book 33, by the Prosecution - do not prove anything against the correctness of these statements made by defendants. The documents, which only originated from the year 1941, do not refer to the seizure, but only to the final confiscation. They prove that this confiscation actually was not effected on behalf of the SS but exclusively on behalf of the German Reich. In particular, the last document No. 4942, Exhibit 735, shows that the Lawkowicz property was not utilized at all, but that it was in its entire extent received on behalf of the German Reich, which was represented by the German Minister of Finance and he again represented by the senior Finance president.
I continue with my original text: The defendant could not be convicted on this point for the further reason that because according to the judgement pronounced by the International Military Tribunal the plundering of public and personal property, (with the exception of Jewish persecutees), can only be carried out against those countries and their citizens on whose behalf the indictment for conducting a war of aggression was made. That, however, are only those countries which were attacked by the German Armies after 1 September 1939, i.e., Poland, and those countries gradually dragged into the war. The plundering of public and private property has been defined as a war crime and can therefore, only be charged in connection with the war of aggression. This also shown in the exact wording of Article II, paragraph 1b, of the Control Council Law No. 10. The whole connection of this regulation points out that such an offense shall only be punished in connection with an act of war as a war crime. It results therefrom that membership in a criminal organization is only punishable after 1 September 1939, so that - in other words - that all members in such an organization are presumed to have acted in good faith with regard to matters that happened before that date. Czechoslovakia, however, became part of the German Reich before 1 September 1939.
Now I want to add something else. The prosecution has further tried to establish a connection between Klein and the libelous antiBolshevist pamphlet "The Sub-Human" (Das Unter-meusch), published by the Nordland Publishing Co. However, such connection is not proven. It is true that Klein has been their legal adviser, and prokurist for several months at the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940. But Klein had no connections with the activities of publication or the material published by the Nordland Publishing Co. "The Sub-Human Being" appeared sometime after the beginning of the campaign in Russia, and Klein did no longer work for a longtime already with the Nordland Publishing Company.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, will you have these extemporaneous remarks of yours introduced into the final written speech which will be submitted to us?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I had burned it in for translation but this page has gotten lost. Now I shall read the end of my deliberation whether the defendant Klein could be found guilty of a war crime, or a crime against humanity. I am of the opinion that this can not even be considered, and, therefore, request that the defendant be found not guilty on indictment counts 2 and 3. As for Count 4 of the charge, it is necessary first to make a few legal expositions. My learned friend and colleague, Dr. Haensel, submitted a trial brief to the Tribunal. In this brief he seeks to find, with very much keenness of the mind, and by use of devious routes, a solution to the question of what kind this knowledge ought to be sufficient for a conviction according to Article II, 1d of Control Council Law 10. He enlarged repeatedly upon the question whether this decree is to be interpreted according to the law of the land, or according to international law. He, who was one of those, like Laokoon, thrust the spear against the Trojan Horse of conspiracy, without having been devoured by the serpents, he himself finally leads, like one of the deceived inhabitants of Troy, by "a long rope" this wooden freak Horse of conspiracy back through the razed gate of the fortress, in the hope of hearing out of its hollow belly the solution of the ringing question.
I take the liberty to be of an opinion different in principle from that of my learned colleague. One should as a jurist so I was always taught by my old father, first and always go the simplest way, and interpret the law from within the law. Control Council Law No. 10, Article II, 1 d, was supplemented by the judgment of the IMT, which I wish to regard as an authentic interpretation. This judgment is simple and clear. It says literally: "The Tribunal declares as criminal in the sense of the statute that group of persons which was composed of such who were officially admitted to the SS, who became, or remained members of the organization, and had knowledge that they were used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the Statute, or, who as members of the organization were involved in the commission of such crimes." If one is to interpret these words with the aid of socalled common sense, one needs, I believe, no further refection whatsoever about the rules of interpretation of these words. They speak for themselves, as is to be expected of the High International Tribunal. They word "who" had knowledge that they were used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the Statute" comprise in an absolutely clear definition two kinds of knowledge, namely, first, the knowledge that such acts were committed at all, and, secondly, the knowledge that the members of the organization are used for the commitment of such kind of criminal action. Regarding the first mentioned kind of knowledge nothing is to be said. It is simple and self-evident. Everybody knows what constitutes knowledge of criminal acts. It is simply the apperception of facts. But the second knowledge in my opinion, is also clear. Naturally, it can not, to give first a negative definition, mean the knowledge that at some time members of the SS were by any one of the lower, or intermediate command ing organs of the SS, used for criminal acts.
For the fact that just any organ of an association like the SS at sometime or other without peruission, and contrary to the will of the proper authority make subordinates commit criminal acts, cannot be held against all members of such an organization. Such a standpoint would be so monstrous that nobody could call it justice any longer. But from this it results positively that the knowledge which the member of the SS must have, is the knowledge that the organization as ****** that is, the highest command, uses the members intentionally for the commitment of criminal acts. Thereby, it becomes apparent that simple knowledge of criminal acts is not sufficient to presume a criminal knowledge of the individual member of the SS. It seems to me that by stipulating such two-fold knowledge, one can decide much simpler and clearer when such a criminal knowledge prevails. Such an interpretation suffices for the special facts prevailing according to the judgment of the IMT Required are then no longer the learned expositions made by my colleague Haensel. In the knowledge that the members of the SS were intentionally used by their high command to perpetrate crimes, lies the guilt of the single individual, if he, in spite of such knowledge of intentional use for crimes, becomes or remains a member of the organization for the purpose of supporting cooperation.
The verdict of the Military Tribunal No.1 in the Poppendick Case seems to concur with my conclusions; for in this case the Tribunal ascertained repeatedly regarding the individual crimes of the several experiments that Poppendick had knowledge of the order by the highest command for the criminal experiments, and, the use of the SS for its execution. The Tribunal could, therefore, impute that he recognized from the multitude of the experiments the planned use of the SS. It, therefore, required no longer a special proof of planning. It is immediately obvious that based on this opinion, naturally, it is not sufficient to know that other organizations committed criminal acts.
It is also obvious that an individual defendant may furthermore defend himself against the crime that he became a member by stating that he did so in the interest of opposing the National Socialist regime, and to spy on its doings. Concerning the question who has the burden of proving the existence of such two-fold knowledge, as ascertained by me, I fully agree with my colleague Haensel, that the burden of proof of this aspect lies entirely with the Prosecution. I have said as much already in my opening statement.
It is clear that in this case one can **** immediately derive the supposition of such knowledge from the duration of membership, because it is always first necessary to ascertain what function the individual member of the SS had, and, especially, if he was in a position - in his function - acquire knowledge about the planned action of the high command. However, I believe to be able to demonstrate without further discussing the burden of proof, that the defendant Hans Klein possessed none of the two-fold knowledge necessary for his conviction. To find this it is only necessary to examine without prejudice the evidence sofar submitted. May prejudice arise from sentiments caused by hearing this trial, or by assimilating the manifold statements of propaganda against the German people. The statements of the witness Mrs, von Rupphert in her examination before this Tribunal, of Mrs. Olly Oldach (Klein's Exhibit No. 17) of Miss Sophie Wolff (Klein's Exhibit No. 18), of Mrs. Eva Stahl (Klein's Exhibit No. 19), of Dr. Boeltzig (Klein's Exhibit No. 20), of Mrs. Thea Dresser (Klein's Exhibit No. 21), as well as of the defendant himself, prove that Klein up to the outbreak of the war certainly had no idea that the SS was used for common criminal acts.
But for the time after 1 September 1939, the above mentioned witnesses have confirmed that Klein had no knowledge of criminal acts. Miss Oldach states on page 41 of the English Document Book, that the defendant Horst Klein had no knowledge whatsoever of the atrocities committed in the concentration camps, and that he was of the opinion that everything was entirely correct there.
Miss Wolff, too, states on page 48 of the English Document Book, Horst Klein, that Klein had no idea of the conditions in the concentration camps. On page 53 of the English Document Book Horst Klein, Mr. Stahl states that Klein was under the illusion that the measures condemned by him were to be traced to the initiative of some men designated by him as swine, and that they all were only transgressions of individuals. On page 54 of the English Document Book Horst Klein, she expresses her conviction that Klein had no idea about the real activity, and the aims of the highest SS authority. This is a very significant statement. Mrs. Dresser, finally, can confirm that Klein quite obviously was not informed about the deportation of Jews, and of the concentration camp outrages; that he could not inform even his best friends, whose political conviction he shared, about the concentration camps, and, that he was unable even to obtain knowledge about the existence of the Ghetto of Theresianstadt. But these are the crimes which alone have taken place in the wider field of vision of the defendant Klein. He himself testified to you that he had not the slightest notion of all these things. That is what I have already repeatedly explained in the course of this speech.
If your Honor please, I would like to correct another mistake in the English record on page 6154 in which appears the mistake reading as follows: "I never heard that Jews were arrested differently".
However, it should read, "I never heard that Jews had been arrested en masse." That is on Page 6100 of the German transcript.
The witness von Rouppert has testified that the Defendant Klein was not informed of the true nature of the deportation of the Jews, that he had inquired upon request of Herr Dr. Bresser, a man who had been sentenced to death by the People's Court, and that he was merely told that the Jews were only interned for the duration of the war, since there was the danger of espionage because of their close relations with foreign countries, and it was impossible to supervise all of them individually. In many belligerent countries enemy aliens have been interned, even certain categories of citizens of the belligerent countries themselves were interned because it was supposed they could constitute a danger because of their close connections with enemy countries. Therefore it cannot be a crime if such people are interned during the war.
The witness von Rouppert finally even testified unmistakably that Klein could not get any information, even when he inquired upon request of Dr. Bresser as to the high death rate of the interned Jews which had become known by rumors, that he even endangered himself by these inquiries, because the information agency reproached him with spreading false enemy propaganda. Kindly recall, your Honors, the words of the witness von Rouppert that she talked further about it with her brother, that the information he had received must be true. This is testified by the same witness who herself had been committed to a concentration camp because of her hostile attitude towards the Third Reich. That is what the defendant himself confirmed by oath on the stand.
Isn't one obliged to believe the defendant after all this testimony, when he assures us that he was not aware of all the atrocities which the SS leaders and with them the SS are said to have committed? He was not aware of the criminal experiments. He did not know the conditions in the concentration camps. He was not informed of the atrocities which were performed on Jews. He had not heard either of what crimes had been committed abroad, May I recall that the International Military Tribunal even conceded to the defendant Fritzsche, a man who held the top position of the German news service, that he was not aware of the monstrous crimes in the East. How much less could the defendant Klein, whose lace of information in other things, has been confirmed by testimonies, have been aware of all this?
He heard, it is true, that the Gestapo applied detestable methods. This has, however, nothing to do with the SS. The Gestapo was in fact classified by the IMT as a separate organization. Klein himself testified here that he had the conviction that the Gestapo had nothing to do with the General SS as such.
I do not want to enlarge upon the secrecy which the other colleagues discussed. There was much left to be said here in detail. I am, however, of the opinion that what was advanced will be sufficient to make clear what I mean.
May I be allowed to state that Klein did not even have the first of the two categories of knowledge, namely, the knowledge of the criminal acts of the SS. Then, of course, he had knowledge all the less that they should systematically be used by the supreme leaders for the commitment of crimes.