It is in no case rejected by the majority of authors. The appeal to a superior order is first declared admissible, as already mentioned, by Winthrop, who recognizes as a defense the fact that the incriminating act was committed in pursuance to an order by a superior.1) Likewise Garner, the well-known professor of international law at the University of Illinois, declares that it would be unjust to deny the right of a person under military orders to appeal to a superior order. Garner particularly emphasizes that it is not the task of a military subordinate to examine the lawfulness and legality of a military command.2) He is of the opinion that justice requires that that person be punished first of all who bears the responsibility for the order and not that person who acts under duress.3) Professor George Manner of the University of Illinois is also of the same opinion.4) Likewise Oppenheim, the 1) Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, p. 296: "That the act fense at military law."
2) Garner, Vol. 11, p. 484: "He cannot discuss or question the commands that are given him; he is not the judge of their legality or il legality; and if he were, his ignorance of the laws of war would in many cases make him an incompetent judge."
3) Garner, Vol. 1, p. 484: "In such cases therefore justice, it is and who has a power of judgment or discretion."
4) Manner, The Legal Nature and Punishment of War Crimes, p. 433:
"Secondly, it appears to be equally admitted that the defenses in positive law.
102". - 102) Glueck, 10 ibid. p. 145.
the well-known British professor of international law, has adopted the view of his work "International Law" that the appeal to the superior order is admissible. In this work he declares that violations of the laws of war are only crimes if they have been committed without the order of the belligerent government. He is of the opinion that members of the Armed Forces who commit violations of law at the command of their government are not war criminals and therefore cannot be punished by the enemy. In such cases he grants the enemy only the right to resort to
1) reprisals. Lauterpacht, who brought out Oppenheim's work in 1940, after the latter's death, was the first to abandon this opinion. This view of Professor Lauterpacht, however, has found no concurrence elsewhere in legal literature. It has been particularly attacked by Professor Kelson in his work "Peace through Law", page 98, and described as more than questionable. From these statements it appears that accepted international law is solely and alone decisive in deciding the question whether the appeal to a superior order is admissible in this trial and that according to international law the appeal to the superior order is a reason for justification and exoneration from guilt. In this connection the mental attitude which the subordinate had toward the order would in the first place be irrelevant. This irrelevancy follows solely from the circumstance that the subordinate receives the order without any reasons being given for it and that therefore he usually judges the order from an entirely different point of view than this superior. His assenting mental attitude, therefore, could not signify 1) Oppenheim, International Law, Par. 253: "Violation of rules regarding warfare", writes this eminent jurist, "are crimes only when committed criminals and cannot be punished by the enemy; the latter may, how ever, resort to reprisals". any assent to the reasons for the act.
Therefore, in judging the action the decisive point is not the mental attitude of the person who executes the order any more than the question of whether he executes the order willingly or unwillingly on the contrary, the decisive point would be whether the order of the superior has been proved to exist. Naumann inwardly disapproved of the Fuehrer Order. In accordance with this he conducted himself in a passive way with respect to the order. If he had not done this his superior Kaltenbrunner would not have brought the charge of deficient activity against him, as his fellow defendant Ott has testified on the witness stand. (Transcript p. 3849-50, 3828-3830 German, p. 3787-88, 3766 English) If any circumstance can be of importance for the question whether the appeal to the Fuehrer Order is admissible in the present case it can only be the answer to the question whether Naumann would have committed the acts charged against him if the Fuehrer Order had not existed. However, there can be no doubt that the executions in the area of Einsatzgruppe B during Naumann's time would never have been carried out if they had not been ordered by supreme headquarters. I shall argue this point in detail in another connection. However, if in opposition to the conclusion of my legal arguments the Tribunal should base its decision on the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10, then the clause in mitigation of punishment of Art. 4 b of the Control Council Law is applicable to Naumann, for the condition required by this clause that the perpetrator must have acted under orders is fulfilled. The further conditions under which the clause in mitigation of punishment is to be applicable are, to be sure, not contained in the law. Therefore, it can only depend on the more immediate circumstances, especially on the perpetrator's attitude to the act which he has been ordered to do.
It can, therefore, only depend on whether Naumann obeyed the order only with reluctance or made the act his own through his concurrence. Naumann did not approve of the Fuehrer Order. As the testimony has shown, he definitely disapproved of the Fuehrer Order. Both in his direct examination and in his cross-examination he repeatedly declared with certainty that the execution of the order gave rise to serious conflicts between duty and conscience in his mind. (Transcript p. 881, 913 German, p. 870, 899 English). Naumann has declared again and again that he had considerable misgivings about this order and a mental aversion to it (Transcript p. 911 German, p. 897 English). He has asserted that he was gravely uneasy about the order because it seemed frightfully harsh to him, and that the order occasioned considerable worry and remorse in his mind (Transcript p. 866 , 898, 912 German, p. 855/56, 886, 898 English). He has expressly stated that he did not agree with the order because the killing of defenseless persons went against his feelings (Transcript p. 866, 911, 912 German, 855/56, 897, 899 English). These statements give an accurate reflection of Naumann's real attitude to the Fuehrer Order. There is no occasion to doubt the truth of these statements, all the more so as further testimony has shown that even during his service Naumann expressed these misgivings and this aversion to the order before the Kommando leaders under him. Concerning this I refer particularly to the statements of his fellow defendants Steimle and Ott on the witness stand, both of whom served under Naumann in Russia and reported that Naumann made no secret before them of his disapproval of the order. Steimle has repeatedly stated that Naumann expressed his misgivings to him and assured him that he had passed sleepless nights because of the order (Transcript p. 2073-74, 2082 German p. 2027-2029, 2036 English). Naumann also declared to Ott at the time that he was continuously very seriously worried about the order and mentally disapproved it (Transcript p. 3779, 3832 German, p. 3718, 3770 English). These accounts give an accurate reflection of Naumann's character and nature, that conflict between duty and conscience which is best described by the Dutch citizen, Mrs.
von der Schalk, as enemy of National Socialism, in her affidavit with the words: "I sometimes saw the conflict of conscience which he tried to master when having to choose between loyalty to his ideals and that which I would call 'international decency'." (Naumann Doc. No. 6, vol. 1, p. 5). Naumann was in no way a man who would have accepted the Fuehrer Order and brutally carried it out. Naumann was an enthusiastic soldier and is also described as such by Bach-Zelewski in the latter's affidavit. (Naumann Doc. No. 5, Exh. 4, vol. 1, p. 3). He earned his decorations in active fighting and in battles against the partisans. It was not in keeping with his views to have to tolerate the shooting of defenseless persons. The Prosecution, to be sure, has alleged the contrary and in support of this has referred to a few of Naumann's answers on the witness stand (Transcript p. 911, 913, 914 German, p. 897/896, 899, 900 English) which, taken completely out of context, must understandably give an entirely false picture of Naumann's attitude to the order. In particular, Naumann's last answer on the witness stand, which the Prosecution would like to take as its final word concerning Naumann's attitude, is based on this error. Naumann was repeatedly asked, and this was also put to him as a final question, whether he considered the order unlawful. Thus, in any case, did Naumann understand this question and had to understand it. Naumann replied to the negative and gave the same reason that almost all the other defendants have given to this question. (Ohlendorf, p. 526, 536, Blume p. 1815; Schulz p. 982/84; Steimle p. 1996; Sandberger p. 22, 2356; Seibert p. 2716; Braune p. 3094), namely that an act which is committed at the order of the Head of the State cannot be contrary to law but must be lawful and that therefore such an act cannot be an injustice (transcript p. 911-12 German, p. 897-98 English). As I have already emphasized, Naumann was a soldier and as such, as he has repeatedly asserted, considered himself obliged to obey the order because of the obedience he owed his Supreme War Lord at that time by virtue of his oath (transcript p. 866, 881, 898, 910 German, p. 856, 870, 886, 896 English). The circumstance that he attributed to the order the force of law and therefore did not regard it as an injustice cannot be taken to mean that he approved of it.
Any other interpretation of Naumann's statement than this would not only be contrary to the meaning and contents of his statements but would even be in opposition to them. The question whether the extenuating clause of Provision 4b of the Control Council Law is applicable will furthermore depend on how Naumann would have acted if this order had not existed. Here, too, it must be stated without hesitation on the basis of the previous arguments that Naumann would never have adopted on his own initiative such measures as were commanded by the order. The best proof for this is Naumann's conduct in Holland, where Naumann was sent on detached service in August 1943 as Commander of the Security Police and the SD. This comparison is of great significance for the reason that Holland, just like the area of Einsatzgruppe B in Russia, was territory occupied by Germany. There were Jews living in Holland too. What were Naumann's relations with the Jews in Holland?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
and made no secret of this attitude towards NAUMANN, declared in lieu of an oath that she repeatedly intervened with NAUMANN in favor of Jews from among her acquaintances and succeeded by this in bringing in about that for instance Fral LEMBRUGGEN, Liesel HIJMANS, and Dr. FRENSDORF were discharged from the concentration camp and/or from prison. Frau van der SCHALK furthermore testified that NAUMANN was of a pronounced leniency towards Jews and that it was because of this indulgence that he was again transferred from Holland. (NAUMANN Doc. No. 6, Exh. 5, Vol. I, P. 5). Frau LEMBRUGGEN herself declared in a further affidavit that she owed her discharge from the concentration camp to NAUMANN (NAUMANN Doc. No. 8, Exh. 7, Vol. I, P. 8). affidavit by BENDELER, likewise a Dutchman, who stated that he owed to NAUMANN his discharge from the Vught Concentration Camp to which he had been committed because he had protected Jews (NAUMANN Doc. No. 11, Vol. II, P. 13). This attitude of NAUMANN clearly shows that in his heart he did not agree with the Fuehrer Order. But this attitude shows particularly that NAUMANN would never have issued orders against Jews on his own initiative, as it was made a duty by the Fuehrer Order. A contradictory statement was, it is true, made by RAUTER, the former Higher SS and Police Leader in Holland, who is still being held in custody in Holland because of war crimes committed during the time of occupation. (Doc. No. 5771, Exh. 236, Vol. V B . P. 149). This statement is, however, of no probative value. Apart from the fact that it is not regularly sworn to, it was made by a person who is himself called to account for measures against Jews and therefore endeavours to clear himself of this responsibility as far as possible.
But also in other respects NAUMANN's attitude towards the Dutch population was irreproachable. He always endeavoured, even in so far as this was not within his jurisdiction, to alleviate the fate which had befallen the Dutch population by the occupation. This is proven by Court No. II, Case No. IX.
numerous other affidavits from among the Dutch population. Particularly characteristic are the statements made by the representatives of the Dutch Red Cross in The Hague (NAUMANN Doc. No. 9 and 10, Vol. II, pages 9 and 11), who, as stated by themselves, had been opponents of National Socialism. They declared unanimously that NAUMANN had made it possible that the Dutch political prisoners in the concentration camps and in the prisons could be cared for by the Red Cross and that great quantities of foodstuffs could be supplied to them. In addition to this, NAUMANN threatened the guards with heavy punishment in the event of their appropriating such charitable gifts, as the witnesses von GENNEPP and van OVEREEM declared in agreement with the witnesses LAGES (NAUMANN Doc. No. 23, Vol. IV, P. 44) and WOELK (NAUMANN Doc. No. 24, Vol. IV, P. 46), NAUMANN effected, in order to alleviate the fate of the Dutch prisoners, although this did not come within his jurisdiction either, the improvement of the hospital facilities in the Vught concentration camp and made the erection of a new hospital in the Aamersfoort transit camp possible (NAUMANN Doc. No. 21 and 22, Volume IV, Pages 40 and 42). It is particularly to be emphasized that the discharge of 150 hostages was attained by the intervention of NAUMANN (see affidavits by van GENNEPP and van OVEREEM, NAUMANN Doc. 21 and 22, Vol. IV, Pages 40 and 42) and by van der SCHALK (NAUMANN Doc. No. 7, Exh. 6, Vol. I, P. 7). NAUMANN instigated and carried through the screening of the political prisoners in Holland so that a great number of prisoners whose guilt was not incontestably established were released from custody. (See affidavits by LAGES, NAUMANN Doc. No. 23, Vol. IV, P. 44) and by WOELK (NAUMANN Doc. 25, Vol. IV, P. 47). Frau van der SCHALK testified that the list of Dutchmen, for whom she successfully intervened with NAUMANN, was endless. She asserted that NAUMANN had done much good in Holland and even went so far that he endangered himself very much (NAUMANN Doc. No. 6, Exh. Vol. I, P. 5). Also the Dutchman Dr. FREDERIKS, the former Secretary General in the Dutch Home Ministry, testified that NAUMANN showed great obligingness, Upon his remonstrances he succeeded Court No. II, Case No. IX.
with NAUMANN's assistance in saving four Dutchmen who had already been sentenced to death and that some of a number of arrested Mayors were released from custody, and that pending proceedings against some of them were quashed. (Doc. NAUMANN No. 12, Vol. II P. 14) Particularly worth mentioning is the fact that NAUMANN brought about the punishment of the Commandant of the Wught Concentration Camp, GRUENEWALD, after having been informed by a man of confidence that 10 persons had died as a result, of his punishment measures, even though the administration of the concentration camps did not come within his jurisdiction. (See affidavits by van OVEREEM and van GENNEPP, NAUMANN Doc. No. 9 and 10, Vol. II, Pages 9 and 11, by LAGES, NAUMANN Doc. No. 23, Vol. IV, P. 44).
The incidents mentioned in the rebuttal document No. 5771, Exh. 236, Vol. V B, P. 149 are not suitable to question the validity of these testimonies. The action "Silbertanne" (Silver-fir") which is mentioned in the document has not started by NAUMANN, as is clearly shown by the depositions of WOELK and LAGES in the document, but by RAUTER. It can well be understood that RAUTER endeavours to clear himself of the responsibility for this, since he has to answer for this measure before a Dutch court. The numerous proofs for the irreproachable attitude of NAUMANN from Dutch circles show already that RAUTER's statements concerning the action "Silbertanne" cannot be correct. It is not only improbable, but even impossible that these Dutchmen would today make statements in favor of NAUMANN, if NAUMANN had not behaved in the manner they testified. The number of statements from among the Dutchmen could have been increased at will, if their procurement from abroad had not met difficulties. shows that he is not the brutal man the Prosecution tries to describe him. It especially shows that it was solely and wholly due to the existence of the Fuehrer Order that NAUMANN had to tolerate the execution of Jews in Russia. Should the opinion of the Prosecution be correct, then there would not have been any reason for NAUMANN to behave in Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Holland in another way than in Russia.
In Count 3) of the Indictment NAUMANN was furthermore charged with membership in criminal organizations, more precisely in the SS and the SD. must exist in order to justify a conviction because of membership in a criminal organization. I now wish to anticipate this result and to examine on the basis of this result whether a conviction of NAUMANN because of this is justified. According to the verdict of the International Military Tribunal the following would be required for this: 1) NAUMANN must have supported some criminal aims or other of the SS or the SD by co-operation with other members. 2) He must have had knowledge of criminal actions of these organizations. 3) The membership must have been on a voluntary basis. the decision of these three questions.
NAUMANN did not belong to the General SS after that date (Records p. 841 of the German, p. 834 of the English text). He was rather a member of the Waffen SS during the period from 29 April 1940 until 15 March 1941. This membership, however, was not a voluntary one, it was based on the contrary on a legal regulation, namely the Armed Forces Law (Records p. 841 of the German, p. 834 of the English text). the 1 September 1939. By such a way of acting he would have incurred most severe punishment. therefore be no justification for a conviction because of membership in a criminal organization. Reich Main Security Office after the 1 September 1939, as he conclusively Court No. II, Case No. IX.
testified during his interrogation in the stand. (Records page 842 of the German, page 835 the English text). made a withdrawal impossible. Already for this reason therefore he cannot be punished because of membership in a criminal organization. NAUMANN had any knowledge of the fact that the SD intelligence service was employed for the perpetration of any war crimes or crimes against humanity. This was also set forth by NAUMANN during his interrogation in the stand. (Records page 842 of the German, p. 835 of the English text).
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
(The hearing reconvened at 1540 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for the defendant, Schulz.
May it please the High Tribunal! opinion as the greatest murder trial of all times. The prosecution declared right at the beginning of its opening statement that it intends to describe the intentional massacre of more than one million innocent and defenseless men, women and children. correct, according to the evidence, - facts have been submitted and it also has been proved from what sources the numbers mentioned in the reports of the prosecution, characterized by it as incriminating evidence, were arrived at, and why it is impossible that those numbers can be correct, besides all this, it has to be established whether murders actually were committed. of a human being for debased reasons, originating merely from the lust and desire to kill. them really constitute killing in this sense, that is murder? Generally speaking, what did the men of the Einsatzgruppen actually do?
All those men were committed to war service. They were soldiers, soldiers like other soldiers in every other country of the world. called upon to do so. The soldier is obliged not to evade this duty and has to be obedient to his superiors. The latter implies that he has to obey all orders and instructions of his superior. If he does not do so, he will be punished. If this happens even in war time, he has to suffer the most sevre penalty it is immaterial whether it is a war of defense or a war of aggression It is absolutely feasible and possible even necessary that an attack provides the best form of defense.
And old proverb states: "The best defense is attack." with which he is commissioned, especially as it is impossible for him as a soldier to realize what kind of a war is being conducted, especially since the modern means of propaganda of both belligerents are apt to confuse the issue. However, we do not have to examine, with regard to this one case as to whether or not the defendants here have made themselves guilty of having started or instigated a war of aggression.
As already stated, those men were engaged in war. Their activities, which constitute the subject of this trial, extended exclusi vely to war commitments against and in the Soviet Union.
It was a war which broke out ultimately in order to bring about a final settlement of the controversies of two indeologies, which were so contradictory that they never could be reconciled. It is not only the controversies between these ideologies of Germany and Russia which are concerned, because these controversies, these divergencies existed then and are still spreading today and, have now engulfed wider and wider circles, is clearly shown by the present world situation. gical controversies. It might be possible that the controversies originally were of an ideological nature. However, later on, they touched all spheres of life, both materially and ideologically. These controversies were not reconciled even after the last fatal war as may be soon by the various warlike conflicts going on in different parts of the world in spite of all efforts at peace and pacification moreover, they have now engulfed the entire world and divided it into two fronts which have become more and more clearly defined.
And in addition each party considers its concept the only right and only true one for the future welfare of all mankind.
For this aim the battle was waged and is till going on. If in the beginning the struggle was restricted to spiritual weapons it ultimately degenerated as a result of human failures, to a struggle with material weapons and developed into a struggle for existence or elimination of one of the two opponents. will take is impossible to predict with certainty, it can only be visualized. And it is good that we are unable to foresee the future. out ideologically or materially, it is the method which counts. this method and ultimately, how these powers had been mobilized by propaganda. But here again it is of importance to consider what kind of men disseminate such propaganda and what kind of people are influenced by it. And here it is significant in what specific psychological, mental and physical condition these people were. I have here no intentions whatsoever of defending or representating a racial theory of any kind. And intensive war of propaganda is being used on both sides. Who is able to say which of the two dies succumbed or had to succumb to its own propaganda? Under those circumstances, is it permissible to make the individual responsible, considering his diversified disposition for whatever he did or still does? Which of the two parties succeeded by its propaganda in honestly convincing the people that its respectively conception of matters and events of this or of the opposing camp was ultimately correct? Which party believes in having to fight for its own convictions until the last?
to you. you will give. opposing ideologies in order to reach a general evaluation of the attitude of these men. You yourself, without being or becoming prejudiced, may give preference to one of the two ideologies. Communism. In this struggle the German soldiers had to fulfil their duties. Communism remains the crucial problem of our time. attitude is now assumed with regard to this problem, without having to discuss the basic points of view of leading politicians renowed and well known scholars of national and international law and without having to quote the opinion of the head of the supra-national Catholic Church, the Pope, who as a Prince of Peace always carefully tried to reconstruct and preserve world peace. I repeat only a few statements which have been published by the world press. The British Prime Minister Attlee made a speech over the British radio on 3 January 1948, in the course of which he sharply criticized Communism. He said other things, that the expansionist aims of the Soviets must be stopped. Soviet Communism endangers the welfare of the European countries by a new kind of ideological, economical and strategical imperialism. The history of the USSR is a warning example of the fact that political of the USSR is a warning example of the fact that political collectivism without political freedom can rapidly deteriorate and may lead to subjugation and uinjustice. Therefore it became necessary to contemplate measures against Communism in England.
Furthermore: at present books and memoirs are often published in the Western World, propagating tendencies inimical to the Soviet-Union. They represent; according to reports of the press, the consequences of the Soviet-Russian expansionist policy and the understandable reaction of those affected by the Soviet-Russian methods. Among others it is announced that also Farenzc Navy, Premier Minister of Hungary until last year, will also publish shortly a book at a New York publishing house concerning the condition in Hungary after the war and his enforced resignation. I may quote even now what Nagy has already stated, namely "Now after it is too late, I realize that I am a living example of the thesis, that no compromise is possible with Communism". (End of quotation.) from Washington of 9 January 1948, a sub-committee of the House of Representatives for the investigation of un-American Activities, resolved. To start on 9 February 19148 with the work on a bill which aims to outlaw the Communism Party of th e United States, by declaring that membership in the Communist Party can be termed an act of high treason.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, I don't want to interrupt you, and I certainly don't want to cause you to present your case in any way different from which you wish to present it, but we can't help but comment at this very juncture that what you are now telling the Tribunal is entirely irrelevant and we don't want you to assume that it is having any effect on the Tribunal whatsoever in so far as the issue is concerned. What happens in 1948 has nothing to do with 1941.
I only said that, Dr. Durchholz, so that if there is anything you wish to omit in order to present your entire argument within the hour and a half which has been allotted you, you might omit such arguments as you are now presenting, because I am afraid with the sixty pages or more that you have that you can't read it all within that time anyway.
We, of course, will read the entire summation, regardless of its relevancy or irrelevancy, but this was so far afield that we couldn't help but make some comment on it, and we don't want you to believe that anything we say is in any way prejudicial to the merit of your case.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: There is only one more quotation, Your Honor and I would like to ask you whether I may read this quotation, and then the quotations are at an end.
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I may refer to the fact that according to a report from Washington, I quote:
"Italy's Communists are ready" According to this report, the American foreign policy and especially the European Relief Program was sharply criticized at a congres of the Italian Communist Party in which well-known international Communist leaders participated. Among others it had been declared that the USA together with the Holy see tries to attain world domination, that those two are the biggest war mongers. However, tens of thousands of Comminists, trained in guerilla warfare were said to be ready to resist this force of arms." (End of quotation.)
Now I come back to the methods of this struggle. Both parties have again announced that they will be locked in the most intensive struggle. at was like that also in the past-and there it came to open battle. It has been already proved by a series of defense documents and by other evidence how ruthlessly this fight was waged by the opposing camp. Men, women and even children were mobilized to participate in this fight and took part in it either openly or secretly- Is it then surprising that in such a fight for life fire was used to fight fire? Was not the old maximum valid and is it not still valid: "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? If one party is to be condemned for that reason, then the other one must be tried with the same severity according to the commonly valid principles of justice.
If this concerned a measure applied only against the enemy in the East but not against the enemy in the West then it had and must have had its significant reasons. Regarding the reasons of those measures which were applied against the enemy in the East I have already made detailed statements. introduce the methods which are now termed criminal and damnable? As soldiers they received orders. The question of thebasix significance of an order, of whatever kind it might be, has already been discussed. an order is viewed, whether from the point of view of natural law, national or international criminal law, or from the point of view of constitutional or international law, it is a matter for the individual, to determine his personal views regarding an order, in this case the often discussed Fuehrer Order. In this connection I may state and presuppose that the killing of human beings demanded by the Fuehrer order should not mean the exterminations of human beings for political, racial or religious reasons and with it the systematic execution of a program of genocide - at any rate the defendants were not informed of this implication. order may have been shown unequivocally by the evidence. None of the defendants were confronted by this Fuehrer order without having to overcome inner conflicts. The evidence has also proved how different the solutions of these conflicts were. individual it is import for the facts which have to be established first to determine the so-called external facts, i.e. to establish the the acts which the individual committed or did not commit and then the so-called spiritual guilt, i.e. if he did commit an act, why he did so.
questions of this trial, which affect the interests of all defendants and therefore also those of my client. the related unfolding of problems, I now have to deal in my case, with the defendant Erwin S c h u l z. I wish to precede this with a few essential points. this frankly - so deeply affected by its contents that I had to deliberate profoundly whether I could reconcile with my conscience the taking over of a defense in the face of such grave charges. When going to my first confenrece, I believed I would find my future client to be at least - ruthless and relentless person. Here I had my first surprise, because I learned to know a man whom I soo liked on account of his str aight-forwardness and politeness. vity as a police official, extending over a period of almost 25 years I had my second surprise, because I hardly believed it possible that a man could be able to adhere to such an unblemished course in a difficult vocation and unless extremely difficult circumstances; a position whose heavy responsibilities were all known to me from my own experience. I must candidly confess in his presence, that I was unable to believe everything although he gave his explanations in every respect in anobjective and modest manner. I could irrefutably esyablish by virtue of the currently incoming affidavits of friend and foe, that everything without exceptions of what the defendant Schulz told me not only corresponded to the facts, but that he also explained ot ot me with an exaggerated modesty.
the former political enemies actually volunteeered to help a man to whom they owed respect and gratitude. and addressed or approached third persons, so much so, that strangely enough, I received statements from people without having to ask for them. the assertion that it actually became a necessity for them to render assistance to a man, whose hohesty, humane feelings and chivalry they had personally experienced. It was not necessary for me to go after one witness or to visit one internment camp, in order to assemble the evidence for my defense. As I have already explained when submitting my document books, I could have furnished far more documents, but I intentionally refrained from doing so, because I consider the documents submitted sifficient ecidence to prove that the defendant Schulz is nov even capable of committing a crime. it became a personal necessity for me to be of assistance to this defendant and to relieve him from the monstrous accusation of having committed crimes against humanity. In the same open and sincere manner as he described his profession life to me, he told it to all american authorities including the prosecution, who wanted to know details about it, in the course of his almost three years imprisonment He concealed nothing because he had nothing to conceal. In the same open and sincere manner as he performed his duty he conducted himself from the very first day toward the victorious enemy. It is a fact that he reported personally and voluntarily on the first day of surrender, 8 May 1945, to the American Headquaters at Zell am See; he was in full uniform, submitted all his personal papers and made himself available to account both for his person and the cause which he had to represent.