Only a fraction of the great number of officers who served in the Einsatzgruppen is present here in the dock. They must not necessarily be those who are the ones really responsible for these things. others whose orders they had to comply with as soldiers. I an convinced that the Tribunal, in consideration of all these circumstances, will come to a just decision.
DR. FRITZ (For Defendant Fendler): Your Honor, Honorable Judges! Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos, besides their other tasks, to commit acts which doubtlessly violated the recognized laws and customs of war as well as humanity. The obligation towards the great number of innocent persons who fell victims to this order may be the cause for some persons to believe a collective responsibility and a vicarious liability to be justified. But nothing must be allowed to prevent us lawyers from examining in a dispassionate and objective manner the question of criminal responsibility of each of these defendants. to lead to the result that he did not participate in any way either in the planning or in the execution of this order and that no punishable membership in any criminal organization can be laid to his charge. legal view of mine. committed, between May 1941 and July 1943, as an officer and deputy chief of Einsatzkommando 4b, crimes against humanity as defined in Article II, par. 1c of Control Council Law No. 10. He is charged furthermore, in Count II of the indictment, with having committed simultaneously, by these same acts, between 22 June 1941 and July 1943, war crimes as defined in Article II, par.
lb of the sane law. He is finally charged, in Count III of the Indictment with having been a member of the SS and the SD after 1 September 1939, - Organizations which have been declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal (IMT). to these proceedings, I positively object to the juridical view of the Prosecution that it could not be expected to assume the full burden of proof for its charges - also in the case of Fendler.1) If, after mature deliberation I decided to put my client on the witness stand, I did not 1) See transcript of 29 September 1947, English version page 57, German version page 63. do it in order to assume in thisway the burden of proof, but in order to offer the Tribunal the possibility of convincing itself that Fondler's work and appearance in the East does not have to shun the light. The burden of proof for his alleged criminal culpability rested solely with the Prosecution. To be sure, the latter used a total of seven documents1) for the support of the charges contained in the Indictment, but it did not produce, as it should have done, the proof in any of these counts. 1) Doc. No. 4144 - Exhibit 142, Doc. Book III C, Doc.
No. 2938 - Exhibit 44, Doc. Book II A, Doc.
No. 2934 - Exhibit 78, Doc. Book II C, Doc.
No. 2830 - Exhibit 72, Doc. Book II C, Doc.
No. 3155 - Exhibit 38, Doc. Book II A, Doc.
No. 4958 - Exhibit 143, Doc. Book III C, Doc.
No. 4999 - Exhibit 202, Doc. Book 5 - C. to the contents of the Indictment, no longer maintained that Fendler had been deputy chief of Einsatzkommando 4b. It rather commented in the source of the trial, that he, and I quote:
".....often carried out the functions of a deputy of the leader of the unit". 2) client's own affidavit.
3) But this interpretation is false, For Fondler, under No. 3 of his affidavit only stated, and I quote:
"within the Special Commando, (Sonderkommando 4b) I was, Hermann, the senior officer.
I have never been officially designated as a deputy of Hermann:
I have, however, taken charge of official matters during his absence". in no way be construed to the effect that Fondler ever was "deputy chief of Sonderkommando 4b". The Einsatzkommando 4b did not have any deputy commando leader, as, by the way, was the case with various Einsatzkommandos and at times even with Einsatzgruppe D.1) Fendler was neither designated as deputy nor did he ever have this function.
This is shown by the affidavits ofHeyer2) raid Martens3) and, above all by the one of Koenig4) who was with the Einsatzkommando 4b during the whole of the assignment of the defendant Fondler, who worked together with Fondler and therefore knows the conditions precisely.
Among other things Koenig stated and I quote:
"Hermann had no deputy. Once, when he was absent from his 2) Session of 30 September 1947, English transcript page 212, 3) Affidavit Fondler of 27 June 1947 - Doc. No. 4144 - Exhibit 142, Doc.
Book III C, English transcript 55. German transcript page 89, 1) See statement Ohlendorf in the session of 9 October 1947, English transcript page 572, German transcript page 576/7. 2) Fendler Doc.
Book I, Doc. No. 11 - Exhibit 8. 3) Fendler Doc. Book I, Doc. No. 10 - Exhibit 11. 4) Fendler Doc. Book I, Doc. NO. 9 - Exhibit 9.
the special orders issued by Hermann. In such cases, routine which at times was Fondler.
This officer never had complete directives to the individual specialists.
I can say with certainty that Fondler actually never gave any such directives". that during his assignment he had never been a fully authorized deputy of the Kommando leader and that in fact he never exercised the functions of the Kommando leader.
Besides, there never had been an appointed deputy for the kommando leader at all In case of the Kommando leader's absence, the chiefs of the several sections had made their own necessary decisions.1) 1) Session of 13 December 1947. English Transcript page 4010, German Transcript page 4080/81.
In the further course of my elaborations I intend to treat in more detail the professional trading of my client. Neither was he trained in executive work now was he ever entrusted with executive tasks. He therefore was not competent to give instructions to the chief of Section IV, who was an export in executive tasks. As can be gathered unequivocally from the affidavits of Schoenborn, Hanke, Pfoser and Koenig, Fondler, owing to his correct and reserved nature, was in no way inclined to meddle on his own initiative in affairs for which he was not authorized. These facts too lend credibility to his statements. It would not be sound to point out his rank of service alone in this connection. For in case of an objective non-competency, the missing authorization cannot be automatically compensated for by a higher rank in the service. It rather would have been the task of the Prosecution to furnish the proof that Fondler had the full power of command even in one single case during the Kommando leader's absence, and thus had the possibility of giving appropriate instructions to the executive. But on this point the Prosecution did not challenge the statement of my client in cross-examination but rather evidently accepted the correctness of his description. Only in the rebuttal the Prosecution produced the affidavit of Karl Hennicke, dated 4 September 1947. Among other things, Hennicke declares in this affidavit that the Einsatzkommando 4 b had first been commanded Braune. But, as Fritz Braune did not arrive until after Hermann had been relieved, the Einsatzkommando 4 b had been without a chief for a period of 2 - 3 weeks. During this interval, he says, the Kommando had been under Fondler's charge. In gross contradiction to this statement, Hennicke has declared in another affidavit, and I quotes:
"It is not known to me that Fendler was the deputy of the Kommando leader; he did not appear as such in reports or in group conferences."
End of quotation. Finally, Hennicke expressly revoked, in a third affidavit, the statements he made on this point in his affidavit of 4 September 1947. The complete falseness of his statement in the affidavit of 4 September 1947 results alone from the fact that Fendler left the Einsatzkommando 4 b for good already before Kommando leader Hermann. On the other hand, the correctness of Fendler's statements in underlined by the fact that -- at least during the entire period of Fendler's assignment -- there was no need for a deputy because Kommando leader Hermann, during the time from the beginning of July until early October 1941, was neither ill nor absent for any other reason from Einsatzkommando 4 b for any length of time, In this connection I refer to the affidavits of Koenig and Martens as well as to the statement of my client in direct examination. After all this, there is no need for any further evidence that Hennicke's affidavit of 4 September 1947 is in no way apt to prove the assertion by the Prosecution that Fendler in several cases had assumed the functions of a deputy leader of the Einsatzkommando 4 b, or to disprove the contrary statement of my client which is identical with the statements of several witnesses. When the Prosecution presented the case of the defendant Fendler in the session of 30 September 1947, it referred to four Reports of Events in all. As far as concerns Document NO-2830, the Prosecution pointed out that the Einsatzkommando 4 b had killed 186 persons in Poltava, and that Fendler had also been in Poltava. On the other hand, the main trial has clearly proved that Fendler at that time was not at all with the Einsatzkommando 4 b, but was already back in Berlin at that time. This fact emerges unequivocally from the affidavits of Heyer, Koenig, Feder, Haefner, Hennicke, Schulz and Brass as well as from the statement of the defendant Fendler as a witness in his own case.
Therefore, these documents must be left out of consideration when judging Fendler's case. The other three Reports of Events -- Doc. NO-2938, NO-2934, and NO-3155 disclose among other things that Einsatzkommando 4 b has carried out executions in Tarnopol as well as in Krementschug. As the defendant Fendler stated in his own affidavit, that he had been in these places with the Einsatzkormmando 4 b, the Prosecution obviously thinks it has sufficiently proved his participation in these executions. I could not agree with this view of the Prosecution even if it were certain that the only task of the Einsatzkommandos consisted in the destruction of certain groups of persons. Even though I am forced to admit to my greatest regret that it has become evident in the course of this trial that, in compliance with an inhuman order by the Fuehrer, this was one of the tasks of the Einsatzkommandos, on the other hand the evidence has proved just as clearly that the Einsatzkommando also had other tasks to fulfill, Let me remind you of the fight against the partisans and the tasks which were purely within the domain of the Security Police. This results alone from the fact that the Einsatzkommando did not only consist of officers and enlisted men who had been trained in executive tasks, but for example also had experts of the Intelligence Service. Thus there were also specialists (Referenten) assigned to the Einsatzgruppen who merely dealt with intelligence tasks. I have proved by affidavits and by my client's statement as a witness in his own case, that he too, owing to his exclusive training, was only assigned and active as an intelligence expert. When Fendler was a young student and looking for employment in order to earn some money so as to be able to continue his studies he came to the SD by chance without even having had any knowledge of its existence at that time.
Owing to new economic difficulties he was unable later on to continue his studies and therefore remained with the SD. At first, i. e. from 1936 onward, he was employed with the then main sector (SD Oberabschnitt) Southeast in Breslau. from April 1937, he was consultant (Referent) for industrial counter-intelligence in the then SD regional sector (Unterabschnitt) Breslau. From March 1939 until the end of 1940 he was head of the SD Office in Olomouc. Towards the end of 1940 he became a candidate for the executive service and hence left the professional work of the SD, was transferred to office I of the Reich Main Security Office and began to study jurisprudence. The candidates for the executive service were ordered to the war theatre in the Fast an bloc at the end of May 1941. In Pretzsch Fendler was assigned to Einsatzkommando 4 b which had been formed there; therefore, he did not volunteer for this assignment by any means. According to his training Fendler was appointed III-specialist already in Pretzsch by the Kommando leader. That is quite natural because he was the only intelligence expert in the Komando. From the affidavits of Hennicke, Heyer, Martens and Koenig it can be seen that the Einsatzkommando 4 b did have a section III. In these affidavits it is explained in every detail which tasks belonged to the individual detailed duties of the defendant Fendler in his capacity as chief of this section.
Fendler has also commented on it in his direct examination. He described that it was his duty to gather and evaluate in the individual villages touched by the Einsatzkommando 4 b the information needed for his reports on political, national and economic conditions of Russia gained from the population and from files found by him. In reading the Reports on Events one can see in what detail these reports have been made. I particularly refer to the example in Fendler Doc. No. 22. If we consider that for these tasks he only had one associate and one interpreter at his disposal, his statement that his working capacity was completely taken up by these tasks seems utterly credible.
Fendler therefore was departmental chief III and never and in no way was active in the executive of the Kommando, i. e. Section IV, which was a completely independent department. Neither did he cooperate with this section by his reporting which did not deal at all with executive matters. For its own purposes, the executive maintained a separate Police Intelligence Service. If I said above that Fendler's working capacity was completely taken up by his activity as III-specialist, this naturally does not exclude his having been entrusted now and then in individual cases with one or the other military task, owing to the fact that Einsatzkommando 4 b was operating in the front-line area. But neither did these tasks, which I now intend to treat in detail, have anything to do with the executive. Thus he was also liaison officer with the 49th Mountain Army Corps. Only once did he become active in this capacity, namely in Trembovla, as he stated in his direct examination. At that time, upon instructions by the Kommando leader, he had established contact with the G-1 of this Army Corps and had obtained approval for the further advance of the Einsatzkommando 4 b. Finally, Fendler has twice been in charge of a small Vorkommando. According to orders, both times the main task of these Vorkommandos was to find quarters for the immediately following Kommando and to get the supplies ready. In the course of the main trial upon a corresponding question by the presiding judge, Fendler had the opportunity of giving detailed information on this matter. In these cases he was billeting officer and by no means the leader of a Teilkommando. I particularly emphasize this, especially during the period of Fendler's assignment, the Einsatzkommando 4 b, in contrast to other Einsatzkommandos, always operated as a compact unit under the leadership of the Kommando chief and hence was not divided into independent Teilkommandos.
This, by the way, was also one reason why sections III and IV in Einsatzkommando 4 b were able to operate independently from one another. Fendler's own statement on this matter, given in direct examination is confirmed by the declarations in the affidavits of Koenig and Heyer. Thus I have proved that, during the entire period of his assignment in the East, my client did not make himself liable to punishment -as a principal in the sense of Article II, paragraph 2 a of Control Council Law No. 10. He never had the full power of command, which was always in the hands of Kommando leader Hermann, he never worked in the executive, he did not participate in any execution and he did not commit any other action which would fulfill the provisions of this law. Neither has he been an accessory in the perpetration of such acts, nor did he order or incite them (Article II, paragraph 2 b of the Control Council Law). For I have proved that Fendler did not collaborate in executions or other inhuman actions either as III-specialist or as liaison officer or as chief of the Vorkommando. Moreover, my client did not give his "consent" to these acts in the sense of Article II, paragraph 2 c of the Control Council Law.
mando 4 b, which was involuntary, must be considered as consent. In the POHL verdict the Military Tribunal No. II has commented on this matter as follows and I quote:
"There is an element of positive conduct implicit in the word consent.
Certainly, as used in the ordinance it means something more than not dissenting."
End of quota But FENDLER never showed such a positive attitude.
He neither was chief of the Kommando nor deputy chief nor leader of the executive section, As III-specialist he was not in a position to give any instructions to Section IV, nor did he ever do this, He therefore neither had the power nor the authority to order executions or to prevent their being carried out. According to the decision of Military Tribunal No. II in the POHL Trial, FENDLER therefore was not a person whose "knowledge of the fact coupled with silence could be interpreted as consent." some other way. On the contrary, FENDLER has told us, in the course of his direct examination, that he had objected to inhuman actions. From what has been said so far it is clear that he was not "connected" with the carrying out of the acts in the sense of Article II, par. 2 d of the Control Council Law.
In the POHL verdict it is said and I quote:
"It (i.e. being connected with a crime) means something organization with the principals or accessories."
End ledge of the executions, which, by the way, he denied for the time of his membership in Einsatzkommando 4 b, this would not be sufficient to punish him in application of this provision of the law. For, as correctly stated in the same passage of the POHL verdict, "being connected" with a crime means more than mere knowledge.
executions. Considering the fret that before the start of the Russian campaign he was not employed at all in the SD but was a student of law; that is so obvious that I probably can spare myself going into any details. Only several years later (1943), after the conclusion of his studies, did he resume his intelligence activity in a relatively subordinate position in the Reich Main Security Office. His direct examination proved that he, not being Kommando leader and not holding any high rank, was not present when STRECKENBACH announced the Fuehrer order in Pretzsch. Hence he did not even know at the beginning of his assignment that the Einsatzkommandos would be ordered to exterminate certain groups of persons in the East. In this connection permit me to refer to the other results of the hearing of evidence. experiences as an SD-specialist during assignments in the Sudetenland and in Czechoslovakia.
I summarize my above elaborations as follows: ishment, during the three months he belonged to the Einsatzkommando 4 b as an intelligence officer and was assigned in the East. An assumption, based solely on his membership in Einsatzkommando 4 b, that he participated in the incriminating acts is not supported by the unequivocal result of the hearing of evidence. of false deductions and assumptions on the basis of a generalization. But such a procedure would have nothing to do with a judicial evaluation of the result of the hearing of evidence. For, in the course of the main trial, it has again and again been shown how varied and different were the conditions in the Einsatzkommandos and hence those applying to the defendants.
the evidence submitted by me, will also arrive at the conclusion that FENDLER is not guilty on Counts I and II. the SS on Documents NO-4144 and NO-4958. The latter document is FENDLER's personnel SS-form. It is true that this document gives the 15 April 1933 as the date of his joining the SS. But the defendant FENDLER has supplemented his affidavit - Document NO-4144 - the the direct examination as follows: that in 1933 he became only a candidate for the General-SS. As he had not done any service in the SS during the following years, he had been struck again from the list of candidates.
Hence, he never has been a member of the General-SS. Only by his joining the SD in the spring of 1936 he became a member of the SS, namely of the Special Formation (Sonderformation) SD. phasize that at that time he was 23 years old and had no political experience whatever. But his joining took place at a time and under conditions which exclude any knowledge of the criminal tasks and activities of the SD. He neither participated in the crime of the SD established by the IMT, nor did he hold any positions which would nave been bound to give him any knowledge of these events. trary. fice I of the Reich Security Main Office. But, as I already said, he did not perform any professional work for the SD in these years because, during this period, he was studying law and subsequently got his further legal training with the agencies of interior administration. the proof that FENDLER, during his membership in Office VI, had committed any criminal acts or had obtained any knowledge of such. The defendants STEIMLE and SANDBERGER as well as FENDLER himself have described in detail what tasks were incumbent on Office VI.
Moreover, I have produced the evidence by affidavits that my client was entrusted in the Office VI, in his limited position as Section Chief, exclusively with the gathering and evaluation of information, but did not have to make or did make any political decisions. Even as it is still done today, each state at that time employed certain civil servants who had to carry out such an activity. The same evidence shows that FENDLER did not gain any knowledge of the fact that criminal acts were committed in other sections of this office. Russia and later on in Berlin he gained knowledge of the acts of the Einsatzkommandos which are indicted here. But this knowledge does not constitute any punishable membership in a criminal organization. The Einsatzkommandos in the East did not belong to the organization of the Reich Main Security Office. They were not parts of it, particularly not of the Intelligence Organization SD (Offices III and VI). They rather were para-military mobile units of a special kind, subordinate to the Wehrmacht Commanders of the respective areas of assignment. of members of the Intelligence Organization SD. In the same manner as FENDLER, they were entrusted with intelligence tasks which are not the subject of the indictment. In consideration of these facts and of his own experiences FENDLER could not, from his knowledge of the activity of the Einsatzkommandos, draw any conclusion as to a criminal purpose or crimes committed by his organization-namely the Intelligence Service SD. mit crimes does in no way suffice per so to prove a criminal membership in this organization. And this even less so because these acts were committed quite independently of the organization (Intelligence Service SD) and in the course of the execution of tasks not belonging to this organization and under orders not coming from this organization(namely in the Einsatzkommandos). would remain incomprehensible inasmuch as it expressly ascertains the participation of the criminal police and the regular police in the Einsatzgruppen, nevertheless does not declare either of them to be a criminal organization.
i.e.during and after the period of his assignment in the East - was a member of Office I of the Reich Main Security Office, which definitely was not declared to be criminal by the IMT. for FENDLER to leave the SD during the war. In the course of the trial it has repeatedly been mentioned that the members of the SD, including FENDLER, had already been declared indispensable to the SD before the war. Hence, this happened already at a time which, according to the IMT verdict, is not relevant to the criminal character of the SD. In the IMT verdict as well as in the POHL verdict it has been unequivocally established that those members of an organization who were called or compelled to membership by the State must not be punished. pelled by the State to remain in such an organization. But this was the case with my client, as has already been said. Martial Law, he had to follow the order attaching him to Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office after the termination of his legal studies in September 1943. Hence, his membership in this office was likewise not a voluntary one. member of the SS only by his joining the SD. Hence, there was no independent membership in the SS. It merely was the purely formal consequence of his membership in the SD and therefore cannot at all be considered as a separate fact.
is also not guilty according to Count III.
As regards the defendant FENDLER's personality, the following is to be said: that all the participants in the trial must have gained the conviction that, in the course of his examination-be it by the Presiding Judge, by Mr. HOCHWALD or by me - he told the truth and endeavored to give us an exhaustive description of his entire activity in the SD, including the work in Einsatzkommando 4 b. It must be added that his description tallies with the contents of the numerous documents submitted by me. It is not surprising therefore, that the Prosecution has not succeeded in casting any doubt on his credibility. I refer only to the affidavits of BRASS, SUESSMUTH and BARTL which described FENDLER as a straighforward and clean character. Also for this reason it can and must be assumed that he told the truth here when he was under oath. tolerant man, who never was a political fanatic but rather distinguished himself by a particular readiness to help even those who were persecuted for political or racial reasons. Not one of these witnesses who have known FENDLER rather well for years - be it in the service or outside of it - believe him to be capable of participating in the acts which led to this trial. Through my dealing with this case, which now already has lasted for a half a year, and has frequently brought me in touch with FENDLER, I have come to the same conviction and I hope that also the Tribunal has gained this impression of my client. ing at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 February 1948, at 0930 hours.)
Michael A. Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I would like to ask that the defendant Ohlendorf be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and he be brought to Room 57. There are a few matters, final words and remaining matters, to discuss with him.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and will be taken to Room 57 so that he may there confer with his counsel.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Erich M. Mayer for Braune. mention that in order to save time I shall omit the introductory remarks which are contained in my written plea. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of them from the written copy. I shall start directly in medias Res.
1.) War crimes and crimes against humanity according to Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 December 1945 and committed during the time between May 1941 and Jane 1943.
2) Membership after 1 September 1939 in organizations declared criminal by IMT judgment: that is
a) SS,
b) Offices III, VI or VII of RuSHA,
c) Office IV of RuSHA. The details of this accusation are contained in the indictment, the Opening Statement of the Prosecution and Prosecution Documents with which I have dealt in detail and in a factual way in my Trial Brief. I refer in this respect to my statements there. not even that one single man was tortured by my client or by members of his Kommando or that the slightest destruction had been committed by him or his Kommando. He and his troops neither classified helpless civilians as Partisans or Partisan-supporters only to execute then, nor did they annihilate the sick or the insane from hospitals and asylums. I refer in this respect to the statements of Dr. ASCHENAUER in his final plea. One cannot charge my client with the report of 23 March 1943 since already at the beginning of March he went on a furlough to the Reich with Herr OHLENDORF, and thus was not even in the Crimea at that time. Furthermore the document does not prove that executions took place south of the Karasubasar. The whole report, as shown by the document covers the area of the entire Eilnsatzgruppe. "South of Karasubasar" refers only to reconnaissance for the purpose of preparing larger Wehrmacht operations, but doesnot refer to the clearly separated next paragraph which, without mentioning a definite locality, speaks of the shooting of 500 Gypsies and insane persons. and executed the selected men.
Here, too, I refer to the final plea of Dr. ASCHENAUER Even if there had been prisoner of war camps in the Crimea and if a selection had taken place it would not concern my client. Einsatz Order No. 14 of 29 October 1941 and its enclosure are the only things the defendant knew about this matter. It says in this document on page 94:
"According to the size of the camps located in their zone of an SS officer."
page 101:"The leaders of the Sonderkommandos will submit a short report to the chief of their Einsatzgruppe every week."
page 102:"The chief of their Einsatzgruppen decide on the suggestions Sonderkommandos the corresponding orders."
In other words, the defendant had nothing to do with the selection and the execution. is meant by this term. The persons who were arrested by the Kommando of the defendant were arrested under the suspicion of punishable acts during the investigation were either convicted of a criminal act and consequently punished Dr freed. The following paragraph I would also like to omit and ask that you would kindly look at it in the written copy, in particular ason Page 15 I am discussing this question again. them out, nor did they set up ghettos. Villages were not burned down by him nor hostages shot. Pertaining to the plundering with which he has been charged, I refer to the final plea of Dr. ASCHENAUER. Gypsies, communist functionaries, saboteurs and partisans. under oath that his Kommando, after incontestable conviction or in combat, shot Jews, Gypsies and communist functionaries according to a decree by the supreme war lord and lawmaker Adolf HITLER, as well as plunderers, saboteurs and Partisans according to the regulations of theCommander-in-Chief of the Army as the exponent of the executive power. cution for racial, political or religious reasons and that they intended even less the annihilation of whole sections of the population, as the Prosecution claims.
saboteurs and Partisans. They were shot according to the regulations issued by the Commander-in-chief of the Army in his capacity as the exponent of the executive power. plunderers, saboteurs and Partisans with the death sentence. All belligerent groups and nations have at all tines threatened and executed the sane death sentence for such criminal acts within the areas of operation. point to "Ordinance No. 1 of the American Military Government, Germany Supreme Commanders' Area of Control", which threatens the death penalty for twenty different actions.
Among the regulated crimes worthy of death I mention: "Wilful interference with, destruction or concealment of records or archives of any nature, public or private" or "Wilfully interfering with or misleading any member of a person acting under the authority of the Allied Forces in the performance of his duties" (No. 17 of the ordinance). Under No. 20 of this very ordinance considers sufficient for the pronouncement of the death sentence:
"Any other violation of the laws of war or act in aid of the enemy or endangering the security of the Allied Forces." the American Military Government represents the result of existing customs of war. shot were without exception guilty of acts which had been threatened with the death penalty by decree of the Wehrmacht. The defendant, and before him his superior OHLENDORF, testified to this credibly. The prosecution has not been able to prove the opposite.