7 Aug M LJG 7-1 results of our investigation, did not have any judicial way of proving that mass exterminations on a large scale, not to mention the biological extermination of Jewry, were and had been carried out before realizing that they were crimes to a frightful extent. They were being investigated from the point of view of individual perpetrators. Central Department, by a Colonel Quinn (Q-u-i-n-n). It is called " SS in Dachau". Unfortunately I cannot put it before the Tribunal at this time because I had to return to the library but it is generally known. It contains testimony given by a ....
THE PRESIDENT: You could have taken a copy of the document. You cannot tell us what the document is if you cannot produce it. The fact that it had to go back to the library is no reason why you don't have it. There would have been no objection to your bringing a copy of it.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I attempt to present it after the recess, Mr. President?
DR. PELCKMANN: It contains further....
DR. PELCKMANN: In that case I shall postpone that question. BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q Mr. Witness, evidence has been submitted to this Tribunal about the gas chambers at Auschwitz and other places where millions of Jews were murdered. You, on the other hand, discovered, during your investigation, that individual persons and a small circle of persons were committing the crimes which you have described. Is it possible, on the strength of your personal knowledge, that this same, considerably small circle of persons, could be responsible for the destruction of millions?
A Yes. Investigation of the SS legal system, and particularly the final stages of the investigation just before the end 7 Aug M LJG 7-2 of the war, proves conclusively responsible for the so matters too.
Otherwise, these incredible matters could not possibly have escaped the notice of the legal system.
Q Did you gather, from your conversations with Dr. Morgen any further knowledge which night support these assumptions?
A Dr. Morgen was one of my subjects. During the entire years that he was attached to the Reich Criminal Police Department he was handling investigations of concentration camps. Dr. Morgen has considerable knowledge, as I know today that he has talked to these carding out these mass exterminations, and he gained the deepest insight into all these matters. He proved the fact that the origin of the exterminations of Jews cannot be found in the SS, but in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from you that you were putting in two affidavits from Dr. Morgen, is that right?
DR. PELCKMANN: Three, von three, Mr. President.
The president; Three - five, if you like, but this witness cannot tell us what Dr. Morgen says. Dr. Morgen must speak for himself from this affidavit.
DR. PELCKMANN: In that case, perhaps I may have permission to come to this when I submit the affidavits. BY DR. PELCKMANN: are here not concerned with perpetration's by the individual, but the carrying out of the Party program regarding the Jewish questions and these crimes at Auschwitz. what can you say, based on your own knowledge and experience of fighting these crimes and regarding this subject? in the SS and that ideal faith was that which the member of the SS would see as one who carried out the Party program. Hitler's order for the biological extermination of Jewry, as I know it today.......
THE PRESIDENT: He said that ever and ever again, that 7 Aug M LJG 7-3 Himmler showed his ideal faith in the SS.
He said it before, you know. He should not have to say it more than once.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I not ask him what his attitude is regarding the allegations of the Prosecution about these matters and the extermination of Jews in Auschwitz? Also about the immediate outcome, so far as the members of the SS were concerned, of the principles which the SS Were taught.....
THE PRESIDENT: How can he give evidence about that? He can tell us what he saw and what he did. He hasn't told us yet whether he has ever been in the concentration camps.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q Mr. Witness, did you know anything about the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police in the East as they have been mentioned here in this trial?
A I know nothing of that. I know that the Security Police were stationed in the operational zone in the East and they were carrying out security measures. That happened to be the task of the Security Police. In that connection the Security Police never gained knowledge of any other matters and it was only here that we heard about these matters for the first time. the SS if the task which they were given, or existing orders, did not appeal to them?
A Such a possibility did not exist at all. Duty in the Waffen SS Was military duty, recognized and regulated by law. Even these members of the Waffen SS who had joined as volunteers became inducted into the compulsory service When the law changed. Resigning from the Waffen SS was therefore only possible by means of deserting, and then the deserter would have had to expect the full consequences of the law. of the SS were so extensive and applied to so many cases of illegal acts that its illegality could not have remained hidden -- hidden from the members of the SS.
A The SS was not a unit. I have already described that it is an organization of the SS. A member of the SS had no possible way of knowing of the illegality of the General SS or the Waffen SS. He never saw such crimes committed and so he could not come to the conclusion that he was working for a criminal organization. He could not possibly have known of the crimes which were being committed because they are only becoming known now.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, finally, if you will permit me to do so, I should like to put cue more question to the witness because he was occupied with the compiling of affidavits together with a certain staff. If this High Tribunal would care to ascertain the manner of the collection of these affidavits and how it was taking place, then this witness can give information on this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. You may ask him. BY DR. PELCKMANN: printed forms in various fields, offering a survey of various subjects, fields and spheres which were carried out. Mr. Witness, you exploited and utilized these affidavits, did you not?
A This utilization was carried out under my direction. Fifteen SS internees, all who held judges' positions, were carrying this out. Some 170,000 statements submitted were utilized. 136,213 affidavits and applications, together with evidence, were added to a collection of documents from a number of documents to be heard. These 136,000 statements were sub-divided in document files according to their subjects. In answer to questions put by the defense in connection with accusations raised against the officials ...
Q From where did you get this considerable number of affidavits? To a smaller extent, from the French zone. No affidavits whatever came from the Russian zone and from the Austrian zone.
Q When surveying and analyzing these affidavits, how did you proceed?
Q I don't want the details ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, what I understood the Witness to say was that there were 170,000 statements utilized, and from these 170,000 statements, 136,000 affidavits were obtained. Well, how were they obtained? The Tribunal would like to know. Before whom were they sworn?
DR. PELCKMANN: That the witness will be able to explain, Mr. President.
THE WITNESS: These 170,000 affidavits came from members of the SS. Out of this little figure of 170,000, 136,213 affidavits have, in fact, been digested by myself. The remaining affidavits were not exploited because partly they were irrelevant and partly because they were not submitted in the correct form.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the whole 170,000 were sworn affidavits?
DR. PELCKMANN: Sworn before whom, Mr. Witness?
THE WITNESS: These 170,000 were partly sworn. The 136,000 affidavits, however, were all sworn. It was the decision of the High Tribunal that the swearing of affidavits before a German lawyer would only be valid if carried out before May of this year, and the swearing of affidavits after May of this year would have to take place before an Allied officer. That, however, did not take place in all the camps. After May, 1946, affidavits were still sworn before legal persons and in accordance with the decision of the High Tribunal, they would have to be discarded as invalid. For that reason only 136,000 affidavits remained. BY DR. PELCKMANN: those affidavits should be chosen time were favorable to the defense of the SS? thousands of statements are available and utilized, whereas, in reference to other points, only a few affidavits are concerned in the list. the bulk of the SS members are facing the indictment without understanding It. They cannot imagine, to show you an example, that they were working in a conspiracy. They cannot imagine that they have prepared a war of aggression. For that reason, members of the SS are only testifying to such facts that they Know from their work in the SS. The serviceman at the front is talking about his experience at the front, and the member of the General SS about the type of his work during the years from? 1933 to 1939.
recognize it later from the affidavit -- if, for instance, under the figure Roman No. 4, figure 1-9; namely, the question, if there was a question there, "Were excesses in concentration camps forbidden?" -- Now, if there are only two explanations regarding this point available, does that then mean that only two out of hundreds of thousands of members of the SS can confirm this prohibition?
Q And it also was important that all others know the opposite?
A No, that is just what it does mean. The members of the SS, when the; were questioned were not able to make a statement about that statement at all because they don't know about it; therefore, they can give neither an answer in the negative nor in the positive sense and for that reason they pass over it without giving a statement. their activity and also on the attitude adopted by the bulk of the SS men again the impression that this exploitation of approximately one hundred thirty-six thousand affidavits reproduces the average knowledge of the bulk of the SS men although the entire strength of the SS was, of course, considerably more than one hundred thirty-six thousand? low-ranking members of the officers who represented the bulk already had been released at the moment when the affidavits were obtained. The result had been noted that in many camps lots of technical difficulties existed; also in many camps the question regarding the subject of evidence was uniform -- after this and from the Russian Zone and from Austria, statements of opinion are lacking altogether. In spire of these deficiencies, I believe on the strength of my own knowledge about the typical activities of the SS, that I can say that the total picture of these affidavits can be considered typical for the SS.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, I have no further questions to put to this Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. LATERNSER Mr. President, I ask for the approval of the examination of the witness which will take about three minutes, to clear up one point which has come up during this examination.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the point, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: I should like to ask the witness about a point which came up during the direct examination by the defense counsel for the SS, about the guarding of the concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: How does that affect the High Command?
DR. LATERNSER: There could be a connection from the charge against the accused group that might possibly arise.
THE PRESIDENT: You know, Dr. Laternser that the Tribunal reject your application.
7 Aug M LJG 7-1
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine? BY MR. ELWYN JONES: not? the SS Legal System? or the German Army, about the murder of Jews by SS men?
A I don't understand the question.
Q I will repeat it. Would a serious view have been taken in the Waffen SS or the German. Army about the murder of Jews by SS men?
A If the destruction of Jews on Himmler's orders had been known in the SS, or as the prosecution says in the Wehrmact, they would certainly have concerned themselves about it. resulted in a death penalty being inflicted on him?
A I cannot answer this question in simple words. It touches an important problem. September 1939, which shows the dealings of murder in the SS by the highest Judicial authorities and the German Army. It is D-421 which will become GB-567. The first page of the memorandum - "The Chief of the Army Judiciary announces by telephone. The Field Court Martial of the Kempf Armoured Division has sentenced an SS man of the SS Artillery Regiment to three years imprisonment and a military police sergeant major to 9 years penal servitude for manslaughter. After about 50 Jews, who had been used during the day to repair a bridge, had finished their work in the evening, those two men drove them all into a synagogue and shot them all without any reason. The sentence is submitted to the Commander-in-Chief of the 3rd Army for confirmation. The proposal of the representative of the prosecution is capital 7 Aug M LJG 7-2 punishment for murder.
Sentence on the day after the act." Then their follows " Initials". There is a marginal note: "General Halder requests information on the decision of the Commander in Chief of the 3rd Army." Then "Purple pencil notes: to the Adjutant of the Commander in Chief of the Army." In the next page you will see the curse of this history. "Telegram to the Military Judge of the 4th rank, from the bottom, attached to the Quartermaster General in Berlin. SS man Ernst is granted extenuating circumstances because he was induced to participate in the shooting by a corporal handing him a rifle. He was in a state of irritation owing to numerous atrocities committed by Poles against persons of German race. As an SS man, particularly sensitive at the sight of Jews, to the hostile attitude of Jewry to the Germans, he therefore acted quite thoughtlessly in a youthful spirit of adventure. An excellent soldier not punished before." Then there are purple pencil notes on the bottom, "to the Adjutant of the Commander in Chief of the Army", lead pencil note, "telephone call from Oberkriegsgerichtsrat Dr. Sattmann to the effect that so far as has been ascertained the Commander in Chief of the Army Head quarters will not confirm both sentences." Then added, in lead pencil, "The sentences have been dropped under the Amnesty. Punishment was announced before the Amnesty. Nine years penal servitude for the police sergeant major changed to 3 years imprisonment. Throe years imprisonment for SS man, unchanged. Confirmed by Army Headquarters." Now, witness, that was a clear countenancing of mass murder by the judicial authorities of the German Army, was it not? of the evidence regarding explanation for the mild sentence for the two SS men, it is the personal opinion of Kreigsgerichtsrat Lipski, who passed on the sentence. I am therefore not in a position, since I do not know the other facts in the case, to judge whether the reasons which the presiding Judge gives deviate 7 Aug M LJG 7-3 from the facts or not.
50 Jews, and it is a fact as reported in this document, there was a finding of manslaughter here? That Judge who passed the sentence of 3 years, he was one of your colleagues of the Army. I suggest that this is typical of their acts, and typical of the attitude to such murders.
A I have the following to say in this connection. Alegal question is at issue, whether the actual fact of manslaughteer or murder existed. What actually existed as the cause to judge for manslaughter is not indicated by the document,. For that reason, I cannot answer it. Because this man was sensitive at the sight of Jews. It was just a youthful adventure. That was apparent in the Judge's mind, You know it is perfectly" clear?
A I should like to say the following. As the document indicates, the application of the prosecution had been made for a murder sentence and for the death sentence. The presiding Judge did not consider this a case of murder out manslaughter. According to the German Penal Law, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is an action with previous deliberation with the aim of killing a person. Manslaughter is an act of impulse, resulting in the death of a person. This latter legal qualification the Judge passed his sentence on and considered the circumstances as described here. The end of this story was that the Army Commander in Chief said the sentences would drop under the Amnesty. That is the end of this case of murder by the Army Judicial authorities, amnesty and pardoning of the whole thing. Now we will turn to another document so the Tribunal can Judge how zealously the authorities were in such cases. It is D-926 and will be GB-568. This comes from an earlier period, not the days when the Poles or the others were operating. These were the pioneer days, 1933, when 7 Aug M LJG 7-4 you joined them.
This is a file relating to the deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It starts with a letter dated 2 June 1933, from the Provincial Court Public Prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice. Subject: Deaths of prisoners in protective custody at the concentration camp of Dachau. It relates to the Schloss Hausmann, Strauss and Nefzger cases. "In accordance with my instructions, I had a lengthy discussion on the 1 June 1933, with the Police Commander Himmler in his office at the Police Headquarters, Munich, about the incident at the concentration camp of Dachau, which I have already reported to the Ministry of Justice separately; in particular I told him briefly, with the aid of the photographs from the investigation files, about the Schloss Hausmann, Strauss and Nefzger cases, of which he appeared to have been advised already. I pointed out that particularly the four above-mentioned cases, in view of the findings to date, offer good reason for cogent suspicion of serious punishable actions on the part of individual members of the camp guard and of camp officials, and that both the Public Prosecution and the Police authorities to whose knowledge these incidents have come are under the obligation, under the threat of heavy punishment, to carry out the criminal investigation of the above-mentioned incidents without consideration for any persons whatsoever." I need not trouble you with the rest of the article. Document 2, shows that no action has apparently been taken from the 2nd of June until the 11th of August. It is from the Provincial Court Public Prosecutor, dated 11 August 1933, to the State Ministry of Justice. The last sentence of that letter reads, "Should the dossiers not be required at present, I would request the return of the so files for the purpose of examining whether the decree of 2.8.1933 regarding the granting of immunity from punishment has to be applied." I won't trouble you with the 3rd and 4th documents. If the Tribunal turns to page 5, and you witness turn to document 8, I wish to refer to it. That is a report from the 7 Aug M LJG 7-5 Provincial Public Prosecutor to the State Ministry of Justice, dated 26 September 1936.
Subject: Death of the prisoner in protective custody, Hugo Handschuch in Dachau camp. Have you found that?
I am reading from page Five of the English text:
Subject. "Death of the prisoner in protective custody Huge Handschuch in Dachau camp.
"The judicial autopsy ordered by me took place in Dachau on the 23rd of September, 1933, It showed that death was due to a brain injury wing to hemorrhage in the left membrane and that this hemorrhage was caused by blows with a blunt instrument, which hit the skull particularly in the region of the left temple and the back of the head. In addition, extensive blooding was established in the corpse in the region of the left cheek, in the right shoulder and left upper arm regions, in the regions of the seat and the upper thigh and of the lower part of the left thigh, - the results of blows on the body of the deceased with a blunt object, during his lifetime. On the findings based on the post-mortem, the preliminary medical opinion gave grounds for assuming out side responsibility.
"I intend to continue the further necessary search for the perpetrators in collaboration with the Political Police." Prime Minister with a request to take note and forward to the Reich governor in Bavaria. Notice is also given to the State Minister of the Interior.
Then, Document 11, page 9 of the English Text. It is a proposal made by the Minister of the Interior to quash the inquiry into the deaths of the protective custody prisoners, Handschuch, Frantz and Katz. Witness, you will remember Handschuch Frantz and Katz. Dr. Frank and the representative Nazi jurist. This letter is dated the 29th of November, 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: What Dr. Prank do you refer to?
MR. ELWYN JONES: The defendant, Dr. Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WLWYN JONES: "The Commander of the Political Police in the Ministry of the Interior presented to you on the 18th of November, 1933 a proposal, according to which the inquiry into the cases of the prisoners in protective custody, Huge Handschuh, Wilhelm Frantz and Delvin Katz, should be quashed for state political reasons. In connection with this case, you sent to me the liaison man of the State Ministry of Justice with the Bavarian Political Police, Public Prosecutor Dr. Stepp, Meanwhile, in a discussion with the commander of the Political Police Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, I have ascertained once more that to carry out this inquiry would cause considerable damage to the reputation of the National Socialist State, because this inquiry would be directed against members of the SA and SS and thus the SA and the SS, as the main props of the National Socialist State would be directly affected. For these reasons, I support the proposal for quashing the inquiry presented to you on the 18th of November, 1933 by the Commander of the Political Police in the State Ministry of the Interior."
I don't think I mood trouble with the rest of the letter, which states that the inmates of the concentration camp were almost exclusively of the criminal types.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document, which you have just been reading from, page nine of the English text, is dated the 29th of November, 1933. Is that correct?
Mr. ELWYN JONES: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a misprint?
MR ELWYN JONES: No, My Lord, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document, page five of the English text, is dated September 26, 1936. Is that correct?
MR. ELWYN JONES : No, My Lord, that is a misprint and should have called your Lordship's attention to it. That should be 1933, My Lord, and I am much obliged.
THE PRESIDENT: That is page five, In referring to the Document, you should state that the pages which you did not refer to, pages three and four, show that the other dossiers, in connection with the Public Prosecutor, Provincial Court, Munich were apparently lost and were not forthcoming and that, inquiries were going on about them until 1935.
MR. ELWYN JONES: Yes, My Lord. Much obliged. I was trying to deal with the essential contents of the file.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on then.
MR. ELWYN JONES: I want you, witness, to look at page size of the English text and Document 10 of your file. That is a memo from Dr. H. Frank, the defendant, dated July 2, 1933 to the Prime Minister and the subject is "quashing of Criminal Proceedings."
"A merchant's wife, Sophie Handschuch, of Munich, in a written statement received by the PUBLIC PROSECUTION at the PROVINCIAL COURT, Munich 11, on the 18th of September, 1953 stated that her son, Hugh Handschuch, taken into protective custody on the 23rd of August, 1933, dies of heart failure in Dachau camp on the 2nd of September, 1953. In the inquest certificate, heart for lure following on the concussion of the brain was given as the cause of death. The cody was not shown to the relatives and was handed over only after great difficulties and on condition that the coffin would not be re-opened The coffin was so firmly naiad down that it was impossible to re-open it. The writer asked that the coffin be opened and a judicial postmortem hold, as she wan ted the body identified and the cause of death established.
"In order to clear up the state of affairs, the Provincial Court Public Prosecutor at the Provincial Court, Munich 11, at first, personally questioned the plaintiff, Sophie Handschuch, and the fiancee of the deceased. Thea Kink. From their evidence, the assumption seemed justified that already on the day of his arrest Handschuch was badly physically treated in the Brauhaus in Munich, and in connection with the further established fact that the relatives on the dead man ware expressly refused the permission to view the body, sufficient grounds were given for the suspicion that Handschuch did not die a natural death. In order to establish the cause of death without any doubts, the body was exhumed in Dachau on the 23rd of September, 1933 and a judicial autopsy carried out on the orders of the provincial court public prosecutor. It showed that death was caused by injury to the brain, as a result of a hemorrhage of the soft membrane of the brain and that these hemorrhages originated from blows with a blunt object, which hit the skull particularly in the region of the left temple and that of the back of the head. document.
I read : "In addition, extensive bleeding was established in the region of the left cheek, the right shoulder and the left upper arm of the corpse, in the region of the sort, the thigh, and on the lower part of the left thigh, as a result to blows with a blunt instrument on the body of the deceased while still alive. The findings of the judicial autopsy gave ground for assuming outside responsibility."
Then, paragraph 11 : "In the forenoon of the 19th October, the Public Prosecution at the Provincial Court, Munich 11, informed by telephone by the Bavarian Political Police that in the afternoon of the 17th of October, 1933, Wilhelm Franz, of Munich, a prisoner in protective custody, born on the 5th of June, 1909, and, on the night of the 17th - 18th of October, 1933, Dr. Delvin Katz, of Nurnberg, a prisoner in protective custody, born on the 3rd of August 1887, hanged themselves in their military confinement celle in Dachau concentration camp. The Public Prosecution ordered the same morning a legal examination to be hold in the camp, followed by a post mortem, The corpses in a locked camp shed lying on stretchers, and with the exception of the feet were totally undressed. In Franz' cell, fresh blood spots and splashes were observed on the wooden plank bed."
October.
The next paragraph: "The autopsy gave grounds suspecting in both corpses, force by an outside hand. According to preliminary opinion of both law court doctors, provincial Court doctor Dr. Falmm and Court Doctre Dr. Ni denthal, death by suffocation, as a result of strangulation and throttling, was established in both cases. The strangulation marks found on the neck do not correspond to observations in the case of persons hanged. In respect of Framm's body, it is also stated in the preliminary opinion that fat embolism is not prime-facie to be excluded as a contributing cause of death, fresh weals on the head, covered with hair as well as particularly numerous ones on the body and the arms, with extensive bleeding and destruction of the fatty-tissues were established on this corpse, part from injuries on the neck. Also Katz' body showed various signs of drying up and rubbing off of the skin off the head and one separation of the skin.
"At the time of the examination already, the public prosecution had demanded the production of both belts with which Franz and Katz had allegedly hang themselves; they could not be handed over at once. The Dachau lower Court had ordered the confiscation of the belts, in accordance with the application. Up until now, the objects confiscated had not yet been received by the Public Prosecution." Then paragraph 111: "In each case I informed the Prime Minister, and through him, the Reich Governor in Bavaria, as well as the State Minister of the Interior of the Public Prosecution's reports on the cases quoted in 1 and 11.
"In a letter of the 29th of November, 1933, addressed to me, the State Minister of the Interior proposed that, for State political reasons, the inquiry pending at the Public Prosecution of the Provincial Court, Munich 11, into the death of Hugo Handschuch, Wilhelm Frantz and Dr. Delvin Katz prisoners in protective custody, should be quashed. As a reason, it is poin ted out that the conducting of investigations would cause great harm to the prestige of the National Socialist State, since these proceedings would be directed against members of the SA and SS and thus the SA and SS as the chief protagonists of the National Socialist State would be immediately affected".
has the right of pardoning. He stated in the last sentence :"According to the law, Reich Governors, this right is vested exclusively in the Reich governor in Bavaria."
The next paragraph :"In view of this legal position, I beg you to submit the proposal of the State Minister of the Interior to the Council of Ministers." German text, states :"The proposal of the State Minister of the Interior that the inquiry pending at the public prosecution at the Provincial Court Munich into the death of the prisoners Handschuch, Frantz and Katz, who were in protective custody, be quashed, was the subject of a debate during the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the 5th of December 1933. As a result, the State Minister of Justice communicated the following to the undersigned official.
"The criminal proceedings, regarding the happenings in the Dachau concentration camp are to be continued with all determination. The facts are to be cleared up with the utmost speed. " of the English text :