This, of course, was a mere sample of the actual situation.
We can recall no defense which the defendant Schlegelberger made to the commission of this war crime.
The crime is adequately alleged in Count II of the Indictment in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Klemm When the defendant Klemm came to the Ministry of Justice in 1944, by his own testimony, his belief in the necessity of severe treatment of all German nationals who had any question about the successful termination of the war was a part of his living philosophy.
From which it can logically be inferred that his hatred of foreigners who might be attempting to thwart the goals of the thousand-year Reich was even greater. He was, by his own testimony, a competent lawyer, and despite his statements that he believed that the German 119 - Pros.
Ex. 127, NG 419, Tr. 834; Ex. 134, NG 597, Tr. 891; Ex. 125, NG 669, Tr. 548; Ex. 491, NG 879, Tr. 3339; Ex. 514, NG 1473, Tr. 3445; Ex. 480, NG 699, Tr. 3307; Ex. 137, NG 596, Tr. 908; Ex. 128, NG 355, Tr. 844; Ex. 363, NG 686; Ex. 492, NG 923, Tr. 3341.
occupation of Bohemia and Moravia was benevolent and done at the request of Czechoslovakia, he must be held to have known that in truth and in fact under every rule of law, as well as of international law, no citizen of Bohemia or Moravia owed any allegiance to Germany. (His testimony and defense with reference to the character and nature of the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia must be tested and measured as to their credibility by his other statements what he never heard of a Jew being persecuted in Holland while he was there, that he knew nothing about the Pogrom of November, 1938, and when he came down to town next morning in Berlin he saw no evidence of the Pogrom, and that he thought the phrase, "sending the Jews to the East "meant that they were living in affluence, bliss and quietude in a German state known as Theresienstadt. He certainly knew that the law against Poles and Jews was enacted for political purposes, and he certainly knew that the occupancy of Poland was accompanied by a consistent belief on behalf of all German officials that the Poles were to be the enslaved servants of Germany. Under these circumstances, he must be held, as a lawyer, to have known that there was no duty of allegience owed to Germany by any Czech or Pole arising out of the receipt by either Czechoslovakia or Poland of the benevolent benefits of the laws, civilization and culture of a sanctuary power. This being true, the defendant, as a lawyer, must be held to have known that any allegations in any indictment for treason which alleged an obligation or duty to the German Reich, was an allegation of a fiction and not a fact. The same rules apply to Norwegians, Hollanders, Belgians and Frenchmen. Notwithstanding this fact, as State Secretary he participated in and rendered his opinion upon every clemency plea which was presented to the Ministry for consideration in the case of foreign defendants tried for treason, high treason and preparation for high treason. Not only this, but by his own testimony he approved the death sentences rendered by the People's Court and ordered them executed against foreigners convicted of treason, high treason and preparation for high treason against the German Reich.
120 If the defendant Klemm did not know enough law to be charged with the knowledge with which we have just charged him, then he must be charged with having occupied a position where he passed upon death sentences in cases involving a knowledge of international law and of the national law of treason without any knowledge thereof, which would constitute such reckless disregard of his duty and obligation as to constitute murder under the laws of any civilized nation.
120 Pros. Ex. 252, NG 414, p. 8, 17 January 1945 (5 cases); p. 71, 2 August 1944 (3 cases); p. 105, 31 May 1944 (2 cases); p. 156, 21 January 1944 (13 cases).
The above cases are only from the days when the defendant admitted that he alone passed on clemency matters. A study of Klemm's testimony, at pages 4973, 4975, 4976, 4979 and 5024 of the transscript, reveals that there is adequate evidence upon which the Court can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant also decided clemency cases on the 17 January 1945, 27 January 1944 and 2 August 1944 in Thierack's absence. A breakdown of the analysis of Ex. 252 NG 414, Bk III L and the testimony above cited, warrants the conclusion contained in the following chart:
Klemm admits deciding Prosecution thinks he should clemency matters also be charged for these 1944 1944 1945 21/6 31/5 3/8 27/1 27/1 2/8 17/1 Total High Treason 4 23 1 16 44 Treason 3 1 5 7 16 Undermining military morale 3 17 17 37 General Death Cases 17 27 24 22 23 19 132 Nacht und Nebel 4 4 2 10 TOTAL 21 41 24 1 45 48 59 239 Foreigners 6 11 1 21 8 12 59 ROTHENBERGER When the defendant Rothenberger became Under Secretary in August 1942, he also therewith assumed the position where he reviewed cases of death sentences.
In this position, had he carried out the design of the office, he was the final safeguard in a series of events to assure that a capital sentence was not improperly executed. It was not only his duty, but his responsibility, to determine that the sentences were proper in fact and in law; and if he found or should have found that they were not, approval nevertheless constituted acquiescence in an illegal action.
We have heard from this defendant that he had nothing to do with criminal matters. Be this as it may, there is no doubt that he passed on the final clemency pleas of numerous persons sentenced to death. It is these cases which involve the final review of death sentences of foreign nationals that we shall now breifly examine.
As early as 1935, Rothenberger received communications from the Reich Justice Ministry which indicated that not all treason and high treason cases were being handled openly and above-board.121 Certainly it should have come as no surprise to him a few years later, when he himself was reviewing death entences based on these charges, to find that foreign nationals were being tried, sentenced and executed for offenses which in many cases were not even committed in Germany. But this self -purported advocate of a strong judiciary not only made no protests but willingly complied with the design to exterminate these people whose misfortune it was to be residents of countries desired by Hitler as his own.
In the cases in evidence we find that Rothenberger approved the death sentences of Poles who had never acquired German citizenship, and indeed could not if they had so desired.122 121 Pros.
Ex. 34.
122 Pros. Exs. 130, 135.
He approved of the death sentences of Czechs who had committed their offenses in Czechoslovakia and who were tried before German Courts123. Did he ever wonder about the scores of strange foreign names in the mass pf clemency denials that sent scores of persons to a crude and brutal execution?124 Can this defendant now be heard to say that he did not know the law, or, that in knowing it, he was unequivocally bound to violate it? Is this the kind of strong judiciary which he would have us believe he spent his waking hours in trying to achieve? He has testified that he, as Under Secretary, did not have the right to examine the legal and factual basis of a sentence.125 We submit that it is clear that he had not only the right but the duty to examine the bases of such sentences and that in knowingly sending persons to death which the German courts had no right under recognized international law to try - much less to sentence to death - that he became a chief participant in this basic war crime.
123 Pros. Ex. 509 , Tr. p. 3434, 9401.
124 Pros. Ex. 450.
125 Tr. p. 5508-9 LAUTZ We turn now to the consideration of the guilt of the defendant Lautz in this connection.
In this, we shall first revert again to the decree against Poles and Jews insofar as indictments of treason were predicated upon it by this defendant. It is a generally recognized principle of international law, as we have stated, that without allegiance there can be no treason. Thus Germany had no right to try on charges of treason a person born in and remaining a citizen of Poland- or for that matter of any other nation -- for offenses committed in their native country. Neither is this a right which can be gained as the fruit of agressive war. And, if right can be relative, much less did Germany have the right to remove such offenders for trial before courts in Germany. The defendant Lautz must be presumed to have had this knowledge. Nevertheless, and even with an avowed understanding of the purpose of the decree against Poles and Jews, he charged in indictment upon indictment the crime of preparation for treason and treason against these people which resulted in executed death sentences of numerous, if not hundreds, of Poles.
In attempted justification we are told that he reached the conclusion that the status of Polish nationals, even those born in Poland, ceased to exist after the occupation in 1939.126 He knew that they could not be given a German status because that is only too clear from the language of the decree itself. The only possible conclusion, without an alternative, is that knowing the facts he fell into step with the national program to exterminate these people of the Incorporated Eastern Territories.
The defendant also resorts to what we have called the "percentage argument" to show that the People's Court tried fewer Poles for treason than, for instance, the High 126 Tr. 5901 - 02.
Treason Senates of the Courts of Appeal in the Incorporated Territories, and that in any event not more than 200 treason cases involving Poles were tried by the People's Court.127 We have already given undeserved dignity to this argument by answering it, and we shall not repeat that answer now. We are also told that many of these treason trials ended with prison sentences, which is to say penal camps, as, for instance, in the case which is Prosecution Exhibit 125, involving 22 Polish nationals as defendants.128 If by this he means to say that wrongfully imposed confinement in penal camps is any the less a war crime than wrongfully executed death sentences, it certainly deserves no answer.
There was in general no disposition in indictments for treason before the People's Court to treat Poles arrested in the annexed parts of Poland any differently from Poles or other foreign nationals arrested in Germany. But this defendant has taken up the challenge made by certain other defendants that foreign workers in Germany during the war came voluntarily, with the obvious intention of finding in that assertion some justification for the treason trials of foreign nationals arrested here, or in Austria, as occured in most of these cases in evidence.129 We deem it substantial proof to the contrary that Sauckel, head of the slave labor program, reported in a conference in March 1944 that less than 4% of the five million workers in Germany came voluntarily.130 A contrary statement by a defendant that he came voluntarily does not contravent the general fact expecially when such statements are worded precisely identical and are in the form of "confessions" obtained through Gestapo interrogations.131 The evidence in this cause shows a substantial percentage of the treason cases brought against Poles before the People's Court charged 127.
Tr. 5900, 5921; Pros. Ex. 126, p. 12.
128. Tr. 5901.
129. Tr. 5810, 5811.
130. Pros. Ex. 516, for Judicial Notice, Tr. 3448, etc.; see also Opinion in Military Tribunal II, which found that after 1943, no workers came to Germany voluntarily; see also Pros. Ex. 129, where opinion stated that 3 Poles "were sent from Poland to work."
131. Tr. 5920, 5921; Pros. Ex. 132, 136.
flight from Germany to Switzerland to join there an alleged shadow organization styled "The Polish Legion" by the People's Court prosecution, Significant is the fact that every case also involved the breach of a labor "contract" by the accused; that is, personal service owed to the Reich, a charge in and of itself not competent for People's Court jurisdiction. Whatever one may conclude as to the evidence in this case as to the existence and purpose of the "Polish Legion",132 which, we submit, militates against the belief that such an organization actually existed, there can be no justification for either a charge or a trial on grounds of treason for breach of a labor contract, whether or not the so-called "contract" was voluntarily entered into. By way of illustration in this connection, we refer to Prosecution Exhibit 132 in which the accused, both Poles, were charged in an indictment signed by Lautz with treason for attempting flight to Switzerland, and also charged with violation of the decree against Poles and Jews. The court, quite correctly, found no evidence to support the assertion that the defendants had ever heard of the Polish Legion, but proceeded to sentence one, who belonged to the "Polish intelligentsia", to death under paragraph 1 of the decree for the alleged crime of depriving the Reich of his labor. Of the result of this case the defendant Lautz had only to say: "...I have no cause to correct that conviction".133 Prosecution Exhibit 133, as another example, is a case factually identical to Exhibit 132, where the court also found no intent to join the "Legion", but nevertheless sentenced the defendants under the law against Poles and Jews for leaving their work.
We refer briefly now to the category of cases charging treason against residents of Bohemia and Moravia; Czech nationals indicted and sentenced by the People's Court. There is, first, a group of these cases similar to the "Polish Legion" cases, except that attempt to join 132.
Pros. Ex. 78, p. 1-2.
133. Tr. 5920, 6026; see also Pros. Ex. 126, p. 12-13.
the "Czech Legion" was charged and without reference to the decree against Poles and Jews. Treason charges were cited pursuant to the German Penal Code.134 The second general group of cases in which Czech nationals were cited for treason differed in that the accused were charged, for the more pert, for offenses committed in Bohemia and Moravia. The offenses, which in many cases were indeed proved, consisted in a defendant's belonging to, attempting to join, or having in his possession literature of, a prohibited party or organization. We are here primarily concerned with these cases which were tried by the People's Court in Germany and Czechoslovakia although hundreds of defendants, according to the Czech State Report, were tried by German Special courts and executed in Czechoslovakia on similar facts and charges.
The defendant Lautz seeks to minimize his responsibility in these matters by asserting that when foreign nationals were to be indicted for treason against the Reich, it was necessary, except in isolated cases, first to have the approval of the Reich Justice Ministry. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that this protocol may have been observed, the important fact remains, however, that the strained interpretation patently contrary to international law which we charge the defendant Lautz with applying in these cases, is the same interpretation for which he is responsible for conceiving. We refer, of course, to Prosecution Exhibit 347, NG-548 and testimony in connection with it. Without reviewing here the entire contents of this most interesting document or its attendant history, we summarize merely by saying that the interpretation formulated by Lautz at the request of Himmler accomplished the purpose here stated by Lautz, as follows:
"....to protect by means of the German Penal Code those racial Germans who have seriously suffered through action such as mentioned in paragraph 91, sub-para. 2 of the Penal Code, provided that action deserves punishment in accordance with sound German sentiment, but where such punishment, considering the elements of wrongdoing of that particular case, cannot be brought home on thestrength of any directly applicable penal regulation."
134. Section 80, #1, Sec. 83, #2 and 3 and Sec. 91.
And lastly:
"in the majority of these cases...it will be offenses which have been committed by foreign nationals abroad against racial Germans."135 The defendant Lautz has testified under cross-examination that in all subsequent treason cases involving foreign nationals after this date - February 1942 - that this was the interpretation of the law included in indictments filed by him and on which the Reich Justice Ministry based its approval for further action by him as Chief Reich Prosecutor.
136 We submit that this defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of this basic war crime as we have defined and discussed it above.
Mettgenberg The facts in this case show that in addition to the trial of Nacht and Nebel prisoners at the Special Courts designated in Exhibit 308,137 hundreds of Nacht und Nebel prisoners were tried by the People's Court136 for High Treason and preparation for High Treason.
As an international lawyer of note, the defendant must be held to have known that no duty of allegiance could factually exist upon which to predicate the charge. Therefore, he affirmatively knew that the alleged duty of allegiance was fictitious and convictions, therefore, were unlawful and criminal at international law.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the acts done and performed in connection with the Nacht und Neber program also constitute the taking of a consenting part in, and being connected with, a plan and enterprise to force foreign nationals who factually owed the German Reich no allegiance, to submit to illegal indictments, trials, sentences and executions for High Treason and attempted High Treason.
135. Pros. Ex. 347, p. 5; Tr. 6912-13.
136. Ty. 6013-14.
137. NG 232.
136. Ex. 320, NG 256, VI 91; Ex. 330, NG 240, VI 119.
The defendant Mettgenberg is guilty of committing War Crimes under the law as hereinabove set out.
The offenses are sufficiently alleged in Count II, Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Von Ammon The facts in this case show that in addition to the trial of Nacht und Nebel prisoners at the Special Courts designated in Exhibit 308,139 hundreds of Nacht und Nebel prisoners were tried by the People's Court140 for High Treason and preparation for High Treason.
As an international lawyer of note, the defendant must be held to have known that no duty of allegiance could factually exist upon which to predicate the charge. Therefore, he affirmatively knew that the alleged duty of allegiance was fictitious and convictions, therefore, were unlawful and criminal at international law.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the acts done and performed in connection with the Nacht und Nebel program also constitute the taking of a consenting part in, and being connected with, a plan and enterprise to force foreign nationals who factually owed the German Reich no allegiance, to submit to illegal indictment, trials, sentences and executions for High Treason and attempted High Treason.
The defendant von Ammon is guilty of committing War Crimes under the law as hereinabove set out.
The offense is sufficiently alleged in Count II, paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
MR. BUCHTHAL: Mr. Lafollette will now continue to read.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Joel.
The defendant Joel's attitude toward foreign nationals, many of whom he sent to their death, we have already pointed out in connection 139.
140. Ex. 320, NG 256, VI 91; Ex. 330, NG 240, VI 119.
with the law against Poles and Jews and Nacht und Nebel. We shall not review those facts against here, but we call the courts attention to the part Joel took in the Elias case,141 and to the Mettgenberg letter addressed to Joel requesting that relatives of non-Germans whould not be notified of executions.142 There can be no doubt that Joel took a leading role in cases involving foreign nationals and that he did so with a full knowledge of their status.
HIGH TREASON - Barnickel The Prosecution, in discussing the defendant's guilt under the Decree against Poles and Jews, has cited Exhibit 136, NG-595, III B 28, a People's Court case of preparation for High Treason and of violation of the Decree against Poles and Jews.
The same facts make the defendant guilty of a War Crime by unlawfully and criminally prosecuting a case of preparation for High Treason against the defendant Bratek, a Pole.
The defendant is a legal scholar, having studied in England as well as in Germany. He must be held to have known at the time he ordered the case prepared and tried that there was no factual basis for charging a Pole with a duty of allegiance to the German Reich. Nevertheless, he did -- Bratek was sentenced to death and was executed.
Also in the case against Mazur, Kubisz and Nowakowski, these defendants, all Poles, were sentenced to death because "in a treasonable was they helped the enemy" and also "prepared for High Treason."143 They were charged with trying to join the Polish Legion in August 1941 via the Swiss border. They had "been sent", not "invited", and going of their own free will, to work in the soda works of the Solvay company in Buchenau in Thuringia. They were tried and convicted in September 1942 as charged, and the Decree of 4 December 1941 was also 141.
Pros. Exs. 374, 375, and 480.
142. Pros. Ex. 299.
143. Ex. 129, NG 352.
applied to their acts done in august 1941. The defendant Lautz, through his Exhibit 199, has obligingly produced the evidence which shows that the defendant Barnickel is responsible for this crime.
The defendant offers the same defense for trying Poles on the fictitious charge of preparation for High Treason and treason as he did to his acts under the Decree of 4 December 1941.
These defenses are in his diary and his good intentions. Mazur, Kubisz and Nowakowski are dead; judicially murdered. It seems that the executioner's court yard, like Hell, is paved with good intentions.
The offense is adequately alleged in Count II, paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
TREASON AND HIGH TREASON - Petersen STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The defendant Petersen, who was indicted in this case because of his activities as a lay judge on the People's Court, became a member of the Nazi Party on 1 April 1925. Even before the seizure of power, he was active in Party affairs, being appointed honorary delegate for the Military Political Bureau of the NSDAP in Swabia in 1932. On 1 January 1933 he joined the SA.
It is proper here to note the findings of IMT on the SA.
"Up until the purge beginning of 30 June 1934, the SA was a group composed in a large part of ruffians and bullies who participated in the Nazi outrages of that period....." (Extract from IMT Judgment on SA, p. 16962 Mimeographed ed.)
It was not long before his "abilities" were recognized since in 1935-36 he served as department chief in the SA Reich Leader School in Munich. From 15 January 1936 to 30 September 1940 he was Leader of the SA Brigade 39 in Dessau; from 10 October 1940 to 30 November 1941 he was Deputy Fuehrer of the SA group Thuringia, stationed in Weimar. In January 1942 he became an SA Gruppenfuehrer and was appointed Chief of the Main Personnel Department in the Supreme Command of the SA in Munich. He was promoted to Obergruppenfuehrer of the SA in January 1944.
In addition to the above, it is interesting to note that Petersen was so highly regarded by the Party that in 1933-1934 he held the office of honorary second Burgomeister of Immenstadt and from 1937 to 1940 he was Honorary State Councillor in Anhalt. In the latter position he was legally Prime Minister of Anhalt. Other indications of his importance in the Party appear from the fact that he was made a member of the Reichstag in 1942, and during the winter 1941-1942 was appointed an honorary member of the People's Court. He remained a member of the People's Court until the collapse serving, except for a short time, as a member of the Special Senate.
As a reward for and in recognition of all these services Petersen received the Golden Party Badge, as well as NSDAP Service Decorations in gold, silver and bronze.
144 With this background in mind, let us now look at the activities of the People's Court - particularly the Special Senate thereof - and Petersen's participation therein.
As has been pointed out time and again the People's Court was a political court organized and functioning not for the purpose of punishing criminals, but for punishment of people with different political convictions in order to set a warning example.145 Looking at Ex. 248146 we find that during the year 1943 there were 5,336 death sentences handed down by courts coming under the jurisdic tion of the Reich Justice Ministry.
Of these, "1,747 concerned political offenses of German citizens, 526 plitical offenses of foreign nationals", and let us not forget that political cases were tried by the People's Court.
Although, for the most part, Petersen served as a member of the Special Senate, he has also served as a lay member of both the 1st and the 2nd Senates. In July 1941 an indictment was filed against one Friedrichs, a stateless person whose last residence was in Antwerp, for preparation to commit high treason at home and abroad (Germany, Czechoslovakia and Belgium). The crime charged was alleged to have been committed during the years 1936-1939 in that he collected funds and attempted to organize communist groups. Friedrichs was tried by the 2nd Senate of the People's Court, with Petersen sitting as one of the lay judges, on 25 September 1941, and the verdict was rendered the same day. The sentence was five years hard labor and forfeiture of civic rights. How 144 - EXH.
15, NG-691, IA, 39; EX. 176, NG-396; III E, 84.
145 - Exh. 175, NG-384, III e, 82.
146 - OSS report for Judicial Notice, Tr. p. 2247.
ever, one year was deducted for time spent in pre-trial detention.147 On March 24, 1942, the 1st Senate of the People's Court, the defendant Petersen being a member at that time, tried two Czechs, both citizens of the Protectorate, for preparation of high treason and other offenses.
It was charged that the defendants in this case attempted to establish and maintain a group for preparation of high treason (collecting money and recruiting men for the Czech Legion), and attempted to join the Czech Legion. The 1st Senate sentenced the two Czechs to five and eight years of penal servitude but allowed the deduction of two years from each sentence because of time spent in pretrial detention. The decision of the Court stated that "The defendants, as citizens of the Protectorate, have seriously failed in their duty of allegiance towards the Reich........"148 We also find him making recommendations to Thierack himself of "safe" SA leaders for the People's Courts at Vienna, Graz and Innsbruck.
This is to meet the requirements of the Gauleiters of those Gaue, The Gauleiter of Vienna, von Schirach, was convicted for his activities by IMT. Petersen was eager to render assistance and to take part in those activities.149 Coming now to Petersen's activities, with the Special Senate, of the People's Court, we find that this Senate dealt only with cases in which an extraordinary appeal had been taken against the original sentence.
Such extraordinary appeals were filed, as a rule, for the purpose of obtaining a more severe sentence, which purpose was known to the judges of the Special Senate. During the year 1944 death sentences were handed down in approximately 70% of the cases handled by the Special Senate.150 147 - Exh.
490, NG-877, IIIB Supp. 7.
148 - Exh. 514, NG-1473, IIIB Supp.
149 - Exh. 487, NG-821, IIIA Supp. 9 150 - Exh.
175, NG-384, IIIE, 82.
Petersen himself makes the following statements in his affidavit as to his activities in office and the purposes of the people's Court:
"The sentences of the Peoples' Court can be understood only if one keeps in mind the intent underlying the penalties. This was not primarily that of imposing punishment in accordance with normal 'bourgeois' conceptions of crime and punishment, but rather of annihilating an opposition which could become detrimental to the German aims. This was our duty. Hence, after a defendant had been brought before the People's Court because of some act or utterance, his actual deed was of no particular importance in the determination of the punishment within the framework of the law. The important thing was whether the man had to be exterminated from the community of the people as a 'public enemy' because of his personal attitudes and his social or anti-social tendencies." 151 As specific examples of cases tried by the Special Senate of the People's Court, with Petersen as one of the lay judges, we have in evidence three cases.
The first of these is a case against Zelezny, a Czech citizen of the Protectorate. Zelzny and another Czech had been previously tried by the 1st Senate of the People's Court for preparation of high treason (attempting to cross the border and reach Turkey for the purpose of enlisting in the"Czech Legion"). Zelezny was sentenced to one year imprisonment for violation of pass regulations, which sentence was served by his pre-trial detention. Lautz filed an extraordinary appeal against the sentence and Zelezny was re-tried by the Special Senate on 4 August 1943. As a result of this re-trial Zelezny was sentenced to five years penal servitude."152 The record concerning the second specific case in which Petersen participated as a lay member of the Special Senate is incomplete.
However, the evidence shows that Chalupa, a Czech, was indicted in January 1944 for preparation of high treason and aiding and abetting enemies of the Reich in time of war. Neither the original sentence, nor the sentence of the Special Senate against Chalupa is shown, however, the record shows 151 - Affidavit Petersen, NG-396, Ex. 176, introduced 27 March 1947.
Document Book IIIE, p. 84.
152 - Ex. 512, NG-1471, IIIB Supp.
a summons issued in the case for hearing before the Special Senate on 21 September 1944.153 The affiant, Dr. Arno Weimann, stated in his affidavit that he was defense counsel in a case against the lawyer Dr. Will who was indicted and tried in 1944 for making remarks admitting defeat.
The 1st Senate sentenced Will to death and confiscated his property with the exception of RM 100,000. Thereafter, on June 28, 1944, the matter was re-tried by the Special Senate, of which Petersen was a member. The re-trial again resulted in a death sentence for Dr. Will, but this time his entire property was consficated.154 The primary facts on Petersen show:
That he is an SA bully, high in the SA, in fact, in charge of its Personnel Office at its highest headquarters; and, that he was continuously a member of the People's Court from 1942 until the end of the war, the last three years of which time he was on the Special Senate, which Special Senate had a record of seventy percent death sentences. This is not surprising when we remember the defendant's statement of the malicious purpose to "exterminate" other human beings with which he conducted his judicial function and by which standard he measured the "judicial" function of the People's Court.
We also have in the record, Ex. 51, NG-184, IB, p. 153, listing honorary judges of the People's Court, which shows the caliber of the defendant's associate, Karl Hermann Frank, SS Obergruppenfuehrer, State Minister of Czechoslovakia, convicted and hung by the Czechs and General Hermann Reinecke in charge of P.W.'s awaiting trial in the Nurnberg jail.
153 - Ex. 513, NG-1472, IIIB Supp.
154 - To assist the Court to recall the methods of operations and the purpose to exterminate of the People's Court, we refer the Court to the following exhibits: Exh. 146, NG-403, IIIC 10. Exh. 283, NG-535, VIIA 74.
We have in this record evidence of conviction for high treason and preparations for high treason of Czech nationals, whose alleged duty of allegiance is a factual fiction and a legal enormity. We also have evidence that in 1943 the Special Senate passed 1662 death sentences.155 We have therefore, evidence of personal malicious intent and lawless exercise of jurisdiction over the persons of Czech nationality resulting in imprisonment.
This constitutes guilt.
The alleged defense of ignorance of law is more properly a matter of aggravation of guilt than a defense. Here a man who finds satisfaction in exterminating others, without any knowledge of the law, fervently seeks and enthusiastically holds a position wherein he passes upon the right to live and the right to freedom of other men. This is such a wanton disregard for the consequences of one act as to create criminal responsibility.
It is an odd comment that men all over the world arrogate to themselves the right to pass on legal matters where they would not do so in other specialized and professional fields. If this defendant had insisted on being allowed to perform two hundred abdominal operations without any medical knowledge no one would think of offering his ignorance as a defense, yet we see the defendant asking this Court to free him under exactly the same reasoning.
The defendant is guilty of taking a consenting part in War Crimes as alleged in Count II, paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11.
The acts of the defendant which did not constitute War Crimes did constitute Crimes against Humanity as charged in Count III, paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Indictment. We incorporate by reference under our discussion of those crimes that which we have said here.
155 - Exh. 124, NG-160, IIIA, 69.
HIGH TREASON - Nebelung The defendant Nebelung, although often described as one of the more lenient People's Court judges, had a career as a Party Member which would indicate that he lived up to all the Party slogans and carried out the Party aims and purposes.
He joined the Party in 1928 five years before the seizure of power -- and was a leading figure in both the Party and the National Socialist Jurists League. At least during the periods of 1929-30 and 1933-39 he was a member of the leadership corps. In 1934 he joined the SA where he took an active part as legal adviser. He was also a member of other Nazi organizations as well as the recipient of the Golden Party Badge, the SA Sport Badge and the Party Service Badge.156 Nebelung's first appointment as a high judical official, President of a Senate of the Court of Appeals in Brunswick, came on 15 July 1934, shortly after the Party's rise to power.
Only five and a half months later, on 1 January 1935, he received his appointment as President of the Court of Appeals of Brunswick. Although he served in the Army during 1939-40 and 1941-43 he retained his office with the Brunswick Court of Appeals and served there as "indispensable" from the end of 1940 to July 31, 1941, and again after February 1943. In July 1944 he was appointed to the People's Court in Berlin where he was President of the Fourth Senate until the end of the war.157 Nebelung's personnel file158 shows that he received his first appointment in Brunswick since he was an old Party Member, a member of the Association of NS Jurists, and since he was "capable of shaping the 156 - Exh.
409, NG-600; Bk IX, p. 71. Exh. 13, NG-694, Bk IA, p. 35.
157 - Exh. 13, NG-694, Bk IA, p. 35.
158 - Exh. 409, NG-600, Bk IX A, p. 71.