When Kraege appeared in court as a witness he sought to repudiate his statement about ascribing the chiefship of the sub-kommando to von Radetzky but he did admit that, at the time he was actually in Ludzk, he believed that von Radetzky was commanding, since Radetzky gave him his direct orders.
Although von Radetzky endeavored throughout the trial to deny knowledge of the extermination of Jews he finally admitted this knowledge.
The Tribunal finds that it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that Jews were executed by Sonderkommando 4a because they were Jews, and it finds further that von Radetzky took a consenting part in these executions.
The Tribunal further finds, in contradistinction to the defendant's statement, that he did at times command a sub-kommando.
The defendant maintained that he entered the einsatz service involuntarily and remained in it against his will, submitting that on eleven different occasions he endeavored to be relieved from this service. It must be remarked, however, that whether he became a member of the einsatz forces voluntarily or involuntarily, he did his work zestfully. It can be said in mitigation that, according to his testimony, he did on occasion endeavor to assist potential victims of the Fuehrer-Order and in one particular instance issued passes which allowed some persons to escape from the camp in which they were being held. Nonetheless, the Tribunal is convinced that the evidence establishes beyond a resonable doubt that von Radetzky took a consenting part in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and, therefore, finds him guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment.
Insofar as Count III is concerned, much evidence was introduced on behalf of the defendant to show that he did not enter the SS or SD organizations voluntarily, but was drafted. It is not sufficient however, in order to absolve oneself from the charge of membership in a criminal organization to show that one entered its ranks involuntarily.
Attention is directed to that part of the International Military Tribunal Decision which says that it charges with criminal membership in the SS those persons who became or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for criminal purposes, "or who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes." The decision excludes those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter but adds that this exception does not apply to those who committed the acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter. Thus, the question whether von Radetzky entered the SS voluntarily or involuntarily becomes moot in view of the finding of the Tribunal that he is guilty under Counts I find II of the Indictment, thereby proving conclusively his personal implication in the acts established as criminal by the Charter. The same finding holds true with regard to the defendant's membership in the SD.
The Tribunal finds, from all the evidence in this case, that the defendant was a member of the criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1505 hours.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant, Eduard Strauch.
SS-Lieutenant Colonel Eduard Strauch is a graduate lawyer. He joined the Allgemeine SS on December 1, 1931. In 1934 he joined the SD.
The Prosecution contends that Eduard Strauch became commander of Einsatzkommando 2 on November 4, 1941. This is denied by the defendant who, in effect, claims he was never in charge of this kommando. The defendant explains that when an area passed into the hands of the Civilian Administration from the military the einsatz units ceased to exist and were replaced by:
(1) the chief commanders (Befehlshaber) of the Security Police and SD in the case of the Einsatzgruppen and (2) the commandants (kommandeure) of the Security Police and SD in the case of the einsatz kommandos and the SD.
Defense Counsel claims these offices had no connection with the military at all, yet in seeking to make this point he gave the illustration of the Chief of Offices (Befehlshaber) of the SIPO and SD, Ostland with headquarters at Riga, the area of the Civilian Administration, maintaining his headquarters as Chief of Einsatzgruppe A in Krasnowlisk, within the Army area. By this very illustration, which was supposed to show the contrary, it is very clear how one could act in a civilian administrative capacity and be head of an einsatz unit at the same time.
An analysis of the records shows that Eduard Strauch took over the command of Einsatzkommando 2, Latvia, on November 4, 1941, and that in February 1942 he became commander of the Security Police and SD in White Ruthenia, situated at Minsk. From some time in July 1943 until he left Russia, he served as Intelligence Officer in an anti-Guerrilla warfare unit.
Strauch's guilt has been established by numerous documents. Strauch seeks to deny that he cooperated with Jeckeln, Higher SS and Police Leader in the Jewish operation of November 30, 1941, because he only had 20 men under him. But it is an extraordinary conincidence indeed that one officer and exactly 20 men of Einsatzkommando 2 participated in that operation which resulted in the death of 10,600 Jews in Riga.
Report No. 186, dated March 27, 1946 shows Strauch was commander of the Security Police and the SS for White Ruthenia during this period. The report chronicled the death of 15,000 Jews in Tscherwen.
Report No. 183, dated March 20, 1942, states:
"In the period from 5 to the 28 February the main field office Wilajka shot 29 Jews, 4 Communists, 5 partisans, 5 public enemies, and 4 persons for sabotage.
Another 16 persons were arrested."
This operation was conducted by Hoffmann who was Strauch's deputy, and who kept Strauch informed of his operations, as Strauch admitted on the witness stand.
The Commissioner General for White Ruthenia reported on July 31, 1942 to the Reich Commissar in Riga as follows:
"During detailed consultations with the SS-Brigadefuehrer Zenner and the extremely capable Chief of the SD, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. jur.
Strauch, we found that we had liqui dated approximately 55,000 Jews in White Ruthenia during the last 10 weeks.
In the Minsk-Land area, the Jewry was completely exterminated, without endangering the allocation of labor in any way."
Strauch first attempted to deny the authenticity of this letter and then abandoned that position, claiming that Kube exaggerated the figures. The Tribunal is convinced that the letter is authentic, and that the statements contained therein represent the truth even if not accepting the absolute accuracy of the figures down to the last digit.
By his own words Strauch was an unrelenting and merciless oppressor of the Jews, and displayed considerable indignation when anyone sought to defend them.
In a letter dated 25 July 1943, he related a plan whereby 5,000 Jews of the Minsk Ghetto were to be "resettled". The Jews, jowever, learned that the resettlement meant execution and Strauch bitterly attacked those responsible for this "treachery". He said:
"We had no choice but to herd the Jews together by force."
On July 20, 1943 he wrote a letter narrating how he had subjected 70 Jews to special treatment and expressing his resentment because complaint had arisen from the fact that he had had the gold fillings removed from the mouths of these Jews before they were killed.
Adolf Ruebe, a master sergeant in the SS, submitted an affidavit on Strauch which further emphasizes Strauch's guilt which is complete:
"About the middle of February 1943 the kommando of the KdS Minsk went to Sluzk, under the leadership of Ober sturmbannfuehrer, Eduard Strauch.
At about 6 o'clock in the morning the kommando was called together.
A Haupt sturmfuehrer made a speech in which he told us that the Jewish Ghetto in Sluzk would be liquidated this day and that he ejected the highest discipline from every member of the kommando.
A cer tain number of the men were assigned to carry out the shootings.
Another group got the order to guard those who were supposed to be shot.
The older people, including me, were supposed to be available at the entrance of the Ghetto.
A man in the uniform of a political leader made a speech ad dressed to the Jews, informing them that they would be resettled.
The Jews were then put on the trucks.
As a rule the individual trucks were given different destinations, such as OT (Organization Todt), Reichsbahn, etc.
But, as a matter of fact, all the trucks headed straight towards the execution place which was some kilometers outside of Sluzk.
There the mass graves had already been prepared.
In the same vicinity there were mass graves which originated from a shooting of Jews in summer 1942.
The Jews were taken into the ditches where they were murdered by separate shots from behind.
At approxi mately 3 o'clock in the afternoon the executions were completed, Obersturmbann fuehrer Strauch and Brigadefuehrer von Gottberg were present at the executions."
In response to a question regarding the Jewish problem in White Ruthenia, Strauch replied that the Fuehrer-Order was valid in White Ruthenia, as everywhere else. He testified that he had a conference with Kube and that Kube told him Jews were needed and he could not do without those Jews, since they should be used in bring in the harvest, working in an armament factory and doing other jobs. The defendant thereupon talked to Heydrich and was directed to postpone the execution of the Fuehrer-Order until the harvest was brought in.
The defendant testified that, in February-May 1942, 7,000 Jews had been killed. When Strauch arrived, Kube asked him not to continue this system, and the defendant said that he could not begin to shoot Jews on the first day of his arrival.
Responding to a question as to the number of Jews executed during the defendant's time of service he replied:
"You mean my time? Oh yes, well, if I count those Jews who were later killed by Gottberg, when I was G-2, when I count them along with the others, then I would say 17,000."
He admitted that, to his own knowledge,aa Jew had to be killed just because he was a Jew.
The defendant admitted that he saw probably 60 to 90 executions. Regarding the affair of Sluzk, he testified that the number executed there was about 1,200 and not 2,000 as mentioned in the Kube letter. He stated that he was present during part of the execution and witnessed about 200 being killed. He also saw about 200 women and children lining up to be shot.
From all the evidence in the case, the Tribunal finds the defendant guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment.
The Tribunal also finds that the defendant was a member of the criminal organizations SS and SD under conditions defined by the Judgment of the Internation Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
JUDGE SPEIGHT:Felix Ruehl SS-Captain Felix Ruehl worked as a commercial clerk at Luckenwalde from 1926 until 1929.
He then went to England for one year. In February 1931 until September 1933 he worked in the Luckenwalde court and in September 1933 joined the Gestapo. In May 1941 while attending the Leadership School in Berlin he was summoned to Pretzsch, assigned to Sonderkommando 10b of Einsatzgruppe D, left for the field on June 27 or 28 and arrived in Roumanian territory about July 30. On October 1, 1941, having been called back to Berlin to continue his studies, he left the kommando.
The Prosecution introduced in evidence the affidavit of one Robert Barth, supposedly a former onlisted man in the kommando in which he stated that during the "temporary duty trips" of the kommando leader which usually took two or three days, the unit was commanded by Ruehl. If it were established that Ruehl really served as commander of the unit even for brief periods during such times as the kommando was engaged in liquidating operations, guilt under Counts I and II would be conclusive. The Prosecution maintains that it has proved that verything. But if this proposition is to be upheld it must rest on the one pedestal of Barth's affidavit. Ruehl could not come into the leadership automatically as the result of rank or seniority because they were such as to place him only in the fourth position. Thus the proof of leadership must rest on the Barth column which probatively speaking, is a rather shaky one. While the rules of procedure permit the introduction of affidavits and indeed this innovation in trial routine has accomplished much good in the saving of time, an affidavit can never take the place of a flesh and blood witness in court when the affiant is available and the issue raised by the affidavit is a vital one. Had Barth appeared in court, not only would Defense Counsel have had the opportunity to cross-examine him, but the Tribunal itself could have appraised with more discernment than it can now his otherwise unsupported statement of Ruehl's supposed leadership. The pedestal of Barth's assertion with regard to upholding the hypothesis of Ruehl's leadership must withstand the successive hammer blows of, first, the unexplained absence of the affiant, secondly, Ruehl's low rank in the hierarchy of the unit and, thirdly, the fact that normally an administrative officer would not have executive functions.
Under a multiple attack of that character the Tribunal cannot ascribe to this lone piece of evidence the strength needed to sustain so momentous a weight as the leadership of a kommando with its concomitant responsibility for executions.
And then there is also the direct testimony of Schubert, given from the witness stand, that Ruehl never functioned as a deputy commander of Sonderkommando 10b.
The Prosecution submits document NOKW-587 as evidence against Ruehl. Ruehl denies that the action reported therein took place and then adds that he arrived after the date of the alleged executions. The communication in question, however, states:
"Kommando 10b reached Czernowitz on Sunday, 6 July 1941, at 18.
15 hours after an advance division had esta blished the first communications with Roumanian posts in town the day be fore and had provided quarters."
(Emphasis supplied)
Since the defendant admits that he was responsible for the procurement of quarters it is not to be excluded that he led the "advance division" which established communications with the Roumanians and provided quarters. This, however, in itself would not make him a participant in the executive actions which followed nor would his contact with the Roumanians in itself establish that he was aware that executions were impending. A presumption in an issue as serious as the one involved in this particular transaction.
The Prosecution has also introduced Report No. 19, dated July 11, 1941 which plainly involves the kommando, but again there is no indication that Ruehl was in charge of the kommando or had any authority over it.
Report No. 50, dated August 1, 1941, speaks of an operation in Chotin or Hotin. Ruehl denies all knowledge of the executions mentioned therein. That Ruehl may not have taken any part in these executions is admissible, but that he was ignorant of their happening is contrary to human observation. That he may not have done anything to prevent them is within the realm of believability but to assert that as a member of a unit made up of only seven officers and 85 men he could not know that killings were taking place is to enter into a fairyland which was quite the antithesis of the demons' land in which they were operating.
But there is no need to resort to the machinery of logic and deduction to produce the conclusion of cognizance. It is readymade in Ruehl's own pre-trial sworn statement in which he tells of having received official notice of the killings by the kommando of 12 to 15 people declared to have participated in a surprise attack against Roumanian troops. He also tells of the sonderkommando which killed 30 Jews declared to have participated in the murder of two German air pilots. At the trial he denied having actual knowledge of these events and stated that what he acquired in the way of information came to him only through hearsay.
Although it is evident that Ruehl had knowledge of some of the illegal operations of Sonderkommando 10b, it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in a position to control, prevent or modify the severity of its program.
The Prosecution also charges that Ruehl was criminally involved in the matter of the migration of a large group of Jews from the German controlled territory into Roumania. Although this episode was dwelt on at length during the trial, no evidence was adduced to show that Ruehl acted in any capacity other than courier between the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe and the escorting Roumanian officers of the so-called transport. There is no evidence that Ruehl in any way maltreated these Jews, and certainly he did not participate in the execution of any of them.
Ruehl remained with the einsatz organization for no more than three months and during the entire period took part in no executive operation nor did his low rank place him automatically into a position where his lack of objection in any way contributed to the success of any executive operation.
The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the defendant is not guilty under Count I of the Indictment and not guilty under Count II of the Indictment.
The Tribunal however finds that the defendant was a member of the criminal organizations SS and Gestapo under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
Judge Dixon: Heinz Hermann Schubert:
SS-First Lieutenant Heinz Schubert, joined the NSDAP on May 1, 1934, having previously served in the Hitler Youth Organization. In October 1934 he joined the SS. From October 1941 to June 1942 he served as adjutant to Ohlendorf, Chief of Einsatzgruppe D. At the trial he testified that his duties consisted mostly of attending to the personal affairs of his chief, the receiving and filing of correspondence, the making of appointments, receiving visitors and so on. It would appear, however, that he was more than an office boy with shoulder straps.
Schubert's own affidavit answers the question as to whether he is guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. The pertinent parts of this affidavit read as follows:
"In December 1941 -- I do not remember the exact date -- I was assigned by Ohlendorf or Seibert to supervise and inspect the shooting of about 700 to 800 people, which was to take place in the close vicinity of Simferopol.
The shooting was undertaken by the Special Command lib, one of the for mations of the Einsatzgruppe D. My task in connection with the shooting consisted of three parts:
a) to see that the location of the shooting be remote enough, so that there could be no witnesses to the shooting:
b) to supervise that the collection of money, jewels, and other valu ables of the persons who were to be shot, be convicted without the use of force; and that the persons designated for this by the Special Command 11b, hand over the collected items to the administration leaders and their deputies in order to have then passed on to Einsatzgruppe D.
c) to supervise that the execution be completed in the most humane and military manner possible, exactly according to Ohlendorf's orders.
"After the execution I had to report personally to Ohlendorf that the execu tion had been carried out exactly according to his orders.
"As commissioner of Ohlendorf I followed his orders.
I went to the Gypsy quarter of Simferopol and supervised the load ing of the persons who were to be shot, into a truck, I took care that the load ing was completed as quickly as possible and that there were no disturbances and unrest by the native population.
Fur thermore, I took care that the condemned persons were not beaten while the load ing was going on.
Since it was my task to supervise the whole execution, I could only stay a short time at each phase of it.
"The place which was designated for the shooting of these Russians and Jews was several kilometers outside of Sim feropol and about 500 meters off the road in an anti-tank ditch.
Among other things I ascertained that the traffic in that region was stopped by persons designated for this and was detoured on side roads.
When the condemned persons arrived at the place of execution, they were ordered to leave their money, their valuables and papers at a place designated for this.
I watched that none of the de posited items were kept by the SS and Orpo-men who were designated for the collection.
The depositing of this property by the condemned persons was finished without the use of force.
I supervised this phase carefully, in order that all the valuables could be handed over to the Einsatzgruppe D, for subsequent remittance to Berlin.
"For a short time, when the people who were to be shot were already standing in their positions in the tank ditch, I supervised the actual shooting which was carried out in strictest conformity with Ohlendorf's orders -- in a military and humane manner, as far as possible.
The people were shot with submachine guns and rifles.
I know that it was of the greatest importance to Ohlendorf to have the persons who were to be shot killed in the post humane and military manner possible because otherwise -in other methods of killing -- the moral strain (se*lische Belastung) would have been too great for the execution squad.
"I have read this statement, consisting of three p*---*s in the German language and declare that it is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I had the opportunity to make changes and corrections in the above statement.
I made this statement of my own free will without any promise of reward, and I was not subjected to any threat or duress whatsoever.
"Nuernberg, Germany, the 24 February 1947 (Signature) Heinz Hermann Schubert" That the execution described by Schubert actually took place is established conclusively not only by reports but by the testimony of other witnesses as well.
In fact, Schubert himself said:
"This was the execution which has been discussed here repeatedly.
It was the execution for which the 11th Army had given orders to the Ein satzgruppe to carry it out before a certain time.
This deadline, as far as I know, was Christmas or the end of the year 1941."
At the trial the defendant endeavored to dilute the force of his affidavit by saying that the word "supervise", which is frequently used in his narrative, does not correctly report the functions he performed at the execution; he did not supervise but merely inspected. The affidavit consisted of three pages, he made a correction on page 1 and initialed the correction, placed his abbreviated name at the bottom of the first two pages and signed his full name at the bottom of the last page.
However, even if the affidavit were to be disregarded, his recount on the witness stand of the part he played in the execution of defenselless and innocent people would clearly take him within the purview of Control Council Law No. 10.
When asked why these 700 to 800 people were shot he replied:
"I did not know why the individuals were being executed.
It is possible that there were persons among them who, because of some special examina tion were being executed.
As for me, in general, however, I was certain of one thing, that this was an execution based on the Fuehrer-Order."
When asked what he had done in the early stages of this operation he emphasized that he did not select the place for the execution. It was then pointed out to him that his affidavit did not so indicate:
"This does not say that you selected it.
It says that you went there to make certain that the place selected for the shooting was so located that it would fall within the regulations, namely, that there would not be any unnecessary witnesses to the shoot ing."
He affirmed this version. With regard to the taking of the valuables he also confirmed in court:
"I convinced myself that the collection of money and valuables of people to be shot was not done by force, etc."
The defendant tried to convey the impression that he merely looked on, more or less, as a spectator, but he admitted that he would have interfered if the execution had been laid in the wrong place, if weapons not prescribed by the chief of the Einsatzgruppe were used, and in general he would have intervened if things were not going "well".
Schubert's criminal involvement in the Christmas massacre of Simferopol is complete and presents no mitigating circumstances.
His general participation in the venture of Einsatzgruppe D while he was its adjutant is not to be doubted. The defendant Ohlendorf declared in an affidavit:
"The only people whom I generally assigned to inspections were, except for Schubert, Willi Seibert and Hans Gabel."
Schubert sought to minimize the implications of this statement and denied that he had been "generally assigned to inspections". He did, however, state that he knew "definitely" that Gabel "carried out such inspections". It would be strange, indeed, that Ohlendorf should mention three names, and it developed that the only one who performed the duties he assigned to them should be that one person who did not appear in this trial as a defendant.
It is also clear that the defendant was thoroughly aware of the instructions generally given by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe with regard to the "manner of carrying out executions". It is furthermore evident that, as adjutant, Schubert was current on the assignments given to various members of the staff and, therefore, had full knowledge of the main purpose of the Einsatzgruppe.
From all the evidence in the case the Tribunal finds the defendant guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment.
The Tribunal also finds that the defendant was a member of the criminal organizations S and SD under the conditions defined in the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT:Matthias Graf.
Matthias Graf was never a commander of an einsatz unit nor during the whole time he served in Russia was he an officer. When first attached to Einsatzkommando 6 he held the rank of Unterscharfuehrer (corporal). After one year he was promoted to Scharfuehrer (sergeant) and when he left Russia in October 1942 he held the rank of Oberscharfuehrer (master sergeant), that is to say he remained in a non-commissioned officers' status throughout the entire period of his service with the kommando.
At the very outset he was made assistant to one Grimminger who served as SD expert. Upon Grimminger's death in July 1941 Graf took over his position.
Although Graf was statistically with Einsatzkommando 6 for thirteen months he served also for a short period with the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Stalino. For five weeks he was detailed to the Liaison Office of AOK 17; he was on furlough for five weeks and was ill and on sick leave for about three months. Thus about five months of thirteen months' incumbency with the einsatzkommando were spent away from the unit. During the eight months he actually served with the organization, Graf never once acted as commander of it or any of its subdivisions.
In September 1942 Graf was assigned the command of a subkommando, but he refused to accept the assignment. Because of this refusal he was arrested and placed in custody for disciplinary action. Eventually the disciplinary proceedings were dropped and he was sent back to Germany.
The defendant, like every other defendant in court, is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The Prosecution has introduced reports showing that Einsatzkommando 6 engaged in various executive operations. It is not questioned that the kommando did participate in liquidating operations and, despite the defendant's denial, it is not to be doubted that he know of at least some of these executions. However, more than more knowledge of illegality or crime is required in order to establish guilt under Counts I and II of the Indictment. Furthermore, in view of his various absences from the kommando it can not be assumed that his membership in the organization of itself proves his presence at and knowledge of any particular executive operation, without there being proof of that fact.
In view of Graf's non-commissioned officer's status in an organization where rank was of vital importance, it is not to be assumed that the commander of the organization would take Graf into his confidence in planning an operation. As a non-commissioned officer he would not participate in officers' conferences. Since there is no evidence in the record that Graf was at any time in a position to protest against the illegal actions of others, he cannot be found guilty as an accessory under Counts I and II of the Indictment.
Since there is no proof that he personally participated in any of the executions or their planning, he may not be held as a principal.
Insofar as Counts I and II against the defendant are concerned the Tribunal concludes that the evidence does not rise to that degree of proof required by the principles of justice and the concomitant guarantees of correct procedure to warrant a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus finds him not guilty.
The defendant joined the SS in 1933 and in 1936 was expelled because of lack of attendance and general indifference to the organization. It would appear that at no time was Graf a fanatical adherent of National Socialism. In 1932 he intended to go to South America but was prevented from doing so because of restriction on foreign currency. He tried to migrate in 1940 but could not do so because of the war. His primary interest was not politics but business. His Work Book, a document required under the Law of February 26, 1935 (published in Reich Law Gazette 311) lists him as an Independent Business man from the period of October 1, 1935 to February 1, 1940 and as a civil servant from March 1, 1940.
In January 1940 he was drafted under the Emergency Service Regulations for service with the Landrat in Kempten and then entered the SD-Aussenstelle in Kempten on a war supplementary basis.
In that same year, 1940, he endeavored to be released from the SD so that he might join the army. He took an interpreter's examination in order to qualify for linguistic services in the army but he did not succeed in his attempt. On April 18, 1941 he wrote a letter, seeking to be released from the SD so that he might be enrolled in the army. A copy of this letter was introduced as a document.
In considering the subject of membership in a criminal organization, as defined by the International Military Tribunal Decision, September 1, 1939 is accepted as a crucial date. On that date Graf was not a member of any criminal organization. When, in 1940, he was drafted by the Emergency Service Regulations he applied to rejoin the SS.
He explained that this application was purely a perfunctory function because he would automatically have fallen into this organization on account of his then being a member of the SD:
"The Personnel Departmental Chief could see from my documents that I used to be a member of the SS, so he said, 'Of course, in that case you have to rejoin the SS'. Therefore, I made out the ap plication, but, if I had not been de ferred to the SD, I would never have rejoined the SS, but I was transferred to the special formation, the SD.
After all, this was on the war emergency status.
In my opinion then, it was merely a formal matter to regain my former SS number."
In substantiation of his claim that he rejoined the SS because of the insistency of his departmental chief the defendant pointed out, that although drafted into war service on January 1, 1940 he did not make his application for the SS until July 28. Had he had a sincere desire to rejoin the SS, he would not have waited 7 months to make the application. He, therefore, submits that the filing of the application was a were form.
The Tribunal finds that the defendant's leaving the SS in 1936 showed a clear intention to disassociate himself from that organization and accepts the defendant's explanation that he would not have rejoined the SS in July 1940 had he not been drafted by the Emergency Service Regulations and deferred to the SD. The Tribunal therefore finds him not guilty of membership in the SS under the conditions declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.
With regard to membership in the SD, reference is made to the IMT decision which declares that the Security Police and SD was a voluntary organization and that membership therein was voluntary. The Tribunal therefore finds the defendant guilty of membership in the SD. It further finds as a mitigating circumstance, however, that is membership in the SD was not without compulsion and constraint. It therefore adjudges that the period of the defendant's imprisonment from the date of his arrest, following the termination of the war, to the present date, shall constitute the sentence of the Tribunal based upon such conviction.
In view of the fact that the defendant has thus already served his term of imprisonment under the sentence just imposed, it is now ordered, that he be permanently discharged from custody under the Indictment upon adjournment of the Tribunal this day.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 April 1948 at 1000 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.
, defendants sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 10 April 1948, 1000-1100, Justice Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal has the following order to promulgate with regard to sentences where the term of an imprisonment is indicated. The defendant involved will receive credit for the time already served by him in confinement from the first date of arrest following the termination of the war. The Marshal will produce the defendant Otto Ohlendorf.
Defendant OTTO OHLENDORF, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
The Marshal will produce the defendant Heinz Jost.
Defendant HEINZ JOST, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for life.
The Marshal will produce the defendant Erich Naumann.
JUDGE SPEIGHT:Defendant ERICH NAUMANN, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
THE PRESIDENT:The Marshall will produce the defendant Erwin Schulz.
JUDGE SPEIGHT:Defendant ERWIN SCHULZ, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to twenty years imprisonment.
THE PRESIDENT:The Marshall will produce the defendant Franz six.
JUDGE DIXON:Defendant FRANZ SIX, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to twenty years imprisonment.
THE PRESIDENT:The Marshall will produce the defendant Paul Blobel.
JUDGE DIXON:Defendant PAUL BLOBEL, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
THE PRESIDENT:The Marshall will produce the defendant Walter Blume.
Defendant WALTER BLUME, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.