Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
It is interesting to note that Hoven’s defense that he killed for
idealistic motives is the same he used in the proceedings against him in
1944, only then his alleged idealistic motive was “to prevent a scandal
in the interest of the SS and the Wehrmacht.” (_NO-2380, Pros. Ex. 527_;
see also, _NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526_.)
* * * * *
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE
PROSECUTION_[1]
* * * * *
In Sievers we have an unresisting member of a so-called resistance
movement. He asks the Tribunal to free him from guilt for his bloody
crimes on the ground that he was really working as an anti-Nazi
resistance agent. Nor was he a latecomer to the resistance movement;
according to him, he has been resisting since 1933. Yet in those 14
years, yes to this very day, he has not performed one overt act against
the men who ran the system he now professes to have always detested. He
joined the Nazi Party as early as 1929 and the SS in 1935. He stayed
with Himmler’s gang until the last days of the collapse. He came to
Nuernberg in 1946, not to give evidence of the horrible crimes of which
he had first-hand knowledge, but to testify in defense of the SS. During
his testimony before the International Military Tribunal, he
consistently denied any knowledge of, or connection with, crimes
committed by the Ahnenerbe of the SS. It was left to the
cross-examination of Mr. Elwyn Jones to prove him the murderer and
perjurer that he is. Nor did he show any signs of resistance in this
trial except to the manifold crimes with which he is charged. Not one
new fact did he reveal to this Tribunal, although specifically asked to
tell all he knew. If asked today, he will assure one and all that there
is not a guilty man in the dock, and least of all himself. But, for
purposes of argument, let us concede the truth of his many lies. It does
not harm our case. It is not the law that a resistance worker can commit
no crime and, least of all, against the people he is supposed to be
protecting. It is not the law that an undercover agent, even an FBI
agent, can join a gang of murderers, lay the plans with them, execute
the killings, share the loot, and go his merry way. Many are the
policemen who have been convicted for taking part in crimes they were
entrusted to prevent. No, the sad thing is that this collector of living
Jews for transformation into skeletons has only one life with which to
pay for his many crimes.
* * * * *
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT_[2]
* * * * *
_The State Emergency and War Emergency as Legal Excuse_
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account