DOCSLIB.ORG

GREIFELT Et Al. So-Called Rusha-Trial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GREIFELT Et Al. So-Called Rusha-Trial GREIFELT et al. so-called RuSHA-Trial US Military Tribunal Nuremberg, Judgment of 10 March 1948 Page numbers in braces refer to US Military Tribunal Nuremberg, judgment of 10 March 1948, in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 , Volume V 1 JUDGMENT.................................................................................................................4 KIDNAPING OF ALIEN CHILDREN........................................................................... 14 ABORTIONS ON EASTERN WORKERS .................................................................. 19 TAKING AWAY INFANTS OF EASTERN WORKERS .............................................. 21 PUNISHMENT FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH GERMANS ........................... 25 HAMPERING THE REPRODUCTION OF ENEMY NATIONALS .............................. 28 FORCED EVACUATIONS AND RESETTLEMENT OF POPULATIONS; FORCED GERMANIZATION OF ENEMY NATIONALS; SLAVE LABOR.................................. 31 COMPULSORY CONSCRIPTION OF ENEMY NATIONALS INTO THE ARMED FORCES .................................................................................................................... 45 PLUNDER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY................................................. 48 PERSECUTION AND EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS ......................................... 52 WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY................................................ 52 COUNT THREE ......................................................................................................... 53 ULRICH GREIFELT ................................................................................................... 54 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 54 RUDOLF CREUTZ..................................................................................................... 54 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 54 KONRAD MEYER-HETLING ..................................................................................... 55 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 55 OTTO SCHWARZENBERGER.................................................................................. 56 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 56 HERBERT HUEBNER ............................................................................................... 56 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 57 WERNER LORENZ ................................................................................................... 57 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 57 HEINZ BRUECKNER................................................................................................. 58 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 58 OTTO HOFMANN...................................................................................................... 58 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 58 2 RICHARD HILDEBRANDT ........................................................................................ 59 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 60 FRITZ SCHWALM ..................................................................................................... 60 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 60 MAX SOLLMANN ...................................................................................................... 60 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 61 GREGOR EBNER...................................................................................................... 61 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 61 GUENTHER TESCH.................................................................................................. 62 COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................... 62 INGE VIERMETZ ....................................................................................................... 62 SENTENCES ............................................................................................................. 62 X. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE DANIEL T. O'CONNELL66 3 JUDGMENT The constitution, powers, jurisdiction, and functions of this Tribunal are fully stated in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and the following subsequent cases: The United States of America vs. Brandt, et al, Case No. 1; the United States of America vs. Altstoetter, et al, Case No. 3; and the United States of America vs. Pohl, et al, Case No. 4. We deem it sufficient to say that this case was submitted to this Tribunal, and the trial conducted, in accordance with the law and rules of procedure applicable to the Tribunal. When it is considered that the oral and documentary evidence in this case consists of approximately 10,000 pages, it becomes readily apparent that any effort to even summarize the evidence would be impracticable. We shall, in the main, therefore record here our findings. Those interested in the details of evidence must be referred to the record. During the course of the trial several witnesses, including some defendants who made affidavits that were offered as evidence by the prosecution, testified that they were threatened, and that duress of a very improper nature was practiced by an interrogator. The affidavits referred to were excluded from the evidence and have not been considered by the Tribunal. Considerable evidence on the part of the defense was adduced to the effect that certain functions, actions, and measures taken, were Party matters while others came under the competency of offices of the government. In our opinion this attempted differentiation of spheres of competency makes no difference. In practice the Nazi Party and the Government in Germany under Hitler were one and the same thing. In fact, the law in Germany under date of 1 December 1933 declared the unity of the Nazi Party and the German State. The indictment in this case is framed in three counts. The first and second counts charge the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes, respectively. Count one alleges, in substance, that between September 1939 and April 1945, all of the defendants— "were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, were connected with plans and enterprises involving, and were members of organizations or groups connected with atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, persecutions on political, racial, and religious {88} grounds, and other inhumane and criminal acts against civilian populations, including German civilians and nationals of other countries, and against prisoners of war." Count one further alleges that these— "Acts, conduct, plans and enterprises * * * were carried out as part of a systematic program of genocide, aimed at the destruction of foreign nations and ethnic groups, in part by elimination and suppression of national characteristics. The object of this program was to strengthen the German nation and the so-called 'Aryan' race at the expense of such other nations and groups by imposing Nazi and German characteristics upon individuals selected therefrom * * * and by the extermination of 'undesirable' racial elements. This program was carried out in part by— (a) Kidnaping children. 4 (b) Abortions. (c) Taking away infants of Eastern workers. (d) Punishment for sexual intercourse with Germans. (e) Preventing marriages and hampering reproduction of enemy nationals. (f) Evacuating enemy populations from their native lands by force. (g) Forced Germanization of enemy nationals. (1) Slave labor. (h) Plunder. (i) Persecution of Jews." Count two, which charges the defendants with war crimes, alleges that all the defendants between September 1939 and April 1945— "Were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, were connected with plans and enterprises involving, and were members of organizations or groups connected with atrocities and offenses against persons and property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to plunder of public property, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, and ill treatment of and other inhumane acts against thousands of persons. These crimes embraced, but were not limited to 'the ten specifications made in count one,' and were committed against prisoners of war and civilian populations of countries and territories under the belligerent occupation of, or otherwise controlled by, Germany." The fourteen defendants in this case were, in various capacities, connected with four organizations, namely, Reich Commissioner for Strengthening of Germanism, Staff Main Office (commonly {89} known
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SS-Totenkopfverbände from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (Redirected from SS-Totenkopfverbande)
    Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history SS-Totenkopfverbände From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from SS-Totenkopfverbande) Navigation Not to be confused with 3rd SS Division Totenkopf, the Waffen-SS fighting unit. Main page This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason Contents has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (December 2010) Featured content Current events This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding Random article citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010) Donate to Wikipedia [2] SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV), rendered in English as "Death's-Head Units" (literally SS-TV meaning "Skull Units"), was the SS organization responsible for administering the Nazi SS-Totenkopfverbände Interaction concentration camps for the Third Reich. Help The SS-TV was an independent unit within the SS with its own ranks and command About Wikipedia structure. It ran the camps throughout Germany, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Community portal Buchenwald; in Nazi-occupied Europe, it ran Auschwitz in German occupied Poland and Recent changes Mauthausen in Austria as well as numerous other concentration and death camps. The Contact Wikipedia death camps' primary function was genocide and included Treblinka, Bełżec extermination camp and Sobibor. It was responsible for facilitating what was called the Final Solution, Totenkopf (Death's head) collar insignia, 13th Standarte known since as the Holocaust, in collaboration with the Reich Main Security Office[3] and the Toolbox of the SS-Totenkopfverbände SS Economic and Administrative Main Office or WVHA.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacies of the Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial After 70 Years
    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 39 Number 1 Special Edition: The Nuremberg Laws Article 7 and the Nuremberg Trials Winter 2017 Legacies of the Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial After 70 Years Hilary C. Earl Nipissing University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Recommended Citation Hilary C. Earl, Legacies of the Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial After 70 Years, 39 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 95 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol39/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 07 EARL .DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/16/17 4:45 PM Legacies of the Nuremberg SS- Einsatzgruppen Trial after 70 Years HILARY EARL* I. INTRODUCTION War crimes trials are almost commonplace today as the normal course of events that follow modern-day wars and atrocities. In the North Atlantic, we use the liberal legal tradition to redress the harm caused to civilians by the state and its agents during periods of State and inter-State conflict. The truth is, war crimes trials are a recent invention. There were so-called war crimes trials after World War I, but they were not prosecuted with any real conviction or political will.
    [Show full text]
  • Genocide Studies and Prevention: an International Journal
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 13 Issue 1 Revisiting the Life and Work of Raphaël Article 2 Lemkin 4-2019 Full Issue 13.1 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation (2019) "Full Issue 13.1," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 13: Iss. 1: 1-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.13.1 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol13/iss1/2 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 1911-0359 eISSN 1911-9933 Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 13.1 - 2019 ii ©2019 Genocide Studies and Prevention 13, no. 1 iii Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/ Volume 13.1 - 2019 Editorials Christian Gudehus, Susan Braden, Douglas Irvin-Erickson, JoAnn DiGeorgio-Lutz, and Lior Zylberman Editors’ Introduction ................................................................................................................1 Benjamin Meiches and Jeff Benvenuto Guest Editorial: Between Hagiography and Wounded Attachment: Raphaël Lemkin and the Study of Genocide ...............................................................................................................2 Articles Jonathan
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion and Nazism: Is There Really a Connection? John Hunt
    The Linacre Quarterly Volume 63 | Number 4 Article 7 November 1996 Abortion and Nazism: Is There Really a Connection? John Hunt Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq Recommended Citation Hunt, John (1996) "Abortion and Nazism: Is There Really a Connection?," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 63: No. 4, Article 7. Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol63/iss4/7 Abortion and Nazism: Is There Really a Connection? by Dr. John Hunt The author is Professor of History at Saint Joseph College, West Hartford, Ct. She used the words "shallow" and "disgraceful," or words like these, as I recall, in describing William Brennan's work, The Abortion Holocaus~ in which he connects many of the actions and attitudes of those who believe in legalized abortion with many of the actions and attitudes of the Nazis.' She was the commentator on a panel devoted to reproductive policies at the Fall 1994 meeting of the New England Historical Association. 2 Right To Life groups certainly do make the connection between abortion and the Nazi Holocaust. Brennan's work is the best known when it comes to making this connection. In the beginning of his book he compares abortion in the United States today to the killing of "postnatal discards" by the Nazis, that this linkage involves the "universality of the victimization process."3 Brennan's work came on the heels of many others who drew the same parallel. Let us observe just a few examples: • The National Catholic Register stated on May 13, 1979: "Six million is the number generally assigned not only to Jews who died under Hitler but to babies who have died under the Supreme Court."4 • A sign at a 19791 RTL convention read: "Auschwitz, Dachau, and Margaret Sanger, Three of a Kind."s • The Abolitionis~ an anti-abortion newsletter published in Pittsburgh, stated: "We are not headed for a Holocaust.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS Case No.: IT-95-16-T Date: 14 January 2000
    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT-95-16-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 14 January 2000 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge Antonio Cassese, Presiding Judge Richard May Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh Judgement of: 14 January 2000 PROSECUTOR v. Zoran KUPRE[KI], Mirjan KUPRE[KI], Vlatko KUPRE[KI], Drago JOSIPOVI], Dragan PAPI], Vladimir [ANTI], also known as “VLADO” JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Franck Terrier Mr. Michael Blaxill Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Ranko Radovi}, Mr. Tomislav Pasari}, for Zoran Kupre{ki} Ms. Jadranka Slokovi}-Gluma}, Ms. Desanka Vranjican, for Mirjan Kupre{ki} Mr. Borislav Krajina, Mr. Želimar Par, for Vlatko Kupre{ki} Mr. Luko [u{ak, Ms. Goranka Herljevic, for Drago Josipovi} Mr. Petar Puli{eli}, Ms. Nika Pinter, for Dragan Papi} Mr. Petar Pavkovi}, Mr. Mirko Vrdoljak, for Vladimir Šanti} Case No.: IT-95-16-T 14 January 2000 i CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 2 A. The International Tribunal.........................................................................................................................2 B. Procedural Background...............................................................................................................................2 II. THE CHARGES AGAINST
    [Show full text]
  • Schutzstaffel from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Schutzstaffel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "SS" redirects here. For other uses, see SS (disambiguation). Navigation The Schutzstaffel (German pronunciation: [ˈʃʊtsˌʃtafәl] ( listen), translated to Protection Main page Protection Squadron Squadron or defence corps, abbreviated SS—or with stylized "Armanen" sig runes) Contents Schutzstaffel was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It Featured content began at the end of 1920 as a small, permanent guard unit known as the "Saal- Current events Schutz" (Hall-Protection)[1] made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Random article Party meetings in Munich. Later in 1925, Heinrich Himmler joined the unit which had by Donate to Wikipedia then been reformed and renamed the "Schutz-Staffel". Under Himmler's leadership (1929–45), it grew from a small paramilitary formation to one of the largest and most [2] Interaction powerful organizations in the Third Reich. Built upon the Nazi ideology, the SS under SS insignia (sig runes) Himmler's command was responsible for many of the crimes against humanity during Help World War II (1939–45). The SS, along with the Nazi Party, was declared a criminal About Wikipedia organization by the International Military Tribunal, and banned in Germany after 1945. Community portal Recent changes Contents Contact page 1 Background SS flag 1.1 Special ranks and uniforms Toolbox 1.2 Ideology 1.3 Merger with police forces What links here 1.4 Personal control by Himmler Related changes 2 History Upload file 2.1 Origins Special pages 2.2 Development Permanent link 2.3 Early SS disunity Page information 3 Before 1933 Data item 3.1 1925–28 Cite this page 3.2 1929–31 3.3 1931–33 Print/export 4 After the Nazi seizure of power Adolf Hitler inspects the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler on 4.1 1934–36 Create a book arrival at Klagenfurt in April 1938.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion and the Nuremberg Prosecutors: a Deeper Analysis
    •ABORTION AND THE NUREMBERG PROSECUTORS: A DEEPER ANALYSIS John Hunt FROM LATE 1945 TO LATE 1946, twenty-one leading Nazis were tried at Nuremberg by an international tribunal made up of American, British, French, and Soviet judges. From late 1946 to the spring of 1949, 185 lesser-known Nazis were tried before American military tribunals. The American military, in the American zone of occupation, held twelve trials before six different military tribunals, with three American judges on each tribunal. The RuSHAi or Greifelt Case was No. 8 (of 12), Military Tribunal No.1 (of 6). There were fourteen defendants in the RuSHA or Greifelt Case: Heinrich Himmler’s deputy Ulrich Greifelt, after whom the case was alternately named, also Otto Hofmann, the second head of RuSHA, Richard Hildebrandt, the third head of RuSHA, and eleven others. There were some two dozen charges made in this trial, and abortion was one of them. On four different occasions I have given a paper on this trial before scholarly bodies, focusing on the subject of abortion.ii What exactly was the nature of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s condemnation of abortion at this trial? The Tribunal had stated: “The acts and conduct, as set forth in this Judgment, and as substantially charged in the indictment [“encouraging and compelling abortions”] constitute crimes against humanity... and... war crimes.”iii In my paper I maintained that, according to this judgment, all abortions were condemned by the Tribunal as war crimes and crimes against humanity.iv It was my interpretation of the word “encouraging” in the indictment, but I felt uneasy at my interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuremberg's Narratives
    INTRODUCTION NUREMBERG’S NARRATIVES REVISING THE LEGACY OF THE “SUBSEQUENT TRIALS” Kim C. Priemel and Alexa Stiller R Less than a month after the final verdict of the Nuernberg Military Tri- bunals (NMT)1 had been handed down in the so-called High Command Case, the departing chief prosecutor, Brigadier General Telford Taylor, wound up the four-year-long venture in a statement to the International News Service, articulating his expectations as to the legacy of the trial series. To those who thought that the war crimes proceedings, which by that time had come under scrutiny and criticism on both sides of the Atlantic, would fade into oblivion Taylor issued a stern warning: “I ven- ture to predict that as time goes on we will hear more about Nuremberg rather than less, and that in a very real sense the conclusion of the trials marks the beginning, and not the end, of Nuremberg as a force of poli- tics, law, and morals.”2 Although not everything did go as planned and most of the later Nuremberg trials indeed receded into prolonged obscu- rity, Taylor’s prophecy was not wholly mistaken, and the trials would indeed show a remarkable resilience, if more indirect and implicit than had been intended, in shaping politics, law, and historiography (rather than morals). Tracing these—frequently twisted—roads of the NMT’s influence and impact lies at the heart of the present volume. Taylor’s statement attested to the great ambitions entertained by the American prosecutors in preparing the NMT. The so-called Subse- 2 Kim C.
    [Show full text]
  • Auschwitz Und Staatssicherheit
    Henry Leide Auschwitz und Staatssicherheit Strafverfolgung, Propaganda und Geheimhaltung in der DDR BF informiert 40 (2019) Der Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik Abteilung Kommunikation und Wissen 10106 Berlin [email protected] Die Meinungen, die in dieser Schriftenreihe geäußert werden, geben ausschließlich die Auffassungen der Autoren wieder. Abdruck und publizistische Nutzung sind nur mit Angabe des Verfassers und der Quelle sowie unter Beachtung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes gestattet. Schutzgebühr: 5,00 € Berlin 2021 3., erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage ISBN 978-3-946572-29-9 Eine PDF-Version dieser Publikation ist unter der folgenden URN kostenlos abrufbar: urn:nbn:de:0292-97839465722990 Inhalt Anstatt eines Vorwortes: Warum Auschwitz und nur Auschwitz? 7 Einleitung 9 Der NS-Judenmord und die DDR 9 NS-Verbrechen als Thema der DDR-Propaganda 27 1. Strafverfolgung von Auschwitz-Tätern 49 1.1 Strafverfolgung durch nichtdeutsche Gerichte 49 1.2 Die Strafverfolgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 63 1.3 Die Strafverfolgung in der DDR 67 1.4 Sonderfall »Waldheimer Prozesse« 74 1.5 Gab es ein »Unsere-Leute-Prinzip«? 83 2. Das MfS und die Verfügungsgewalt über die NS-Akten 95 3. Der Umgang mit Tatverdächtigen 105 4. Verurteilungen von Auschwitz-Tätern 111 4.1 Willkür der sowjetischen Militärjustiz ohne Korrektur: der Fall Ernst Thiele 111 4.2 Der Kapo – das Urteil gegen Alexander Bartell 127 4.3 Der Fall Grönke: im Westen nochmals belangt 133 4.4 Der Fall Paul Barteldt: ein Lebenslänglich, das tatsächlich lebenslänglich war 136 4.5 Schauprozess mit dürftiger Beweislage: das Todesurteil gegen Herbert Fink 138 4.6 Im Schatten des 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing and Documenting Nazi Victims Past and Present Arolsen Research Series
    Tracing and Documenting Nazi Victims Past and Present Arolsen Research Series Edited by the Arolsen Archives – International Center on Nazi Persecution Volume 1 Tracing and Documenting Nazi Victims Past and Present Edited by Henning Borggräfe, Christian Höschler and Isabel Panek On behalf of the Arolsen Archives. The Arolsen Archives are funded by the German Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM). ISBN 978-3-11-066160-6 eBook (PDF) ISBN 978-3-11-066537-6 eBook (EPUB) ISBN 978-3-11-066165-1 ISSN 2699-7312 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licens-es/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Control Number: 2020932561 Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 by the Arolsen Archives, Henning Borggräfe, Christian Höschler, and Isabel Panek, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Jan-Eric Stephan Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Preface Tracing and documenting the victims of National Socialist persecution is atopic that has receivedlittle attention from historicalresearch so far.Inorder to take stock of existing knowledge and provide impetus for historicalresearch on this issue, the Arolsen Archives (formerlyknown as the International Tracing Service) organized an international conferenceonTracing and Documenting Victimsof Nazi Persecution: Historyofthe International Tracing Service (ITS) in Context. Held on October 8and 92018 in BadArolsen,Germany, this event also marked the seventieth anniversary of search bureaus from various European statesmeet- ing with the recentlyestablished International Tracing Service (ITS) in Arolsen, Germany, in the autumn of 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • JOSIE THOMPSON PAPERS Mss
    JOSIE THOMPSON PAPERS Mss. 5046 Inventory Compiled by Matthew Jordan Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections Special Collections, Hill Memorial Library Louisiana State University Libraries Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University 2021 JOSIE THOMPSON PAPERS Mss. 5046 1939-1995 LSU LIBRARIES SPECIAL COLLECTIONS CONTENTS OF INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL NOTE ...................................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE ................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF SERIES ............................................................................................................................ 5 INDEX TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 6 CONTAINER LIST ........................................................................................................................ 8 APPENDIX: Photograph and Physical Item Locations and Descriptions ...................................... 9 Use of manuscript materials. If you wish to examine items in the manuscript group, please place a request via the Special Collections Request System. Consult the Container List for location information. Photocopying. Should you wish to request photocopies, please consult a staff member. Do not remove items
    [Show full text]
  • The IG Farben Trial
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLI\61-1\HLI105.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-FEB-20 12:04 Volume 61, Number 1, Winter 2020 The I.G. Farben Trial: Evidentiary Standards and Procedures and the Problem of Creating Legitimacy Allie Brudney* This Note examines the evidentiary standards and procedures created for and used in the I.G. Farben Trial, one of the twelve Subsequent Nuremberg Trials held in the U.S. Occupation Zone after World War II. Because the I.G. Farben Trial was not bound by “technical rules of evidence,” the three judges on the tribunal had broad discretion to develop evidentiary rules and standards. This Note argues that the I.G. Farben judges created evidentiary rules and procedures as they arose during the trial, with no preexisting philosophy. Faced with competing factors, they based their decisions on which factor—speed and efficiency, the defendant’s due process protections, the prosecution’s rights—they weighed more heavily in that in- stance, often choosing efficiency to finish the trial more quickly. This ad hoc creation of standards and procedures led to unorthodox practices and a lack of uniformity both within the trial and across the Subsequent Nuremburg Trials. This is the first article to examine closely the evidentiary standards and procedures in the I.G. Farben Trial. More generally, this is one of the only articles to look at standards and procedures at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials in detail. Introduction In 1947, the United States, one of four occupying powers in Germany, indicted twenty-four high-ranking executives of the I.G.
    [Show full text]