I
I
I
;
[Cmd.
Report
1450.]
GERMAN
jrznteb
Supreme
•
PUBLISHED
or
from
N.M.
To
r
to
of
be
E.
STAflONERY
purchased
arIimntt
28,
IMPERIAL
23, 37,
1,
PONSONBY,
ST.
BY
FORTH
ABINGDON
PEEEa
WITH
Proceedings
ANDREW’S
HIS
through
HOUSE,
Court
STREET,
STREET,
Fyice
LONDON:
MAJESTY’S
OFFICE
STREET,
LTD.,
APPENDICES.
WAR
Inj
1921.
any
CRESCENT,
KINGSWAY,
6d.
EDINDVRGH
MANCHESTER;
116,
Bookseller
(omirunb
at
Net.
LONDON,
the
GRETON
STATIONERY
following
CASDIFF;
LONDON,
in
or
S.W.
directly
STREET,
f
TRIALS.
addresses:
1;
W.C.
Leipzig.
before
iz
from
DUBLIN. OFFICE.
2,
ajtt.
the
I I • BEFO
The INDEX Provisic
PAGE REPORT 3
APPENDIX I. Allied Note to President of German Dele gation respecting War Criminals ... 17 APPENDIX II. Judgment in the Case of Karl Heynen 18 ‘
APPENDIX III. Judgment in the Case of Emil Muller ... 26 • APPENDIX IV. Judgment in the Case of Robert Neumann 36 , APPENDIX V. Judgment in the Case of Karl Neumann ... 42
APPENDIX VI. Judgment in the Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt ...... •.. 45
‘‘
“1 (
(B.5c68)
German
Lina 1
)ert LMüller
1
Neumann
Heynen
Lieutenants
Neumann
Dele
...
...
...
PAGE
45 42
36 26
18 17
3
Provisions
BEFORE
(B5968)
The
“offenders “knowledge
“of
“documents
“own
“cerned. “members
“will
“of
“brought “of
“employment “an
“are
“shall
“Allied
“shall,
“violation
“tribunals
ities.
down
any
Allied Treaty
“The
“In
“Persons
Wt. “Persons
which
“The
“The
more
one
:—
GERMAN
act
specified
be
Counsel.
REPORT
12444—5.
so
proceedings THE
every
by
if
and
in
German
and
brought
request,
of
of
may than
before
German
and found
German
law.
of
violation
of
or
persons
and
of
Associated
the
guilty Peace
guilty
case
Associated
:
the
the
SUPREME
in
which
the
be
either
the
1260
one
information
INTRODUCTORY.
This
guilty,
the
the
Allied
Government
laws
the all
considered
before
military
just
Government
&
Article
Government
incriminating Article
of with
of
of
or
accused
OF
Article
of
they
persons
territory
90.
military
provision
accused
by
criminal
criminal
the
and
prosecution
WAR
appreciation
the
Powers,
be
and
8/21.
Powers
Germany
military
name
held PROCEEDINGS
230. 3
229.
Allied
trihunaig
laws
sentenced
customs
228.
of
of
accused
necessary
Associated
COURT
will
of
tribunals
Gp.
every
under
undertakes
acts
will
acts
having recognises
or
or
and
her
shall
to
and
acts,
32. be
tribunals
TRIALS.
by to
contains
apply
against of
before
against
of kind, bring
allies.
customs
of
entitled
of
the
such
to
Associated
the
war.
hand
responsibility.”
to
committed
having
the
of
the
punishments
German
Powers IN
notwithstanding
ensure the
the
rank,
that
before
one
to
a
the
discovery
the
composed
Powers
the
Such
over
to
of
production
LEIPZIG.
furnish
tribunal
right
committed
of
Power.
name
nationals
nationals
war,
office following
the
Author
them
will
Powers
military
persons
to
acts
of
con
full
who
laid
his
all
the
of
be
the
of
or
as
in in
,.
ment
persons/and
were with
submission
decision
acquiescence
German
express
1920,
tribunals. awarded
proposed
justice thereafter leave
the tion
complete
without
Peace, posal,
that
compatible
Supreme
insisted
ment’s
difficulties
names,
was
military prepared
3rd
In
An
The
German
In
grav/e
and
February,
ciarged
contributed
compiled
the
to
‘(1)
an
(2)
pursuance
reported
in
accordance
Inter-Allied
manner
and existence.
and
that
German
Government
upon
of
taking
judgment
to
abridged
and
responsibility
Hospital
with accused
LIEUT.-COMMANDER
from
by Court
Ship
and quently having
COMMANDER
survivors
good
outrages
consider
by
to
would
the
(See
with
amongst
the
short
in
Government the
Government
were
Germany
the
naval
the the
wounded
and
having
the
1920.
faith.
“Liandovery
this the
Allied
of
Text
that
guilty,
Government
any
Allied
of
the
Supreme
the
sunk,
ensue,
surrender
By
principal
persons
fired
the
as
Ship list
particulars
with
against
upon
Eastern
the
right
presented
with
leaders
this
Commission,
proposal.
part
follows
names
way them
of
the
with
execution
Empire
This
If
torpedoed,
containing
HELMUT
Governments
with
results
did
with
“Dover
the
on Article
Note,
Governments
without
which
decision,
the
of
the
the
it
were
offer
of
in
Court
should
the
a
list
bringing
in
and not were
of
Mediterranean
should
the
Allied
Allied
of
compromise,
understanding
the consequent
:—
duty
represented
the
note
to
KARL
Castle”
in
of
Germany.
the
Appendix
of
might
laws
seven
contained
sincerely
of
To
228,
German
result
PATZIG,
of
Castle,” sunk
4
the
Leipzig.
at
loss
appointed
warning, those
these
the
Trials,
certain
persons
45
of
without
the
be
Powers
communicating
Article
this be
Governments,
Leipzig,
of
NEUMANN,
the
lists
proceeding
German
seriously
and
persons,
names
of
outrages
the
put
shown
in
war.
German
accordingly
and
prosecutions
of
list
accused
six
Government,
I).
loss
when
who
that
so
therefore,
of
resolved
just
cases
the
a
accused,
many
boats
the
fully
upon
reserved
warning, 228
that
very
to
lives.
with accused
the as
and
was
The
of
Government,
that
if
imperil
who conditions
was
punishment
homeward
examine
with
who
to
were
British
of
Government
with
the
234
before
laden on
British the
of
large
containing
trial
handed
names
having
and
leave
to
the the
charged
grave
were
they
Allied
to the
decided
was
the
lives.
and
in
persons
Allies
which
the
the
selected
the
they
administer
a
with
procedure
before number
them
Treaty
their
the
Hospital
7th
this
proposed principal
Govern
charged
prosecu
of
charged
full
whether
final
of
political
Govern
British
bound to
subse Powers.
would
would
these
on
being
May,
their
they
most
with
sick
own
that
pro
the
were
and
the
the
was
for
the
the
list
of
of .4
1
but
trated Wern
was
Lieut.
addre
enqui
bring
They
byti
were
miss:
was
evid
ont
of
san
app
arra
stat(
the
was evjd
agai
thai
Ger
th
h:
I]
ri I
solved ecu.ons NN, hen ns, ases
he oicating n Lerefore, sly ccused, ments,
ho ages used nan nany n boats ist
upon
s ss ding rdingly vernment,
228 at reserved
the
fully
warning,
th very
to
accused
-w as lives.
the
and
was
The
Government,
of
that
if
imperil conditions
who
was
punishment
examine
homeward
to
with
who were the
British of
Government
with
234
before
on British
laden he
large
of
trial
containing
handed
names
and
having
leave
to the
the grave
charged they
were
Allied decided
to the
the was
persons
and lives.
in Allies
the
which
selected
the
the
they
administer
a
number
before
procedure
them
with Treaty
their
the
7th
Hospital
principal
this
proposed.
Govern prosedu
full
final charged
of charged
whether
political
Govern
of
British
to Powera
bound
subse
would
would
on
being
these
May,
most their
they
with sick
that own were pro-
and
was the
the the for
the
the
list
of
of
but
Werner, was trated.
Lieut.-Commander address enquiries
bring
They
by
were
mission
was
evidence on
of sanwalt
appeared
statements
arranged
the
evidence
was
against
that
German
the
the
had
In
H.M.
resident
the
After
possession
accordingly
handed
to
in
explained,
P
difficulties
Lieut.-Commander
evidence
Robert
Captain
Karl
due
in
British
(6)
not on
(5)
(4) to
a the justice
(3)
26th
(Public
had
in
Danzig,
Government that
in
and
Government
position
receiving
the
the
course & Working
were
treating Prisoners
CAPTAIN
KARL
marine. submerging Heynen,
of persons ton,”
charged
LIEUT.-COMMANDER
been the
the of
in
been
(7)
to
Neumann,
October,
information
the
Government, Oberreichsanwalt
Emil
charge the
against
of
Poland.
Commander
the
cases
abridged
held
charged
Prosecutor)
however,
the
HEnraIcH were
executed, and
but
the
the
Werner
Allied
HEYNEN,
made
to
crew,
accused
evidence Prisoners
with
Camp
Muller,
German
EMIL
at
the
of
proceed
in
with
Allied
whose
of
German
all
immediately
being
represented
Spa
while 1920,
War
which by
with
murder,
Warrants
Governments
list
Karl
the
abridged
having
with
could
that
having
necessary
at
but
MULLER,
TRINKE
by
the
Patzig, on
namely
present
Governments.
in
who
and
persons at
against Pommerensdorf Ambassador
experienced ill-treating
of
against
they
a
Neumann.
they
reason
the
Government Leipzig.
the
their
they
Sheriff
the
not in
printed
War
transmit
5 WILHELM
and sunk
subsequently
was
9th
Leipzig.
for
who
were
were
list
put
exception
whereabouts
:—
and
to
Friedrich
be
whom
to
property
were
who
four
at
of
of
the
July,
should
the the
at
traced
charged
the
secure
was
the
of
in
Trinke
Flavy-le-Martel
ROBERT
on immediately
volume
Prisoners
Rosenberg,
them
persons
in
of
was
not
in
British
arrest
they
hand
accused
fact
A
intimated
the
1920,
Allied
stated,
WERNER,
the
collect
obtaining
Chemical London
at
der
general
had
of
conviction
drowned
in
to
charged
had
had
that deck
were
all, with
persons
the
containing NEUMANN,
of
at
the
the a Grosse
S.S.
of
been whose
Governments after
persons,
been named,
which
Patzig
position and
and
much
to
completion
War
concerned,
of
unknown.
Oberreich
Master, conference
that
for
ill-treating
Works.
“Torring
have
who
the
evidence
seques
Camp.
the
with
Trinke
provide
official
named
Mine.
issued
was
names
trans
it
at
of
they
whole
and and,
was
Sub
who the
an
the the
to
the
was
ill-
in
by
P
•
l1 i. 6
At a later date (June, 1921) the German Government further on that da intimated that as a result of the enquiries made into the Case of nesses bei Commander Patzig, they had decided to put upon trial two officers deposition same serving in the Submarine, Lieutenants Dithmar, an officer Supreme C in the German Navy, and Boldt, a retired officer of the German of the acci Navy, who appeared to be implicated and responsible for a part in the outrage with which Patzig was charged. The question how best to make available at the trial of the The ca accused the evidence of the British witnesses was one which presented considerable difficulty K
Three of the cases to be tried involved the ill-treatment of R Prisoners of War at Prison Camps in Germany, and in these cases Li a conviction was only likely to be obtained if a large number of and the tn witnesses could be collected and produced at the trial to give May 23rd. evidence of a continuous course of ill-treatment by the person Presidency long since charged. The witnesses had been demobilised from the A Britj Army and were dispersed to civilian employment all over the proceedings country. -• :‘ (Sir Ernest In the remaining cases, the charges were torpedoing àf Hurne-WjJij I{ospital Ships and a merchant ship, and the witnesses, who were Mr. R. W. mainly employed in the Merchant Service, were also widely dis General). persed at sea. the Missior Embassy in Tracing these witnesses through changing addresses and taking the trials. comprehensive statements, such as were suitable for production in a Court of Law, involved great labour and some delay. When. In acco: the question arose of securing their testimony at the trial, it was Allies state found that it was not possible to secure the attendance in Leipzig the trials b of all the witnesses, and there was of course no means of the Mission• unwilling witnesses to attend the trials there. of the Gem ceedings. ‘1 Many further witnesses in the cases of Heinen,’ Muller and occasions, t: Neumann were traced and interviewed with a view to making the reichsanwalt Crown’s Case as complete as possible, and as soon as the collection•• of Justice, f of the evidence had been completed, arrangements were made which appea for the examination in London at as early a date as could be to the atter arranged of all the witnesses in those cases, who were unable or the evidence unwilling to proceed to Germany to give oral evidence at the trial. In accorc After consultation with the Representatives of the German. other contin Government, who visited London in February, 1921, for the proceedings’ purpose of conferring with the Attorney-General upon the pro The Oberrei cedure to be adopted in securing the evidence of the British the German witnesses the 26th April was fixed for the examination at Bow represented 1 Street Police Court before the Chief Magistrate of all British the witnesse: witnesses, who were unable to attend the trials. The German and confinec Government and the accused German persons were legally repre examination sentd and an opportunity was given to them of putting questions The Oberr to the witnesses. The examination of witnesses was commenced tc the Court
1
of vidence ;ements yment Government
ses tary, ere rere nent , 1. de
trate camination ieri who oon E{einen, rt the sponsible pon
rials. snc.
f fficer
able
ses
Dithmar,
means
emobilised
a
ddresses
yes tendance
some
wit’
view
were
at
at
a
and
putting
date
the
large
was
trial
as into
the
was
ill-treatment
the
of
were
“sses,
torpedoing
for
by
of
pon
f
to o
of
1921, delay.
in
legally
the
of
The
trial
all
the
as
the
trial,
commenced
Muller
the at trial
making
two
were
widely
the
production the these
and
compelling
all
number one
for
in
an
unable
collection
questions
who
the could over
from
the
German
German
German
at
Leipzig to
for
further
case
officers
British British
person
taking
a
of officer
it
When
repre
which
made
cases
trial.
were
part
Bow
pro
give
was
and
dis
the
the the
the
the
be
of
of
or of
of
E
a
j
to
examination the
and represented
the
proceedings
The
the
other reichsanwalt,
which
to of
ceedings.
occasions,
the
of
Allies
the
Mr.
the Embassy
the
proceedings
Hume-Williams,
May
General).
(Sir Presidency
and
nesses
depositions
Supreme on
of
The
the Justice,
the
the
In
In
the
Mission
German
A
evidence
that
witnesses,
The
trials
R. trials.
•
Oberreichsanwalt
Mission
confined
the
Ernest
continental
Oberreichsanwalt accordance
appeared
23rd.
stated
Court British
W.
accordance
German
attention
accused. being
•----.---
cases
date
trials
Lieut.
Robert
Captain Karl
in
Court
but
the
Woods,
The
for
Mr.
by
took
were
of
State.
Berlin,
of
of
throughout.
of
through
as
Pollock,
and
The arid
above,
examined
were
themselves
Dr.
took
Legal
the
opened
to
PROCEDURE
Heynen.
right
Mission
Mission -Commander
the
these
the
to
authorities
Claud
in
no
interpreter.
K.B.E.,
countries,
for
Neumann.
of
continued
with
leave
Emil
indicated
Schmidt.
C.B.E.
purpose
have
Leipzig
Court
part
witnesses with
taken
and
witnesses.
The
a
Advisers,
the
the
to
whereby
the
witnesses
in
(Dr.
relatively
K.B.E.,
obtained,
the
Mullins,
Muller.
summed
Commander
in the attended
communicate
been
accused
most
in
K.C.,
Court
Leipzig
Representative
the
(of
in
comprised
to
the
It
and
the
of
practice
Ebermeyer),
to
the
on
which
full
Karl
the
the
had
overlooked
Mr.
who,
part
calling
addressing arrangement
comprised
proceedings,
AT
M.P.,
they
be
witnesses
April
were
by
were
K.C.,
7
three
following
Department
responsibility Barrister-at-Law,
however,
up
persons
small
with
Neumann.
been
joined
the
J.
THE
although conducted
the
charges
prevailing
the agreed
Chilcott,
Mi.
available
27th,
at
B.
his
seven
in
M.P.),
the
Prison
part
trials
necessary
concluded.
evidence
V.
once
were
Carson,
of
appeared
TRIALS.
were
attention
or
as
Court
The
the
and
first
order
28th
and
the
R.
in
not
imperfectly
made
entitled
in parties
M.P.,
Judges
of
transmitted
examined
and
by
Sir
Camp
M.
present
at
asserted
his
Court
in
Solicitor
German to
declined
of
the
and
H.M.
with
to
the
of
the
in
Gattie,
Germany
translation
these
the
William
opinion
also
on
to between
followed
proceedings. accompanied
intervene
to
his 29th,
to
the
cases.
main
Procurator
President.
under
any
the
after
and behalf
Germans,
on
question attended
the
Ministry
the
and
address brought
cases
General
C.B.E.,
British
point,
15
Ober many
to
were
had,
Trials
offer
pro Ellis
and
the
the
the
wit
the
the
The
of
the
of
on in
-
that
Street
enable
Heynen
Court
-end
selected
and
Court Military
were
the Karl
charges Heynen
arrest,
been
was the
Prisoners
intelligent
complaint
as -enabled
less
engagements Leipzig
trial
entirely
interpreter
Dr.
in
in
interpreter.
sentence.
Dithmar
in •conclusion
and
decision
which
In
they
a
each
Heynen connection
At
The
in
of
butt
of
Friedrich
which
satisfactory,
Peters’
if
more
Heynen. of
set
made
in
this
had
and
charge
the
24th
the
proceedings
a
the
he
Robert
guilty made
satisfactory,
University
were,
evidence
as
case
was
to
Leipzig Authorities.
and.
and
aside
of
end
German
against
trials
power
manner;
case
sixteen
extended
had
execution The considered
that
one
was
March, War.
was
War
give
to
interpreting
of
Boldt,
is
unfortunately
in
had
removed
of
against
with
of
der
pursuant
Neumann
the
not,
three the
attached
judgment
of
of
Dr.
the
in
could
under
due
their
his
to
of
him
being
the
any
Heynen
attended
Military
On
the THE
and
Camp
1920,
to
Grosse
charge
to
higher the
been
form
the
try
but
Peters,
and accused
rifle
English
of
course
was
charges
He
him
which
proper.
the
hardly effect
be
answers
his
test
holds
and
charge
British
done
the
the it
to BRITISH
hereto
the with
proved
and
and
left
and
and
that
was
was
charge and
commenced
cannot
21st of
and
German Mine
prevented
Court
who
cases,
the
the
cases
separate
sentence
court-martialled was
statutes
delivered
upon
in
a
witnesses a
in
made the
fail
a
nothing
his
MUller,
with he subsequently
found
against
8
witnesses The
fully
degree
translation
consequence
sentenced
as
laws
July,
Working
Trial
and
is
a
guilty
by
at
consistently
assistance
remitted interpreting
be
to
because
during
the
an
--
more a
CASES.
Authorities
against
his
Court
knocking
reference
Herne,
where
under
do
said
and
of
professor
guilty
being
in
and appendix.
him
sentence.
1920,
orally
of
to
afresh.
Commander
gave
demanded
fists.
the
Leipzig. 18th
was
perfunctory
Aberdeen
the
that
Camp
to
clearly.
at
be
it
of
to
from
then
which
he
of
him,
suspended
the
reduced
same.
these
of
the
Westphalia.
evidence
its
seemed
14 the
ill-treated
given
December,
them
by
desired.
War is
in
these
it,
had
Complaints
its
of
This
certain
witnesses
while
made
established
trial
days’
judgment
that
attending
considered
the
full
the
the defects,
languages
in
It
the
proceedings
come
Dr
had
about Patzig,
University.
complaints
through
to
case
appeared
of
probable order
judgment
Supreme
Supreme
case hereafter
and
medium
at
German
Heynen
sentence
till
It
British
Peters’
of
Ljeuts writing
found
to
1919,
Bow
with
were
such
was
had
The
was.
was
less
the
the
and the
thV:
the••
to
an
at
its at V - VVVV V . VVV V - - V
V : - V
V
n
April,
Camp
by
April
Camp
Emil
ment.
trustwc
of
were,
with by
they
he
to
the
charge
render
the
dead—
this
obedjE
of
that
forna€
that
the
Using
Heyn
of
ands
the
was
Capt
priso
their
from
Hey
the
The
had
the
An
the
An thE
Mt
Er wc
an
19
at
b
re b
hi
B h
‘C
c
?
I
i j
s
.h. .h ig ‘ice. )erdeen nander clix. anded ie
ipzig. t which ties imp tg ;or f
) I rfur.”tory
ie
y
hen
early. reduced
at rom
the
of
e
him, suspended
the
same. these its
of
the
Westphalia.
given
evidence
ill-treated
seemed
14
is
desired.
December,
them in
had
by
War
these
Complaints
of
made
witnesses
certain
trial
while
judgment
considered
established
that
attending
fulljiidgment: 1
days’
nis
the
languages
defects,
the
the
the
in
come
It
proceedings
Dr.
Patzig,
through
University.
about
had complaints
to
of
case
appeared
hereafter
order
probable
case
and
Supreme Supreme
sentence
medium
German
Heynen
at
till
It
writing
Lieuts.
Peters’
British
of
to
found
1919,
were
such
Bow with
was had The was
was
and
less
the
the
the
the
the
an its
at
to at
•..
I’
I
•
Camp
by
April,
April
Emil
Camp
ment.
by
trustworthy. they
with
of
were, he
to
the
rendered
charge dead—who,
the
obedience
this
of
that
formed
that
Heynen
using
and
of
was
the
prisoners
their
from
the
Captain
the
Heynen had
the
The
the
A
the
workmg
Another
English
bath.
Mine
Muller.
referred
his
also
charge.
helpful
the
and in
however,
number
at
1918.
by
“a
“German
“most
“prisoners
“tremely
“that
British “One
their
part
treatment
the
shown
are
English
prisoners,
President,
President
one
view
having
Flavy-le-Martel
had
the
because
work
insane
and
beginning
at
referred
to
Emil
was
of
The
butt evidence
to
in
cannot according
witnesses to
charge
While
to
Germans
of ordered
the
proper these
of
signs the
his
as
work
found
a
was the
Germany
witnesses,
ultimately his
Army
rough certain
the
facts
other
by
coal
of
a Muller
Heynen
the
he
ends
charges
against
orders,
Camp,
of
in
Clearing
to
reason
culture
of
it
help order
done
treatment
in
received Orders
acts
of
related
to
that
great
delivering
the
mine.
manner,
in
was the
insanity
and and
charges
to
it,
stated
during
acts
be
of
May,
habits
was
acknowledging
the
in there
against
and
on
some
because
were Court
whom
and
was
to on
proved
Guard
in
and
the
which
their
majority
conclusions
sentenced
was
carrying
given
Station,
of
judgment
the
in
In
the
to
change
the
in
1918.
of
that
respect of
brutality some
justified
the
he
control.
meted
had
of
of
if
to
sentence,
perpetrated
charge
consequence
9
how
the
Heynen,
a
the
occupation
one rifles
violence
Western to
against
day
was
they
the
to
Cross,
was
be
the
rapid
prisoner
Cross’
been
of
ten
drive
bath,
but
on
insubordination
The
him
their
upheld.”
they
should
British
to
out
of
following
held
the
considered
(Appendix
and
accordingly
good
of
in
the
that
days
aggravated
of
which
advance
the
was
Heynen
ten observed:
but
concerted
by
to
Camp the
to the
men
insanity
as
using
Front
clothing
knew
the
War
by
of
fists.
against
this individual
named
of
his the
German previously.
used
him,
to
witnesses
reputation
have
months
prisoners
Prisoners
the
were had
the
this
the
Court
their
against
Court
force
Superiors
had
by
is
at
he
in
that
II.).
by
ac
Germans,
This
acted
no
a
was
arrival
acquitted
Court
disobedience,
resistance
the
and
inconsistent.
the
March
defenceless.
by
Cross—now
a on
was
case
Heynen
been Nation
knowledge
considered
experience
upon to
such
irnprison
Working
had
prisoners
evidence
England,
to
the
not
the
of
incident
Two
end
of
in descend
àompel
insane
of
Asked
to
to
of
work,
War
used
been
fact
work
and
the part
the
the
this.
ex
due
as
be see
of
th
on
in
of
on
I I 10
conditions of the Camp were indescribably bad. Into sheds time. capable of accommodating at the utmost 450 men over 1,000 had d men were crowded. The sanitary and washing arrangements his fa were so primitive as to be practically non-existent. The provisioj but t of food and medical attention was wholly insumoient, and no was, 1 parcels or letters reached the Camp. In a very short time the men were starving, verminons, and in a ifithy condition, with In the inevitable consequence that dysentery appeared almost at of th( once and men began to die with appalling rapidity. In spite must of the terrible condition of the men, they were forced to eñga Müllej in heavy work behind the lines at long distances from the Camp, dition and practically no excuse of weakness or sickness Flavy was accepted -: as relieving them from work. Men in the last stages of dysenter- overci were driven out to work and fell and died by the road. short The evidence in this case fell under two headings, that relating clothii to the physical condition of the Camp, and that relating to per prison sonal brutality committed by Muller. unfit f and fo Eight British witnesses gave evidence at Bow Street and had, ii nineteen in Leipzig. power. There was a conflict between the evidence tendered by and before on behalf of the accused and that of the British witnesses as to only 0: the date on which Captain Muller left the Camp, but if the German: Wh records which were produced were correct, and it was not practic. . able to challenge them, it appeared that he left the Camp on at his May 5th, 1918, and did not subsequently return to it. It was as Con naturally impossible for the British witnesses, after so long a as was lapse of time, to state with convincing certainty whether camp a particular incidents, to which they spoke, occurred before or clean a after the 5th May, and after hearing evidence, which tended to be adix exonerate Captain Muller from responsibility for the state of the but ral Camp, the Court showed an inclination to discount evidence as insanjt to incidents, and in particular, as to the very numerous deaths be qua which may have occurred after the 5th May, although there short c could be no reasonable doubt that they were directly attributable exactin, to conditions, which had been brought into existence before that -: Aft€ date. . . to the c After considering the records produced by the German Military . ‘. -. proved Authorities on behalf of the accused, the Court came to the been gu conclusion that Captain Muller was not to be held responsible rendere for the insanitary conditions of the Camp to which the numerous was adn deaths were directly attributable, inasmuch as reports from Muller Staff an to Divisional Headquarters were produced calling attention to to attril its state and asking for assistance and supplies. It was stated partly t that these appeals met with no response owing to the great strain with pr put upon German Headquarters Staff by the rapid advance in in whici March, 1918, to the fluid state of the front, the number of such a 1 prisoners taken, the lack of supplies in Germany, and the general circumst inability of the staff to meet the demands made upon it at this imprison [
lay, eturn kness
aade ig existence ip, Lee y
ry sos, at aces • shing
ie )lies. liscount ice, .d
)flt,
that
t ithy
itis.
by ere very
directly
the stent 450
which e
any,
calling
adings,
be
Court
insufficient,
occurred
appeared
for
re
ra.pidity.
stages
certainty
it
to
left
bad.
but
rapid
Bow
numerous the
-
German forced
held which
was
after
the ‘ndered
men
the
from
the
relating
and
although
upon
co’idition,
short
to vitnesses
s
It
the
if
the
was
The
arrangements
came
road.
that
of
attention
attributable
from
evidence not
state the
great
Street
advance it.
number
responsible
before
Into
the
was
over
the
so
tended
dysentery
before
numerous
almost
to
it
Camp
provision
accepted time
In
Military
whether
German
practic.
relating
by
general
and
to
long
at
It
to
engage
deaths
Muller
Camp,
stated
of
strain
there
as
sheds
1,0Q.
spite
that
with
per-
and
this
was
and
the the
the
on
no
to
to
as
to
in
or
of
at a .
..
*..
imprisonment.
circumstances,
in partly
such with
Staff rendered
to
was
proved
been
to
exacting
insanitary
short
be but
be camp
clean
as
as
before
power.
at
had,
prisoners
and
unfit clothing
only
short Flavy-le-Martel,
overcrowded
Muller
dition
must
of
was,
but
his
had
time.
which
the
attribute
his
was
Commandant
quartered
After
admitted
While
the
admitted
In
rather
failure
for
a
guilty
to
and
done
meantime,
prisoners
one
for
and
therefore,
and
and
of
to disposal,
conclusion
be
considering
the
large
in
in
against
the
had camp
The
equipment
from
them
It
available.
hard
food,
hearing
he a
or
was
could
it
for
to
the which borne
his
the
compound
epidemic
heart
of
with
to
lack
was,
two
may
Captain
taken
found
Court,
that afford
number
to
there,
getting
and
best
bad
them
sending
upon
circumstances work.
men
wholly
render
Muller
and
be
the
of
not
Captain
acquitted
made
deaths
of
it in
of
those,
that
be
the
affection,
reported
moreover;
the
and
without
to
Miller’s
contrary
war,
over
to were
himself was
to
assistance
the
therefore,
work
be
and of mind
He
the
entirely
doubted
Court
improve
Muller’s
treatment
three
British
He
of
incapable
main the
them
a
rapidly
such
be
took
out
dysentery
justified.
camp
further
number
occurred
found
who
thereafter
lousy; complete
the
men.
Muller
and
had
sent
of
prisoners
that on
to
facilities
responsibility
times
small
to
to
in
partly
all
responsibility
satisfactory
awarded the
proved
possible,
camp
work without
whether,
witnesses,
elected this
the
asked
to
the
becoming
given
a
conduct
came
to
partly
the
his
later
reported
After
it
when
of most
camp
and
of
11
take,
and
improvements
had
him;
before
as conditions
instructions
The
charge.
measures,
was
evidence
to
men,
discharging superiors
acts
from
to
means
for
for
to
many
to
to
that that
reached
to
his
in
arduous
they
taking
the
keep
change
to
sentence
so but
in
Court
even
the
to proved
him
the
washing; be;
of
worse,
whose
however,
his
that
was
for
crowd
particular,
the
inexperience
order
ill-equipped
there
did
insanitary
the
personal for he
his
men
without
were
conclusion
camp
them
by
departure.
with
the
given
of
which
that
that
showed
English
into due
the
keeping had
of its
nervous not
nature.
of
physical
the
and
it.
to
great
his
at
as
was
as
general
into
the
sick,
of
height,
the
to he
condition
clothing,
short
improve,
not
the
that
account
were
could rest
Camp,
the
left at
the
it
that
superiors.
violence result,
This
that
Headquarter
be
no
six
had,
was
a
scant
state
a
yet
the
court
in
themselves
to
difficulties
that
to
in
with
state
small camp
improved,
water
condition
the
tendency
within
trial conditions
they
of
supply
properly
conduct and
his
months the
his
he
dealing and
while
it
receive
trial,
and
water,
means
of
these
so
Muller
came
while
of
camp
must
were
duty fault,
him,
were
had
due
that
and
that
con
that
the
was
was
far
the
his
He
he
of
at it
he
and
for
direct
sinking
even
it
which
Government
N’eumann under
been
announced was
a
as submarine.
Williamson
Mediterranean
moor” because
which
Lieut.-Commander
that
which
initiative.
imprisonment.
to
awaiting
the
authority Trinke,
twenty-five
of Pommerensdorf
than closely
officer,
Robert
because
was
certificate
had
a
The
Neumann
the
This
a
To
Trinke,
Three
could Neumann
witness
defence
included
though
only
torpedoed
with
superior
decided
conviction
order
the
in
attached
conclusion
some
defence and
sank
the
but
and
connected
the
Neumann.
the
officer
no
trial
could
not
sentence
two
British
that
Neumann.
and
for
For
obtained with
taken
way of after
that
the
German
in
ship
evidence
as When
extent
the
in
had
to
be
in
the
were,
was
orders;
on
his
months
the
Neumann
Leipzig.
relied
to
not
had
result
was
proceed
to
October, these
as
exceeded Four
Chemical
he
challenged.
whom case
the
and
previously
hearing
Commander
that
the
the
witnesses
his
superiors.
trial,
with
charged
Karl
was
the
Hospital
be
it
Neumann
stated.
acted
however,
Government
committed
in
from
volume
solely
was
26th
Master,
should
but,
the
against
identity,
offences
on
held
he
months,
remained
‘pronounced.
submarine
and
a
command
with
the
Neumann.
all
would
1920. had, under
the
overwhelming.
the
greater
Works
Court
after
May,
Neumann,
with
criminally
torpedoed
the
on a
gave
charge
Captain
be
the
taken
The
Ship
orders
photographic
The was
Captain
of
him
grounds
Neumann
in
he
the
rely
12
and
consultation
British
an the
acts
which
1917.
were
case, to
evidence
The
held
ill-treating
a
evidence
returned
Oberreichsanwalt
able
degree
was
order
acquittal of’
lost
plea
number
The
into
be orders
on
against
that
“Dover
which
of
Williamson
because
unable
responsible
under
a the
German Wffliamson,
the
to
sentenced
served
witnesses
that
The he
hereinafter
much
vessel
that
charge
violence
account
was
the
was
of
shelter
defence
of
sent Submarine
he
had
copy
of
to
facts
at
Trinke,
with
responsibility
on
prisoners
Lieut.
his
to.
produced
his
in
had
cases,
named
of
“Elmmoor.”
Castle”
from
of
acting
its
Bow
Authorities
the
against
spent
secure
to
torpedoing
of
the
superior
the
own
the
with
its
himself
were
upon
to
for
was
received.
base.
the
that
-Commander on
legal
the
referred
exceeded
did
the
importance his
significance,
Admiralty,
Court
six
Street
the
the
upon
board
certificate.
signature,
the
of
the
in
“U.
available
admitted
he
in
him
his
German
not
Captain
date
in
superior
plea.
months
“Elm-
behind
act
war
officer,
prison
acted rested
court
result
arrest
came.
67,”
and
had
had
own
ask
the
and
the
the
was
to,
as his
on at - .
.
:
I
tion
as
that
statement,
the
jurisdiction
of
Authorities
are
made
Patzig
Hospital
and last
•the
at
who
little
he
not
Whether
He sonally
in
there
or
:adthess
whether
the
orders.
to
the Court
Court
in
Llandover
which
him,
his
punishmei
Lieutenan
two
As
their
of
hot
they
The did
This
anythin any
the
Trials
trial,
this
Boldt—
invited
much
It
were
Inthe
crew
judgnia
orders,
the
doubt
agains
Comm
Lieute
has
officei
was
in
not
kno
(2)
is
did
even
was
had
own
pen
inv(
oth
cas(
pro
wa
Shi
to
Hc
ex
pr
th
in:
th
th
T
ol ol
ha
a:
e:
n
r 1 13
In the course of the judgment the Court laid it down that the punishment of a subordinate, who has acted in conformity with soners of war at his orders, can only arise (1) if he has exceeded the order given to against him was him, (2) he is aware that his superior’s orders directed action, ke, his superior which involved a civil or military crime or misdemeanour. The f its significance, Court did not consider that either of these elements was present secure the arrest in this case and the accused was accordingly acquitted. ponibiity rested It is important in this case to record that the decision of the Court was based solely on the question of obedience to superior Bow Street and orders. The actual legality of the orders was not discussed in the judgment of the Court, which only considered the question whether the accused was aware that they were ifiegal. 1n his r himself behind address to the Court the Oberreiohsanwalt expressly stated that s superior officer, there was• no evidence that the “Dover Castle” was being used s the Court came in any other way than as a hospital ship, and that he was per-. ses, exceeded his sonally persuaded, that she did not carry troops or ammunition e upon his own or anything that it was not proper for a hospital ship to carry. d to six months He invited the Court to deal with the case on this assumption. spent in prison Whether the orders were themselves just or not, he added, did it with the result not much matter so far as this accused was concerned, provided ror e date on he did not know them to be unjust. This was the ratio decidendi of the Court, and there can b little doubt that by German law the decision was correct. against aiarine “U. 67,” The proceedings Commander Neumann completed Dastle” in the the Trials of the four persons named by the British Government were amenable justice, of were admitted who to but after the conclusion the ts last trial, proceedings were taken by the German Government, at their own instance, against two officers—Lieutenants Dithmar iamed the “Elm and Boldt—who were serving under the command of Commander on, on board the Patzig in the Submarine “U. 86,” by which the Hospital Ship its base. Captain Liandovery Castle” was sunk. s own signature, ‘Elmmoor” had }Iospital Ship “Liandovery Castle.” n was available y of the certificate Commander Helmut Patzig; to the German Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt. Authorities had As has been already stated, Patzig is said to be out of the nce that he acted jurisdiction of the German Government, and his whereabouts Admiralty, th the re not known. In the course of the enquiry into the charges of th importance made against him by the British Government, the German fte eferred to, Authorities examined a number of witnesses and amongst them plea. i the legal the two officers, Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt, and the members n torpedoing and of the crew of the submarine. acting upon the Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt both refused to make any court roduced in statement, excusing themselves from doing so by the assertion wa1t did not ask that they had pledged their word to Patzig to give no information ieut. -Commander as to the events, which happened in connection with the destruc for as ble the act tion of the Hospital Ship “Liandovery Castle.” had received. 14
In consequence, however, of the information obtained from and I the members of the crew, supported as it was by the statements •on th of the British witnesses, which had already been furnished to the delibE German Government, the German Authorities came to the cot two j clusion that Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt were implicated in all 1t1 the destruction of this vessel and the subsequent firing on her and ol boats, and that there was sufficient evidence to justify them in a piec placing these officers upon their trial for murder. Both officers Clusjo were accordingly placed under arrest and the case was referred to byoi the Supreme Court in Leipzig for trial. The British Government and f was invited to arrange for the attendance of the British witnesses I to the to give evidence at the trial, and although the British Government did not itself make the charge against these officers, it was con-. Th sidered that in view of the gravity of the offence with which they of th€ were charged, and of the deplorable nature of the outrage, every- but h assistance should be given to the German Government in bringing -: tenant to justice the persons responsible for the crime. of 1res that tk When notice was received of the date fixed for the trial, less and in th than three weeks remained, which to trace the witnesses and pledge arrange for their attendance at Leipzig. Four of the most rep orti important witnesses were found to be either serving in ships at sea or living abroad. Of these two were intercepted in New York :- In by wireless, one was on passage from the West Indies to England, - Some d and one was traced in Vancouver, British Columbia. had be Special arrangements were made for the immediate return-; the Coi of these witnesses to England and all were able to attend the murder trial in Leipzig, though the witness from British Vancouver The Co arrived only on the last day of the hearing, which was specially. - that at adjourned for his attendance. found a firing. One witness was examined at Bow Street and twelve witnesses After these witnesses and German gave evidence at the trial. hearing the -Country witnesses called by the German Authorities themselves, who in intent cluded a number of the members of the crew of the submarine, British the pre the Court found that the “Llandovery Castle” was a without hospital ship, she was properly equipped and lighted, and was that they we used solely for the purposes of a hospital ship and carried no com lour she was on her proper course; yea batants or munitions of war; that disniissa that she was followed by the submarine “U. 86” for several hours -a retjre( and when her lights were lit she was recognised as a hospital ship beyond any possibility of doubt; and that after fully considering Comi the matter and discussing it with the members of his staff, Com in defen mander Helmut Patzig torpedoed the vessel without warning. his failui The Court further held that at least three boats got safely away from the ship with survivors in them; and that the boats were found and searched by the submarine, whose Commander professed to hold the belief and was attempting to prove that the vessel carried eight American Flight Officers; that failing to find in the boats any justification for torpedoing the ship, Commander Patzig with the approval and concurrence of Lieutenants Ththmar [ndies I d Le” pted riment leers, itish r. ere Its id ,ble ervixig ) 3ame y hich ent ‘ieutenants that nd .d 3ritish the he ie n our t S mbia. e ove immediate er
itish
her emselves,
mmander
for British
“
furnished
witnesses
of
with
justify
without
01
as
twelve the
failing ship,
was
obtained
f lighted, for
outrage,
got
carried
the implicated
witnesses firing
proper the Both to
was is that
v
the
a
Government
Government in
was
to
f
statements several it
to
which
hospital referred
in
in
Vancouver attend safely
New submarine,
Commander
considering
witnesses
staff,
the
trial,
the was
boats
them
England,
bringing witnesses
to a
specially the ships
officers
professed
on
warning.
who and to and
no
Dithrnar course;
British
return
from
every
con
find York
most they
con
hours
the
her vessel
Corn
less corn-
away and
were
in ship tó.’I the in..
was
the
at
in-
in
and
and all and two a on to by deliberately elusion
that pledge but of reporting and tenants
of The the found had that murder, some firing.
intent country. German without the they In
a dismissal
his
our
pledge
retired the the responsibility
the
the
The
In omitting defence
obtained
Boldt
Commander
failure
forwarding Court held out
present
that been
they
Court,
years
were
at
doubt
as German deck his
persons
of and
themselves Court
submarine,
Dithmar
There
of least
and
Criminal adequate that
to
a
they
the had
the (who hit
It from officer,
guilty
to
address
imprisonment
to the
fact
of
however, of fired
manslaughter
from whether maintain
may
case any
find
recognised
by incident
to
do
war,
two
taken
the
his
the is,
three who
with could
Admiralty.
a
the
Patzig that
of for
and so.
award the
on
reference
the falsified be however,
deprivation the
that
brother
submarine
plea
Law boats
to
and
the
premeditation
to
was
were
the
part Service,
the
said
the
of
these shells
Boldt officers, there
have
came
the
Court
upon silence
secrecy
intermediate
did the
of
he
them
Gunner
which
a
that
torpedoing
primarily
with,
surviving
had to and
in
chart Court
superior
sentence officers
by
further
not
two
prevented
was officers fired
in to a
to come
their
them.
considered
Commander
crew and with
concurred
degree with
been
as
such of
negligence
the
in 15
appear
the is
and
boats Meissner—now
direct
of
by
the
the
the to
return
between
not
of
and
and
and concealed
the
incident had
responsible the the boats
conclusion
a orders
hit
of of Commander
the degree declaring
the
Lieutenant
of Oberreichsanwalt case
case.
right
had
prisoners at known
this
legal
the
was four
Commander
courses consequent
was they
been
kffling
in
that
submarine
to
incident
the
Patzig,
and
without
of
murder would been
the
ship,
of action
port. to
severely While
proof from
years
irresistible
Lieutenant
trial
all
guilty
therefore
kffling the
to
hit
wear their firing
that
recognised dead—were
for of
in
destroyed
traces
the
Patzig
the
Boldt,
the
not
to
prisoners
the
until the and the by
with relieving
that
imprisonment. intent,
loss
this
and
at
the
of
give
uniform.
and
on intention
Court
criticised
Commander
law
avail
refusing submarine,
Log
submarine
the
attempted
destroyed
of
deliberate
expressed the held
the
of
and the
inference
Ditbmar, required he
who
outrage,
evidence awarded
his
of
life and by by time),
found
alone
Book
asked boats Lieu
them boats
acted
con
they
that
this
act
was
the
the
for
of
to
of
in
‘1 British with
but Lieut.-Commander Captain Robert the prison Karl the Lieut. Lieut. In
before appeared a way
LAW
mann.
remarkable
Out
In
A all
Translations ROYAL
fact Court. not
Heynen
the
in
OFFICERS’
Dithmar Boldt
addition,
satisfactory
Neumann and
8th
the
of Government STRAND,
Emil
of
named
which that following
greatly
these
Supreme Aug’ust,
not
Name.
Name.
the
COURTS
Muller
the
to
seven
arising
by
the
degree
W.C.
cases DEPARTMENT,
of
confinement
Karl
sentences
to
results
feature
the
1921.
the
Court
OF British
in
impress
persons,
2. Neu
out the
British
the JTJSTICE,
judgments
of :—
SUMMARY. at
of
of
abridged
sentences
intelligence
are
witnesses
Leipzig
the Acquitted Convicted Convicted Convicted
Convicted Convicted
the
these
in
Result.
Result.
Government
whose
16
being
a
case
President
fortress.
are
Trials
list,
of
were
served
They
names
have
appended.
the
and
4 10 4
four
6
6
has
the wear officer.
dismissal deprivation
years years
months
to
Official
and “ :— consistently
given
has
Liandovery
have
impartiality,
were
been German
imprisonment
uniform
other
Sentence.
Sentence.
imprisonment
imprisonment,
been
imprisonment.
confirmation
now
their
the from
placed
Navy.
members
of
received.
as
been
admirable
displayed
service
evidence
Castle,”
a right
by
retired
which:
trie
in
th0 andi
and
tô.’Y
of in
of
a
i
1
instructjoj
ment clélai
Convient raison mixte plus
des
Sur
liste
publier
chacun
l’Allema
an dans en
allernanc
celui-cj
ensuite lettre ment procédui prévoit compati
dont a des alleman une
pour l’Allem
réservaj present
des
a en suprêm destine
dressée
M. ALLIT
Les
Cette
Elle
La juste
saisin
l’appl
Dans
les
oblig;
Apre
la
qui
Elle gran
Par conf POSi
proc Je EN
alle trib Ce
ont del
drc
les
eli
Pi al
et
C lj
ii
e
]
c] a I C C ____
17
APPENDIX I. ore placed by the.: ALLIED NOTE TO PRESIDENT OF GERMAN DELEGATION ye now been tried*.: RESPECTING WAR CRIMINALS. Paris, le 7 mai 1920. M. Je Président, Sentence. EN faisant remettre au Gouvernement allemand Ja liste ci-jointe, I dressée pour parvenir a l’exécution des décisioas prises par le Conseil supreme des A]liés réuni a Londres, los Puissances alliées jugent nécessaire, imprisonment. en conñrmant la réponse faite aux observations des Allemands relatives hs a la livraison des coupables, d’y ajouter la communication suivahte, destinée a determiner exactement l’état de la question. Par Ia réponse faite par le Conseil supreme des Allies aux observations présentées par le Gouvernement aUemand, les Puissances alliées, en se réservant d’user expressément, dans la forme qu’elles jugeront convenabl, des droits quo leur donne le traité, ont constaté en premier lieu qu.e .andovery Castle,” l’Allemagne se déclarait hors d’etat d’exécuter les obligations résultant pour cue du traité qu’eIle a signé. Elles ont, en outre, pris acte de la declaration faite par le Gouvernement allemand qu’il est prêt a ouvrir sans délai devant la Cour supreme de Leipzig Sentence. une procedure pénale entourée des garanties les plus completes et soustraite ( a l’application de tous jugements, procedures ou decisions antérieures des tribunaux allemands civils et militaires, contre tous les Allemands imprisonment and:: dont los Puissances alliées ont l’intention de demander la livraison. ssa1 from service in. : erman Navy. Aprés avoir constaté que cette offre du Gouvernement allemand était ; imprisonment, and compatible avec l’exécution de l’article 228 du Traité de Paix, lequel vation of right to. prévoit formellement cette hypothése, les Puissances alliées, fidèles a la uniform as a retired lettre et a l’esprit dudit traité, ont décidé que, sans intervenir clans la :r. procedure, les poursuites et le jugement, de manière a laisser au Gouverne mont allemand sa pleine et entière responsabilité, des laisseraient a imprisonment in a celui-ci Je soin de procéder aux poursuites et au jugement, les Allies devant confirmation of ensuite examiner, au résultat de ces poursuites, si le GOuverñement cial allernand est sincérement résolu a faire bonne et loyale justice. as been received. Dans le cas oil ii serait démontré que les procedures proposees par een the admirable l’Allernagnc n’ont en definitive pour effet que de soustraire les. coupables their evidence au juste châtiment do leurs forfaits, les Puissances alliées se sont réservé, yen dans ce cas, de la manière la plus expresse, leur droit dans sa plenitude asistently displayed en saisissant leurs tribunaux. which mpartiality, La Commission mixte interalliée, qui a reçu mission de rassembler, I other members of publier et communiquer a l’Allemagne le detail des charges relevées contre chacun des responsables, s’est, en consequence, inspirée de ces décisions Elle a décidé, a son tour, qu’il serait dressé par ses soins une premiere liste qui comprendrait un nombre trCs restreint d’accusés, figurant d’ailleurs sur les listes précédemment établies et qui ont été reniises a l’Allemagne. Cette liste, qui comprend quarante-cinq noms, a été établie avec le plus grand soin par les Allies, dont los représentants a Ia Commission mixte ont été ünanimes a adopter la méthode qui vient d’être définie. Les Puissances alliées font observer an Gouvernement alleñiand qu’en. raison de l’urgence que présentent la solution do cette question et l’exécution des obligations inscrites au Traité de Paix qu’a signé l’Allemagne, ii convient qu’aucun nouveau retard ne soit plus apporté,. et quo le-Gouverne ment allemand fasse toute diligence pour assurer la marche rapide des instructions, en vue d’aboutir au jugemont des accuses dans le plus bref délai possible. 18
Le allemand devra The Gouvernement donner les assurances les plus ac( formelles avec toutes garanties, tant au point de vue de la sécurjté person charges iielle des témoins et des égards qui leur sont dus au Gas Oi us Se rendrajent subordi en Allemagne pour y témoigner, qu’au point de vue de l’imniunjt absolue - the t qui doit s’attacher dans le present et dans l’avenir a.leurs depositions queues The qu’eiles soient, mais ii reste entendu qu’aucun témoin apparjena , sentenc l’une des Puissances alliées ne pourra etre contraint a déposer devant la .Cour de Leipzig. The condeni Les Puissances alliées se déclarent prêtes a executer les commissions they ar -rogatoires qui pourraient être délivrées par l’autorité judiciaire allernancle The -pour recueillir les declarations des témoins au lieu de leur residence, ajnsj qu’il est d’usage de procéder dans les relations normales entre-Eta includin Les Puissances alliées se réservent le droit, au Gas oii les terreoin ressortissant a leur souveraine-té se rendraient en Allemagne pour y témoig.. ner, de faire assister a leur audition un ou plusieurs délégués qu’eiles désigneront, comme elles se réservent également le droit de faire assise. les délégués des Puissances alliées aux débats de la Cour de Leipzig. - -- 1. T. Enfin, les Puissances alliées renouvellent formellement leurs reserves Regimer expresses d exercer leur droit dans sa plemtude tel qu ii est défini par les — Regimer articles 228 et 229 du Traité de Versailles, si elles jugent au résultatdes in the
procedures et des jugements qui vont être institués en Allernagne, que - Münster ;l’offre faite par le Gouvernement allemand n’a eu d’autre effet que dr was wot -tenter de soustraire les inculpés an juste et nécessaire châtiment des Münster -crimes qui seraient établis a. leur charge. Camp al Radenb Veuillez agréer, &c. faultless towards MILLERAND. - were 0CC At th Prisoner Camp to Herne. APPENDIX II. Landstur during t: tTraiislation.] Therc 200 were JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KARL HEYNEN. This was they mig 21 from wha b.J.-- /20 3 On Ii prisoners IX. 1017/21. than that IN THE NAME OF THE EMPIRE. for them In the criminal case against Karl Heynen master cooper of and Camp in horn in Barmen on 22 June, 1875, for crimes and offences contrary to the work
the - - - 122, 55, 1, 121 Military Penal Code, and § 74 Imperial Penal Code On th a in Second Penal Senate of the Imperial Court of Justice at Sitting - -: because ti public on 26 May, 1921, at which there took part as Judges— vented tli The President of the Senate Dr. Schmidt and the Justices of let it be uj the Imperial Court, Dr. Sabarth, Dr. Paul, Dr. Schultz, Dr. for the ac Kleine, Hagemann, Dr. Vogt. been allot
officials of - Public Prosecutor’s Department. As the II. Afi The Oberreichsanwalt, Dr. Ebermayer and Dr. Feisenberger, endeavour Attorney for the State. German si As Clerk of the Court. his fellow who, howe Risch, Official, understoo ‘after oral -evidence. Parry’s St
I
ad I s ssaire Imagne le
istice jaster éer, as
‘aul, és ugent urs
u t
tment. erial ilement
eurs
qu’il
rmales é émoin
cuter
de
RE.
droit
de
Cour
HEYNEN.
d’autre
offences
anc
assurances
a
judiciaire
Judges— leur
cas
en
l’immunité
oil
Dr. la
depositions
déposer
MILLERAND.
délégués
Penal
est
les
Allemagne,
us
de
at
sécurité
the
cooper, de
oil
au
residence,
:.
appartensnt
châtiment
pour
entre
leurs
Feisenberger,
défini
se
effet faire
Schultz, a
Leipzig.
commissions:
résultat
contrary
les
Justices
rendraient
Sitting allemande’-,
Code
devant
y
les
Etats.
reserves
témojns’.
absolue
témoig
person-.
qu’elles.
assister:;
que
of
queues
par
ainsj
plus
and
que
Dr.
the
des
des.
les
de
‘a to
Ia
of a.
-
understood
who,
his
Parry’s
German
endeavoured
been
for let
vented
because
the
Camp than
for
prisoners
from
they
This
Landsturm
200
Herne.
Camp
Prisoners’ towards
during
were
faultless
Radenberg, Munster
was
Camp
in
Munster
Regiment,
Regiment
including
condemned,
they sentence
The
charges
subordinates,
to
it
II.
fellow
the
On
On
them
There
At
work
the
the
were
The
1.
be The
The
however,
allotted
that
might
what
was wounded
occupied
in
accused
After
to
are
the
accused
the
The
their
at
statement 13
understood
they
the
sufficiently
regulations;
autumn
Herne
be
He
the
Treasury
prisoners.
and detention
he
costs
;
English
Landsturm
conduct.
intended
left
of
kept
Rheine.
were
October,
Camp,
passed.
to
way
beginning
him
they
the
and
men,
be
be
war.
organised
was Accused
to
had
saw
arrival
received
are
discontent
ill-treating
an has
Russian
be
was
at
Mhnster
is
to
find
and
necessary
was
unwilling
with on
of
only
he
already secret
in
had
placed
to imposed
interpreter.
that
borne
most promoted
that
condemned
in
testified
and
make
of
which posted
is
the
was
29th
that
see
the
to
for
during
amongst
REASONS
to
1915, His
on
at
order
There
partially. been
agricultural
Such
to
of
they
Battalion.
1914
in
served
as
at
be
40
from
prisoners
time,
to
proceedings,
of
make
to
them.
by
year
the
they
himself
under
discontent for bear
charges
October,
December,
by
Camp other
shaft
his
upon
is subordinates,
to
it were
able
expenses
whom
for
accused
told,
to
keep
to
were
a
the
the
has
as
that
Railway
considered
them,
Heme.
such non-commissioned
undertake
had man
the
would
take
sentries
also
1901,
a
his
to
1895—1897
his
to
him
respects
Russians. V
him
non-commissioned
period
Imperial
Commandant
that enquiry
silent
been
understood going
FOR
In
the
had
By
of
English
ten
of
of
act
own work.
but
1915,
in
he utterances
He
over
great
with
and
probably
consequence
of
became
after
not
the
war, 1914,
240
prisoners
having
they
in
the
RIGHT.
only
found
to
He
19
no (10)
a
Station
to
took
little about
THE the
arrangements; of
the
he
in
such
and
to
he
work
his
the
draft
“Friedrich
is
some
zeal,
be
prisoners
first-mentioned
Treasury.
who
prisoners
complaint
training
with
7
on
had
were the
received
accused.
was
They months’
be
is
to
part
command
months
detachment
made
knowledge
apparent
in
to
DECISION.
cases
their
work.
on
treated
the
in because
acquitted.
as
undertook
cases,
absolute
at
of
be
credible,
at
extent
were
the
the
received
recalled
to
the
a
officer;
in
the
were
three
that
“Nix
1
Herne,
taken.
to
Pelizza,
mine.
place
work
with
English
in
prisoners
officer
of
a
the
their
Lance
imprisonment
to
in
der
work
placed
145th
accused,
of
man,
In
as
among
subordinates
to
war,
of
it
which
time,
which
the
of
campaign
until trustworthiness
charges
any
himself to
Minen”
fact
of at Grosse”
into
of the
no
an
the
the
work
was
necessary
It
the
he
cases
German.
in
then
who
with
Corporal
Prisoners
the
sentries
prisoner
a
destination
of
King’s
was
interpreter
under
further
a
work
kind
as
Deputy
they
new
138th
the sugar he
was
his
the
account
accused
according
foreseen
mine.
whom
in
first
understood
he
all
is
returned
impossible
got
the of
prisoners,
arrival
and
a
Mine
in
Prisoners’
accused
intended
acquitted,
believed,
called
of
had
on
him
expenses,
factory. colliery.. training
and Münster
Infantry Infantry
insulting
Parry,
contrary
and
angry
Parry
Russia,
orders
of
second
Officer
They
about
excess
thus
in fifteen
first
that
and
not
near
for
War
the
and
and
to
in.
the
12
up
to is
and
çntireiy
clearly
clothes.
to cuel1
still in
mination determined,
to
eyes.
obedience
which
circumstances
ordered refused
position. Parry left
were looked
Some
English
given In
were
jointly
to
shifts
prisoners the
fuither
against
is
with
(Abel 1 sheathed
ducked
Gothard
Excited
order
repeatedly
obligations had
prisoners,
in
(a
breach
was
punishment
under Englishman).
an.d
spite
his
be
them,
the
consequence
In
IV.
placed It
distance
the
made Camp
On
following
III.
loud
miners
this
already
ill-usage
of so
obeyed.
out
endeavouring
orders. view has
that
had
for
Thereby
to
that
same
upon
McLaren),
to
of
to
his
his
this
upon
During
punishable
prisoners,
these,
§
under
irritable
of
before
over
fall
and
The
which
In
fell
shouts
repeated the
it
of
to
not
open
refuse side-arm,
in In
obey
the
been
their
command,
men
122,
§
they
of
they
and
and
occasion
as
clear
as
consequence
of
as
such
the
in,
the
in
his them, 121
other
been
under
order
this
following
been
the
position
the
however, day,
of
In
prisoners
about
the
the
regards
they
he
their
and
By
clothes that
they para.
of
revolt to
they
because
the
repeated
such
He
emphatically
march
own
cells
would
prisoners.
were
para.
that
to
an
by
who
so
work
strict
but
disobedience,
load work
showed
this,
prisoners
witnesses,
night
orders
blows,
proved
offences
no
though
the
a
to thus
repeated
work
§
to
thus
insubordination unknown
acting
in
shouts,
had
the
as”
resources, did were
a
half-an-hour’s
roll
had
5,
he
1,
ready
were
there
without
such
number
enforce from 1,
was
in
obedience.
their
not
carry
para.
on
as
had
day.
he
orders
14th
was
55,
not
were
of
Englishman insulted
called
and
of
No.
was
Nix of
agreed,
given
in
become
the
to
gave
drawing
without
that
a
the
wished
they l3th—l4th
to
go
he
not the
means No.
the
such like
not
Herne
He
for
to
is
the
rifles help
hit
wear
undertaken,
That
order
October.
Minen.”
I,
given
2,
called.
out
explained
very
form
sleepink
At
Englishman.
was given
down
of
morning
was obedience
apparently
him
use
the
delay
personally. him
Military
the
almost
was
20,
put
of
changed Gothard
this discontent
2,
had mine,
as
them,
this
his
not
the
to
and
his
first
while
the
he
any Railway
the
justified their to accused of
obliged could
blood.
them;
dilatory
accused,
walk)
“Englischer
of
“Arrest”
on
a
kind
no
grew
Germany
to
the
Gothard,
subordinate.
20
the
October
They
prisoner
same
and the
to
did
put
duties.
to
blow
morning
to Military
room. partly
the
the
They
a
who
doubt
the
to
more
of
These
at
Penal
bayonets
fix
mine
on
obey
year
he
even clothes mix
to
worse,
of
was
so
he Military
on
to
to the
14th
mining
indictment,
some
and
work
were
generally
on
accused
time
Station
persisted
In
and
On
bayonets the
on
work,
in
as
informed
his
is
succeed
use
found
because
the
successful
break
the his
that
and
in
very
As
this
and of
in
and
the prisoners,
Code
are
Therefore
asserted
when
has
shift,
this the
obeying
this
the
Penal
head
October,
the
then
in
Schweinhund”
orders
particular,
in
confusion
force
war
clothes
with
her
cocoa
mining
English
they
and
clothes,
and
the
evening
At
he must
Penal
dealt
been
order
gave
duty
contrary
the slow.
to
nose
to
although
accused,
himself
and
the the
put
with
in
in
prevailing
the
before
conduct
divided
who,
the
Code.
only this
intended
the
like,
to
partly
them.
rifles.
see
had
which
at
their
pit.
to
by
breaking
wizen
orders,
credibly
in
their
have
prisoners’
were
bound. accused
and deserves
only
secure
with
the
clothing.
to
Code. he
accused
pickets
a
prisoners
Camp
the
which
that
time
change
On
that anappearance.
by
committed
some
with
a
hot-water
disregarded
planned,
the
the
in
change
thrown
is
disobedience
accused
most
because
into
few
eye fist
some charges
In
their
lie
reasons.. Others handed known
of
being
later.
under
the
wbjh
a
his
guilty
obedience
they
prisoners’
among
at
prisoners
(Dog
had
events
This
stated
the
and
order
arrested
through.
the
increased
He
of offended with
difficult workingl
showed clothes,
itnesses
of
Shaft
accused
orders agreed.:.-j
deter
of
arrival
There
back their
placed
them
were
they
beeni
wary
they
as-he
t’
flrst pipe.
was
any
ha&-- of
dis
were
The
case- -
him
any
the
of
to
the
his
the
by
of
an V
... a -
. I 4..
4..
is
their
accused
the to
English
October.
meat
but
These
The
indictment),
in
(No.
proved.
at
Court
he
dealt
from
received subordinafior
the
shows
dressing
part
rightly
the
larger
but
there
small
refusal
that
serious
the
that the
in
of side-arms
independent
accused liable
he
circumstanc
revolt
employed
which
the
to had
especially those
bound
that
V.
direct
defence
did
In
As
to
the
same order
In
dressing has
work
It
accused
comply
1,
were
degree This
use
a
(No.
necessar
him
month
No
to
the
incideni
a
the
all
compel
that
the
groups
not
regard
groups
3
time,
that
is
sentry
prison
order
to
order
right
rifles
empli
not
of on
wouri
they
hold
and
of
conr
by
a
roon
holc
esse
con
furt
the to
prh
enc
in
rig]
acc
a
I.,
Pu
m€
do
mz
fo
ot
bl or
wi tI
01
a
ti
fi
t
I
t
t
r s i 21 iweinhund” (Dog of an bound is who, by being by the orders given to him to see that the work was done and by placed those orders he was covered. view kt this time the accused [n of these orders, a refusal of obedience, efore he is guilty . especially when general and disorderly, was inadmissible. Though they of a had a right to lodge and deserves increased complaints, the prisoners, as subordinates, were bound j:. to comply unconditionally with of the in al Code. .. the orders accused, even cases in which they considered the orders to be illegal. In so far as the accused y prevailing among the employed force, or ordered it to be employed, in order to quell an open to the Camp at Shaft V revolt on the part of the prisoners or to compel obedience to his orders, he slow On their arrival . has not acted contrary to law and consequently has not rendered himself ying orders, which were liable to punishment. -. -‘4 •although most of them This right of compelling obedience includes, under the theh existing must have known their circumstances, a right to make any necessary use of weapons; and this independently of § 124 of the Military Penal Code. In particular, the •rticular, disregarded the accused committed no breach of the law, when under such circumstances, icoa at a hot-water pipe; fi4t in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed he did not make use of rifles and been credibly stated by. side-arms for the purpose of shooting or stabbing, but used the butt ends tdwiththefistandashe of the rifles against unruly prisoners. nose and eye with his -3 It is essential, however, that, in the use of physical force, whether by the accused offended r4 the use of weapons or without, a man in such a position should not exceed Penal Code. This case; ,;, the degree of force necessary to compel obedience. It has not been proved ent, which charges hini that the accused went beyond this limit. It seems quite clear that no serious wounds were inflicted, in spite of the use of weapons. evening committed any In order to enforce his authority in face of the united and deliberate i-ted by some witnesses ff ,[2 refusal of obedience, the accused first gave a perfectly proper order that )nfu i with events qf.. . small groups of 2 to 4 men should be brought into thefl dressing room and dea with later The P there compelled, partly by force, to change their clothes. Then he ordered .en divided into working: larger groups of prisoners, who were not only persisting in their disobedience, [othes were handed out but were encouraging each other to continue to disobey, to be driven into i the pit. the dressing room. Force, partly by the use of the butt-end of the rifle, was .L4 rightly employed against these obstinate men also. Further force was in English prisoners agreed part use only a few of them :: necessary to get the men, who had changed their clothes, out of the and partly because they dressing room and into the pit cage. - ier conduct of the war. As regards the incidents of 14th October, the evidence of the witnesses tober, only some of the shows that only in the case of the prisoner Baker is there any doubt whether ft, put in an appearance. t. the accused used or tolerated a greater amount of force than the in clothes, which had been subordination of the prisoners justified. Baker, as he himself states, vith them. Others had received a ‘blow with the butt-end of a rifle, not from the accused, but they had planned, they from a sentry. This was because, when ordered to get down from his bunk, mining clothing. There.;: ‘1 he did not do so quickly enough. When he did get down the accused then nedtheaccused through dealt him a further blow in the face. Owing to the confusion prevailing
. time, this matter does appear sufficiently for I gave their reasons. .. at that not to be elucidated the
. Court to hold that a punishable offence on the part of the accused has been under any . d to see that proved. .d himself in a difficult rders to change clothes, . In all the cases included in the indictment, which relate to ill-usage soners, the accused first in direct connection with the mutinous refusal to work on 14th October, tets before the prisoners’ (No. 1, 3 and 4 of the indictment and Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of the supplementary t he intended his orders indictment), the Senate has arrived at the decision to acquit the accused. ed in breaking the dis The same holds good as regards the kicks and blows alleged in the indict essf’’ when he arrested. ment (No. I., 1)., which relate to prisoners who have not been identified. ted heir disobedience These incidents appear to relate, not to the falling-in on 13th October, Lecontrary the prisoners but to the measures necessary for the enforcement of obedience on 14th [the like, that they were October. order to change their showed V. No further cases of violence on the part of accused against the ien the pickets of war him order to English prisoners placed under have been proved in relation and rifles. In to the month of October 1915. It cannot be established whether this, as ak the prisoners’ deter- back the defence maintains, is due to the prisoners being so overawed b y the he accused, thrown accused that they at first avoided further conflicts with him. The fact force to secure obedience was is that the prisoners, after their first resistance had been broken, took up n duty bound. He their work in the mine and that they subsequently executed it without
I.. hesitation,
ment Camp brought
made maintenance. or plaint tractor satisfactory liked might Above soup, proved, defects by was sentries. objection conditions (No. on spare against sonally been bility, Germany. intendence He He reported not no the Herne. in
properly showed cause, allow Doctor consequence isolated out sick time degrees, was they missed brought of there might much
the
the the VI. VII. doctors, duty proof
VIII.
must,
interpreted
work
of due
sufficient
II.,
particularly
and,
than
by by were
Dr.
himself and proved
were only
time about
by
be
amount which
could
at all
pure
about morning, fact
In of
the
fever only On arranged
English forward
were from
At
therefore, to
cases the
2
the
that to
carry
sick.
served Some could least
therefore, supervising Kraus That
which the
except he
sometimes if
obtaining black reality
of
not those
the
gangs and
that
of the whole
the
and
that That
his
disinclination prisoners their
with
of
accused,
still those was
the
their
(over even
energetically
against 4.0
he almost the
were
Camp,
That
support; other
sick,
of
out escape
his
this, general
the beginning be
of
so
The residence
prisoners,
prisoners pudding) the
so to prisoners became no had
knowingly indictment)
they
a,m.
told of due
with where be
lodging their the
varying
shift.
the Doctor
the
he he taken.
during
this food,
duties prisoners 37°
really them that food complaint
be to 20
the in hand,
accused
during
medical
sent
to
spitted
to which
has developed exactly
or
ordered
officers,
prisoners work. offences him, to
until
their
frequently
report
English C). and acquitted
the
employment food duty
accused
there
over
be
in so
prisoners,
was Thus
exceedingly
take his
in
this not
of as and
a in to to sick. who on during
of
to
diligence.
attended As
Directors
It 30
that the
own the were midnight done,
painful
prevented
November, at
full
the
difficulties work of go Camp
whom
endeavoured the war their the
work exertion
service in staff themselves not
This
has
that the
Doctor prisoners
maintenance.
a were the of
were committed
numerous the
examining
the
to
prisoners, mine
had early
any
a
country, This matter the
measure Miners’ at
barbed on
any accused
his
not committed have so more threw
the
state
same in
temperatures
prisoners, ration practice
22 who prisoners,
was
was
Commandant
beginning any
attack
he
signs found
this
prisoners’ way in
to
also
the
in
the of busy was or consulting been visited almost At
kind, days
Doctor in
sick
himself
mining,
already
been the going
comparatively 1915, strengthening
reported of time
of
inadequate
the the
even part as Society, wire
away the
prisoners accused to the suffered been
of and
no is pit
of
in
bad
prisoners.
on with
especially
fact,
proved of nervous
in
men the
became
either
welfare that
the
therefore
liver
Mine other
Camp execution November,
the justifiable
uninterruptedly inspection a who proved The
numerous
as who with tonsilitis. of prevented
to
against of
concerning consequence in
still
shown.
for
series food,
considered their
inducement
prevailing
the
or their great doctor,
from
the the
they
hours.
of
a Camp
of Dr. themselves very
no
was
reported
sausage lodging
both
had
that
concerning
and
concerning were required illness
the
condition
was excitement
all so
indictment
of
Camp. Doctor,
the serious
of and especially
vegetable
against
after
In
acquitted. rations, Kraus,
going
zeal
prisoners themselves
told
and
temperatures common
punishable seriously. the
small.
of the almost prisoners On
morning
the
the
in
inspec1ions
grounds
to induced,
Moreover,
complaints
under
particular
accused
1915,
This
his
besides their unreliable.
conditions
(which
to
at
order this
accused be to
prisoners, sick, more
of
to
the
boarding
doctor improvement want
to
to
of
duties. sick the who
to that
be
and
the fit remedy
as the
their
send
which took daily, the their
After
report accusalji0
whom
the
and lodging
(No. and
that
abundant
should which
shift. that
sick. who
for
for has reporting
is plentiful
although.
accused. fever, was
and
legalit
offences without lived
scarcity He
did
time testify
Doctor. and
there he
did
shown
super of
to meat, treat.. irrita
being
up which meat
II, work,
corn-
were.
some early often
been
have
con-
they per
only
was. had sick had
the less
the
not
his
By the not
no
He
for
or
in In.
be
in.
so
to 1.)
is - . . -
assaultedj
being
IX.
(d)
trea
(c)
(b)
(a)
at]
of sot
shc
th rec
of of. Cn of
an fre to
ab st
on
ro Oi rn fl€
li a1
H
w
rc
b.
h I,
II
e
1.j V
t I
‘1 23
IX. On the other hard the accused has, in the following instances, as inspections of the assaulted prisoners who maintained that they were sick or while they were themselves testily being treated temporarily him icerning the legality by acerning their treat I (a) On 8th November he ill-used the English prisoner Jones by lang their lodging or means of blows with the fist and kicks on the ground, alleging ed complaints being that he had reported sick but had been found fit by the Doctor. On this accusation. - (Case I, 6, of the indictment.) acquitted. (b) He struck the same man Jones in the face with his fist on 10th ‘le grounds for corn or 11th November because Jones, who had a swollen cheek, ging conditions were - declared that he had tooth-ache. It seems that Jones is the zeal to remedy the - prisoner referred to in I, 8 of the indictment, and also that it quired improvement. is Jones, who really is the prisoner mentioned in I, 9, of the )f the prisoners, per indictment where the name is given as Walter Farror. As the .d the boarding con- last-named had not been ill-treated, the accused is acquitted of especially their meat, the charge in I, 9, of ,the indictment. )ndition to which, no (c) At the beginning of November the English prisoner MeLaren rations, as has been• was in the sleeping room and the accused struck him with a the accused and his broom, because he remained in bed on account of alleged g and more plentiful sickness (Case I, 10, of the indictment). ailing at that time j (d) The English prisoner Cross suffered from abscesses in the lower after the abundant had ordered is shown. part of the leg. Some days previously the Doctor serious want given him. On November 15 Cross vegetable and meat that poultices should be was less went to the accused to get bound up and seemed clumsy while asage (which he was being bandaged. The accused in consequence got very fr Can excited and hit him with his fist. Cross fell from his stool. As he of p . .shable offences lay upon the ground the accused kicked him: As a result of his against the accused. ‘-.. ill-treatment by the accused Cross became unable to contain ry seriously. He was. himself; perhaps he also passed excrement. Later—not on the tuptedly and did not following day as accused in the indictment (I, 12; compare tis. Moreover, he had I, 11)—the accused ordered that on this account Cross should and unreliable. By’ : be given a bath. Thereupon Cross was brought into the bath axcitement and irrita room, and, after his clothes had been taken off, was placed on of his duties. under the shower. He struggled and cried out loudly, and, again shower. ber, 1915, which have when he wanted to get away he was put under the t prisoners who had -Iow long Cross was kept under the shower cannot be estab was under the super lished with certainty. Such statements about time are usually Kraus, who lived in apt to be incorrect, and in addition to this, the memory of wit daily, early nesses on this, as on many other points in regard to the charges, nip almost can be no ernselves sick without. has naturally and obviously become vague. There shift. In. question of this shower bath having continued for an hour or the morning whole proceeding in the toement to report sick more; it is more likely that the bath After some room (as has been stated by the English prisoner Burrage) took ly small.. has heard the definite quence of the scarcity’ only a few minutes. Further, the Court sick, should be’ statements of Machine-Inspector Horstmann, who knew all ported of shower and his evidence urs. This took up so about the mechanical working the tion to be fit for work, disproves the charge that the accused subjected Cross repeatedly although. to sudden changes of cold and warm water; the structural .vere induced, not permit such sudden and .tor, in order that they arrangements of the shower would often frequent changes. The ill-usage treatment in regard to Cross so common that to the blows and kicks when Dc r, of whom only of which accused is guilty is limited showed the sores on his leg. With reference to the charge >oth .e doctor and for’ Cross send to the of having in addition ill-treated him in the bath-room (No. I, 12, ‘as told to It is also untrue tidered to be sick. He of the indictment) he is therefore acquitted. Cross became insane as a result of the treatment that he reporting ‘ -. that all prisoners have admitted, Cross had previously illness besides fever, to received. As his comrades 1i which shown signs of mental derangement. When these signs became iad temperatures to which he had been ;hat the accused did not more apparent after the ill-treatment there is subjected, hewas immediately sent to the Doctor at the instance In particular sent him back to the main Camp m going to the Doctor. of the accused and the Doctor indictment (No. II, 1.) at lWunster. I on ill-treatment the XI. X. (b) (a)
(c) (d) (a) (b) (4) Iii (i) (h) (g) U) following
(e) Apart No. of prisoners No addition the able of this struck He that accused at the about of McDonald in boxed Once used again. knocked On Refreshment The side-arm. to ill-treated angry I, In a the Similarly of the alleged About of received mentary his In On used account him Briers reported The In blow 7, the alleged the of No. work the one the November is November indictment) sufficient I, from the November 13th blow accused hand Camp. accused of this to prisoner a accused his English a when alleged having at 14, indictment.) indictment), charges him his supplementary the stick supplementary the in and I, same sickness. Immediately blow with establish and the on Evans of their Jones November, was the fist was a indictment.) himself 23, sickness. about of when by the ears. indictment.) the (Case same with account alleged blow the the has used evidence the A because been given the his day Room. brushed cases and of to prisoners with evidence done ill-treated the Abel the flight, :— the same down ill-treaiment (No. few not out same the prisoner Brooks this have a time indictment 7 accused, hand sick in (Case at a that prisoners accused It struck his broom of accused sickness. with intentionally already his stick received been and of of I, the indictment. In days sick Jones, has on ill-treated way, with time, the he has rifle-butt. (Case It time. him indictment.) the indictment.) dragged 21, bed alleged and he fist, his by has I, a their reported This face the the proved. has had parade not by or 24 Gartland supplementary of proved stick. or because afterwards English 19, hit his because was the on evidence when also mentioned on the also McDonald I, the a some been because were stick. of English a been not unnamed case ot That return from ( the piece fist of the 15, sickness. his accused the ill-treated blow them indictment), English both ill-treated the 73, and struck he the the (Case been miner sick. According is (Case of gone i]l-treated and one adduced English arm. prison.er proved way the prisoner the Briers complained of the was Jones Penal English the the Carter got indictment.) in prisoner from following prisoners they morning then thç rubber and adequately accused :— I, prisoners I, to to accused’s same in the him prisoner lying accused, indictment). (Case indictment.) The The excited 13, 18, that the prisoner himself or the remained work accused Code.) the the Ford were Birch to kicked detention Jones had prisoner Withers to of by with of as accused that tubing. accused there mine Carter latrine, 3 he the English prove on further the on was to accused the that the of on was about Without brought who mentioned Gartland fist. escaped had has his this this (No. indictment.) proved the the is indictment.) (Case him.. Brooks the the on account accused. account committed dealt in (No. McDonald struck acquitted. by gave that was cell. sheathed. not not met thought occasion occasiou cases account accused accused accused prisoner it. I, (Case supple.. (Case bed in giving. I, I, (Case cause from back 5, with been very gone that with hini wa the the the 22, He He 16, by in on of of of of 4
:*! 1 Z; ‘. : ;• : the thus and that duties his of He Western mandant and and On Front But of He became bears This following carrying there of ‘to but :l2i (No. expressi( suborcJjr ment ifltimjcja prisoner been On has ance with reportin separat The intentio as There the lJcDon I, Gothar sentries the Penal These under Herne conduc the strengt the was lodgin was 5th the Apart xv.] place on aftep he XIV. appr No. XII] the hold In that beei 13); an wer prh pin III XI] aal prc ar Mi ha ye or Pa ca: (I, A: hi 17 re p e F a a I ( ed rs nl tones ‘,‘as er gush ccused he Lndictment.) [, ed 1 enal in mplained ‘rom allowing sh -treated ‘y norning rubber rer ‘ter ording soner e • duced ot
trnent), isoner they
accused’s
then prisoners ated indictment). to
(Case
adequately to
him I, and
prisoner
ft
same
18, The
in
ir”tment.)
the prisoner remained
The
the that excited
accused, prisoners
work 13, lying
Ford the
had
the
prisoner
the of
Code.) kicked himself
or were Birch
with
Carter
accused
detention
of tubing.
3 ccused
English to as
Jones to
on
the
accused
on Withers latrine, he
by mine
further
that without
the of
there
was on
accused
that
to
was fist.
Gartland the
prove this
about
had this
indictment.>
Brooks
his
brought
the who
the
escaped
proved indictment.) in him.. mentioned
account the
by has
McDonald.
(No. the
(Case
is
struck
the
dealt
account
gave
occasion committed on
prisoner’ sheathed
not
occasion
accused.
met bed
supple
(Case
thought acquitted cases was (No. cell.
(Case
giving-.
it.
accused
accused that not
cause
in
account
accused
I,
with
gone (Case
I, with
him was
from that
back
oá
very
by the
I,
5, the
He been
of
of 4
He
5
16,
the
22,
of
of
in - -
it -‘
: i- ‘:
• -‘
-the -the -the -under On
separate McDonald Herne These ance as Penal Gothard There prisoners, intention ment (I, reporting
-121 -there to with intimidate has -carrying subordinates been
but ‘On following of became bears and expression the and This He Western thus that (No. But of
mandant and Front
He his
duties of
No.
the
XII. 13)
the
the
In
the XIII.
prisoner sentries
XIV. XV.
Apart prisoner
was year
5th
been
was strength
conduct
that lodging
afterwards
or
on
proved.
having III holds appreciation placed
he
Code.
an (I, are Par.
; constitute him. are all he
Military
contrary,
7 prisoner and
were
cases
excitement,
April,
removed
Carter
The
17th
(I,
In had especially crimes of
excellent
known 17) out Front. of
1915.
deliberately
discovered. two sick these of he Th Apart
considerations
of from whose
three
(No.
1,
the the
during
good was “Englischer
McDonald
the 2
deciding
in the Jones
ill-treating
charges,
the rendered There In
of thrown
accused his
contrary also
and
April, 55,
had
of
of
further without
1916,
But
evidence
an (I,
Penal
the
Supplement).
4);
the
Parry prisoners, fifteen
he indictment)
which one his inadequate
prisoners
ill-treating While from the
duties.
cases
Prisoners’ from in
No.
offences
especially He
names
abilities.
applied and
no
15) extremely
the
won his (I, have of indefatigable
English
conduct
especially
offences he
and
higher
1918,
case indictment)
earned the
stones
or
2, is, adequate
Code ;
cases assaulted
his to these blameless 6—8).
his much
(No. and
That conduct, any years
in
was
are cases
he
Briers
back
Military
that
the
has therefore,
been
cannot
Ford
measure Schweinhund” the into
This
command
against he
entrusted which
he
such
superiors. was
at
was
and punishable sentenced
Camp or
regarding p:isoners. in 8
the
both quarters, in
prisoners at
he
cases The who prisoners
of
more
difficult proved regulations
the he
1916—1918 is by was
the of
offences
account:
any
is when
all (I, regard
(No. There
the
which instruction
wished §74 none
English
guilty distinction which Commandant expression
hit the
character,
an a
be
as
the Penal ;
evidence
these Senate cannot as same
18)
promoted at
of §122
loyal
apparent of
found difficult,
McLaren
prisoner 25 5).
of
offence regards as one
to
ascertained.
he
regards Supplement)
punishment
Herne,
that
position,
are ;
ill-treatment,
by accused
the
to
the
respectively
namely, he the
of placed
soon was
He him.
LittJe
time of cases
Brooks (74
to
Code. was
performance he of
There prisoners
Par.
a his
and
be has three
(“
which guilty
is
prisoner
making less
Imperial
the
hit
Court-Martial,
the has
both
again
apparently
of took in
against
to
as
concerned English especially
the now
Penal
Sergeant. the
reason.
there more later
was
quality
Briers
(I,
Above
constitutes
found as
the
1, under
the
his his
insulted a
two of
is other a accused
conclusively (No.
further
on
as
in
prisoner arrangements
his
position
he 10)
55
parc
due found
a
continuous
the
the Iron reported offences
term as
of duties
closely
prisoners,
No
a was
illegal as
Gartland
fifteen Code).
further
26th
§121.
the
other Penal
and
failings
No. now ; 3
citizen all the
pig-dog and two
him war
already to
of regards -
Senate
in of
Cross
at Prisoners’
reason
with
also intended Cross
cases
it
When
subordinates momentary of guilty, accused
not
his
the
also
the accused 2
which an
Birch
and
stands
the
November, prisoners
number.
partly
Par. who
has
use has
identified.
prisoners Code.
cases against
military
of
and
offence
No
duties no himself -
can
offence men shown
Supplement)
only
(I,
of
(I,
battles
as in “) has
the
beginning, stated at
treatment
to
that
the
of for
been
he
were
for
lack 1,
the
the (No.
as
continuous was relating
relation
be
11) the
19, in
to on
be
is two
convicted.
who 55, prisoners weapons.
taken
Camp was
guilty
prisoners
used a
Military
the so boarding
charged
his
excused, has against warn II
account relation
that accu,sed
realized as ;
annoy
He service. against
soldier. of placed
beyond found.
indict
of I,
at
above,
on
No.
doing
other
Abel
while
class,
were
Corn 1915.
Thus
trust
well
zeal.
16).
staff
war not
was
the the
the
the
to at
to
his
of
by
or
of
2, 26
for cri yet they can be explained to a large extent by the unstintmg way in which he devoted his energetic personality to his appointed task. In carrying Milita: out his duties he spared himself least of all. He developed a state of irrita bility and- excitement, which almost amounted to an illness, and this mre and more undermined his self-control. This is shown clearly by the in creasing number of offences towards the end of his period of command. no question of For all that, there can be detention in a Fortress in - view of the nature of his offences, especially those committed againstprisoners who were undoubtedly sick. On the contrary a sentence of imprisomsent must be passed so far as Crimes against §122, 55, No. 2 of the Military - Penal Code are concerned. -
The ill-treatment of the prisoner Cross is considered to be the gravest - -
case. For that there must be a punishment of 3 months’ imprisonment. - For each of the other cases of ill-treatment there must be 2 months’ imprison..
ment. For the offence of throwing stones at prisoners there must be a•• - -. sentence of three days medium arrest and for each case of insulting - - . - prisoners a sentence of a week’s light arrest. In accordance with the The ac subord terms of §54 of the Military Penal Code and of §74 of the Imperial Code a. -. in One comprehensive sentence has to be passed to include these separate sentences. - contrai The period of detention during the enquiry will be counted as part of the - instanc term of imprisonment now ordered; this is in accordance with §60 of the• - Imperial Penal Code. The The decision of the Court as to the costs is based upon §497 et seq. has be( the cha “St. P.O.” (Criminal Procedure Rules) in conjunction with §4 of the - Law of 24th March, 1920 (Imperial Code I.S. 341). the Im The (Signed) SCHMIDT, connect SABARTH, of the DR. PAUL, SCHULTZ, KLEINE, HAGEMANN, DR. VOGT. In i’ commax The present copy agrees with the original document. In this (Signed by) a camp The Clerk of the Court of the Second Criminal put in 0: Senate of the Imperial Court of Justice. of No. the Can (SEAL OF COURT). BORCHARD. it. No of the supervis troops r the regu
was the 1 APPENDIX III. The Con In the C only bui [Translation.] no choio JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF EMIL MULLER. The a 1918, thx he was g. b.J. /20 left the ( IX. 1087/21. The C OF THE so-called IN THE NAME EMPIRE. Camp fo In the criminal case against Emil Muller, barrister, and Captain’i in a wret -.-.‘-.-- the Reserve (retired), of Karlsruhe, born on 24 July, 1877, in Mannheim district ii
— --
red
lance Ise tch e lion vn
ly, ners ionths’ itted stinting
rister, CHARD. the .ction No.
IRE. f d
ed ence
illness,
ourt ounted
eriod oped
accordance
MY
the
2
task.
separate
clearly
upon
1877,
Second months’
to
case
2
in
there
of
against
of
a
Imperial
with
of
with
of
tER.
be
and
imprisonment.
state
and
imprisonment
a
as
justice.
way
command.
the
in
§497
In
of
the
Fortress
part
by
must
§60
Criminal.
sentences.
this
Mannheim,.
Captainiit
imprison
§4
prisoners
with
in
insulting
of
carrying
Military
gravest
the
Code
irrita
which
of
of
€1
of
more
be
seq.
the
the
the
in
the
in
a
a
in
district
left
Camp
so-called
he
was
only
1918, no
The
In
troops
the
the
supervising
of
it.
put
of
a
In
commanded
connected the
of
the
has
instances.
The
in
subordinates
contrary
Military
for
a
camp
was
The
The
choice
the
the
No.
this
the
the
In
the
The one
regulation
wretched The
Camp, in
No
Company
charges,
Imperial
accused
been
buildings crimes
that
for
order
March,
given
accused
immediately
Camp
Camp requisitioned
Camp
Company
business
I after as
accused.
as
capacity
Commandant
costs
for
instance;
March Imperial
of
the
Company,
to
Penal
the
passed, Clerk
is
officials
with
and
their
English
other
by
and
On
part
a
the
leave, is
the
oral
to
on
of
had
temporary
there
on
condition.
in
Exchequer. The
Risch,
Counsel
1918, Second
The sitting
Kleine,
Justices,
Commanders
sentenced
of
held
the
in
took
the
the
the
of which
say,
Code
offensive,
of
he
regulations;
offences
II
5th
nine
prisoners, evidence.
as
this
Commanders
buildings.
shortly are
the
the
Exchequer
of
the
Battalion.
President
as
for
proceedings
this
REASONS
first-mentioned
were was,
remaining
Company Oberreichsanwalt,
the
prisoners
behind
but
up
for
Judges,
May
official,
the
for
and
held
of
imposed
he
Commander
Criminal
instances
of
work
neighbourhood. the
Court, Hagemann,
having
Dr.
its
position
accused,
the
a
in
to
the
each
needed
reception
Pnblic
against
outside
barracks
section
It
before
and
and
period
in
accused
quarters
and the
six
the
took
Camp
Sabarth,
lay
itself
Public
of
public
of
is
and
of
charges
Company
never
upon
He
months’
in
dealt
had
By
Senate
OF
beginning
consisted the
in
;
from
fighting
Prosecutor’s
treatment
war
in
also
been
the
sections
74
who
respect
work.
of over
of
for
shared
for
or
as
and
arranging,
of
cases, has
a RIGHT.
THE
of
previously
Prosecutor’s
Senate,
with
the
about the
on
returned.
27
Gelsenkirchen
at
with
the
a
to
marshy
settling
Dr.
taken was having
German
having
he
the
of
a
whole
Dr.
imprisopment
other
been
The Flavy-le-Martel,
30
Battalion
line,
took
accused,
of
bear
beginning
these
Camp
the
They
including is
the
solely DECISION.
122,
of
Imperial
then
Paul,
subordinates
for
five
May,
the
acquitted.
Dr.
Ebermayer
from
April,
Department,
Company acquitted,
prisoners
insulted
day
was
and
buildings.
where tolerated
Imperial
the
over
the
neurosis
143,
prisoners
duties
charges,
been
weeks.
had
a
which
Schmidt,
in
Department,
Backs,
1921,
Captain
the
and
appointed.
by
and
hours
completely
whole
of
placed
the 55,
Penal
a
Landsturm
housing,
nothing
everything
used
with
April for
day,
separate
subordinates
English
of
was
those
59,
at
of
necessary
Court
of
Commanders
are for
such
in
On
of
his
of
which
having
Dr.
and
Code,
of and
These
which
war
the
in
in
the
to
by
1,
until
which
found
four
war. labour.
imposed
subordinates.
the
the
in
the
command
feeding
ill-treatment
121,
to
provide
Schultz,
of
the
heart.
devastated
commander
them
assigned
during
I Lingemann,
The
portion
c!flsflSJ$ar.
was
Battalion.
Ir
respect
ill-treated
there
were
5th
was
4th
instances
Justice
do
expenses
expenses
sentence
empty.
Imperial
7,
It
duties
in
May,
being
as
May
with
upon of
This
still
was
had
and
the
the
the
He
two
took
Dr.
to
of
of
the
a
of at 28
in constant movement. During the time the English had been in posses.. Thus sion of it, it was unfit for human occupation. The witness Roeder who nea of many aI] at that time and indeed at the end January and beginning of Februai,, - 1918, had taken part in the war on the English side, and had often the time cox in there as interpreter, gave reliable evidence that the accommodation had isolat( been defective in the extreme. In the two residential barracks, which after the together afforded room for some 300 prisoners only, double that number of the pr had been quartered. These barracks had a muddy, unboarded floor many mc There were no beds, but only some rotten wood-wool, which was infected : dysenter with vermin. Windows and roofing were leaky. There were but two 3departur( small so-called trench stoves so that the German prisoners had suffered But r from the cold in winter. The latrines were as primitive and unwholesome wretched as can be imagined. There was a complete absence of sanitary arrange perceived ments, and also almost a complete absence of facilities for cooking and- That in t washing as well as of rugs. As a consequence of all this, numerous .. - intestinal which we prisoners had become sick with influenza and troubles, especially not possii with dysentery. Many had died. All had complained of the plague of : : camps dc lice. Even the English guard had suffered heavily. An English doctor accused had endeavoured in vain to remove these defects. d laid the I in, this -•. The accused found the Camp precisely condition, and had (when a c do his best with it. The position was rendered more difficult for him- relatively because he was obliged to quarter over 1,000 men in the barracks as fresh but also prisoners were constantly arriving. Further, all the wells round about He has th were ruined. The food allotted was insufficient, and during the first officer, WI] days he had no medical assistance. Finally he was obliged to detail daily him and’ very many men for heavy outside work, and the prisoners were already the Comir in a quite exhausted condition when they came under him. They were particular inadequately equipped with uniforms on arrival, as also with under.. played th( clothes, rugs and so on. The accused at once set energetically to work -- - torious md to effect an improvement. On the one hand he sent many memoranda- endeavour to his superiors emphatically demanding delivery of supplies in order to draw an attempi their attention to the conditions, and he made pressing demands for what from dyser was wanting (his report of 20th April, 1918, particularly is worthy of notice), epidemic. and by urgent representations, both verbal and in writing, he in fact of his Comi obtained many things. For example, medical assistance was allotted to prisoners u him as early as the third day. Furthermore, he himself took in hand and was a the improvement of the Camp as far as was possible. He formed a working the Camp v party from what labour was left in the Camp. He had wells sunk, stoves already ver installed, proper latrin,es laid out, cooking and washing places provided, These troul and he fought the plague of lice first by the means of powder and finally it - . was on th by getting a disinfecting station set up. He also succeeded in getting . fresh quarte some improvement in the food, and occasionally he got the outside work -. on any larg made easier. On one occasion he procured soap as well as extra food -:-- and luxuries from Belgium. On another he managed to get hold of some So fat, t clothing which was not intended for his men at. all. Several times he .;- Flavy-le-Ma procured some horse-flesh, and he detailed those prisoners, who were -1 any blame, particularly weak, for duty in the kitchens and bakeries where they could carried out] get more food. He showed thereby that he had sympathy with his cannot be sa prisoners and that he was not insensible to their real needs. or his meth< In spite of all this the position of the prisoners became continuously and his natu worse. Food remained insufficient. (The causes of this lay in the shortage with a seric of nourishing food prevailing at that time owing to the blockade.) The commit a s€ strength of the prisoners had not grown equal to the strenuous outside official dutie
. justified work. This work was necessitated by the fighting and, in determining it, ;. by the accused had in general no influence. Most of the prisoners grew weaker hard and ov and weaker and they often collapsed at their work or on the march to least Contrar their place of work as well as at the roll-calls in Camp. Furthermore, it was as suc] infectious diseases broke out in the shelters, which were already overrun. them more ii with lice and infected with germs of disease. The prisoners did not keep those of the themselves clean and were unable to change either uniform or under- this standarc of his clothing. At first there was not any sufficient quantity of disinfectant - ill-trea staff to treat 1
..,
uantity keries
ie shing t lamed :inal cilities ice de, ae lish
her h e ed •istance irly 3sing supplies in ‘ool, uddy, ly,
s inder s ]tjve •
sent Ly. lential i
•
to s
ad
rk e o he
the
thh
pri
in
and,
more
real
prisoners
all.
beginning
had of
as condition,
prisoners
the
himself obled
prisoners
Camp.
of energetically
were and
became
got
as
There
succeeded
the
He
witness
prisoners,
tfl-.
of
double
or accommodation
and
to is
writing,
sympathy
had
well
uniform
all
which
powder
An
wells troubles,
many
demands
needs. wells
in strenuous
also
worthy and
him.
formed
sanitary
the
Several barracks
where
on
unboarded
get
of
difficult
places
•T
,rs
during
blockade.)
for
barracks,
already
in
was
had
this,
of
determining
in
English
been
were
to
as
took
the
the
Furthermore,
order
unwholesome
were
hold outside
continuously
did round
that
Roeder,
with
the had
disinfectant of
was
sunk, cooking
grew
memoranda
and
detail
and
often
allotted
extra
They
he
they
in
of
who
or
a
February,
numerous
in
provided, plague
especially
march
times
not
for
the
with
shortage
but
arrange
in
to
working
infected
as
of f,or
overrun.
suffered
to
already
notice). number
outside
in
getting
weaker
had
posses
under
under
finally
doctor
stoves
which
about
could
what
hand floor.
work
work draw fresh
some daily
come
were
were
keep
food
first
who
fact
hini
The
two
and had
his
he
to it,
to
to
of
staff
of this
those them it
least
hard
justified
official
commit
with and
cannot
or
any
carried
Flavy-le-Martel
on fresh
it
already
These
the
and
prisoners
of
epidemic. from
an
torious
endeavoured
played him
the
particular.
officer,
was
He
camps
but
laid
relatively
accused
his (when
That perceived
not which
wretched
many
departure dysentery
after
of
in
the
was
many
his
Thus
So
any
his
to
standard
his
attempt
blame,
Camp
and
contrary
has the
more
a
was But
isolated
ill-treating
of
quarters,
Commander possible
as
also
and
ihe
treat
time
methods
dysentery
fat,
on
troubles
be
duties
command
out in
the
serious
natural
a
large
nearly
by
a
the
such very
were
industry.
these more
close
who
the
prisoners also
over-severe,
this
said
not
under
did
series
this
no
foundations,
quieter
was
like
the
therefore,
who
aggravation
his
departure
but
them
of
the
the
well-equipped
It
of
at
convict
reputation
is
his
that account
prevalent
scale.
It
always from
to at
but responsibility
in
beyond
cases
about
the
an
died
attributable,
behind
all
characteristics
has
respect
a
in
the
duties
medical
convicts
condition were,
tendency
of that
always
it
are
danger
said
circumstances.
of
that
him
good
prisoners
step
regulations. cannot
were
in
conduct
at
a
astonishing
the
should
he
English
maintaining
period
of
also
had
accused.
been
from
similar
intestinal
In
the
excesses,
concerned,
the and
the time
prison
however,
and
as to
ought time
which
the
of
prisoners
sometimes carried
that
deserves
time
then
both
the
particular
he
maintained
in
to
same
whereby
of
inspectors of
as
the
of
camp
the
way
or
conclusively
be
have
it.
then
be
for
would came
that
of good
could
Battalion,
attained
be
the
steps
by to
had
having
battle
the
well
prisoners’
condition.
to
inmates
to
still
to
accused
him
at
disputed
placed
or
general
of
manner.
an
in
nervous
take
through In
which
transferred
amount
catarrh.
and
get
hitting
conditions.
there
have He
it
dysentery.
this
high
that
universal
been
been
the
criminal suffered
order.
time
which
such as
along)
any
could
impetuous
sporadic;
the
not
have
even
and
His
he
in
spread
the
zone.
been
treated
adequate
lice,
that
repeatedly
accused
took good but
on time
regarded
of
praise.
in
constituted was
cannot
Camp
rampant
the
and
conditions
be
kind
considerable,
like
Maj
attitude
also
proved camp.
and
camp
not
he
that
been
brutal,
the
overstrain)
towards
Insults
It
penitentiaries.
such 29
record
this
It
ulcers
an to
little
Finally
in
tolerated.
law.
in
place
would
treated only
Nevertheless,
rapidly.
or had
course
is
order. into
reasonably
institutions, was
a
hi
kicking
them
tasks
rests
able,
As
itself
this
and there
hopeless.
The
the
as
true
camp
free
must
a
be
care
great
v.
On
his
that
and
manner
was
Later,
done
that
there,
and
were
one the
has
immediate
acknowledged
towards
Camp
precisely
shortly
These
reproached
have
Camps improving
Bomsdorf,
rigorous
in
fromepidemics.
capacity
dysentery,
that
the
neighbouring
not
energetic
a
the
upon
prisoners, of of
the
which
was
could
not
extent
in
that
been
case’
His interior
them.
due
a
during
breach
the
the
the
hurled
but
everything
This
The
the
prisoners
other
as general broke
be
been
other
not
number
intestinal
Commandant
that
only
no
excesses
The
before
of
troops’
the
to
His zeal prisoners’
although
immediate
of
in
the stated
prompted
subordinates,
taken
be
were
not
owing
action
succeeding
Court
from
epidemic
question
that
only
superiors.
the
at
he
death the
and
scarcely
He
hand,
not
a to
his
a
cases
cases
with
converted out
but confirms
be
methods
accused
with
which
prisoners
loss
large the
until
short
-imposed
this
his
Stendal,
of
for
showed
individually
allowed
whole
lice
circumstances
above,
acquitted
Company and
district,
camp
conscientious
to
only his
again,
he
to
cannot catarrh
has
(combined
prisoners not
among
it
deaths
of
the
which
of
providing
even
departure
prevent
camp
Any
proportion
his
treated
and
to
him
prisoners’
of
already
possible
was superior.
superiors
developed
after
time
sickness
heard
vigour.
of
he
for,
having months
this
were
period
and
same
a
It
he
be
and
into
was
at
zeal
meri
his
his upon
such
where
ulcers,
and
on
was
be
real
at
to
he
the
dis
from
at
of was
had
this
the
in
first
so.
the
in
he
it.
a in 30 and there was other ill-treatment which was contrary to the regulations. the acc He habitually struck them when he was on horseback, using a riding cane The mai or a walking stick; several prisoners have stated that they were struck Stiles). with a riding whip, but this must be a mistake as the accused did not The’ possess one. They hi detail the following instances are held proved April at• In on their I. Ill-tyeaimevi. of this t According evidence of the witness Lovegrove the accused had beer 1. to the this tjm( when on horue-back struck the prisoner Millsom across the shoulders with out his riding cane. Roll-call was being taken and Milisom marched past thest slackly and had a pipe in his mouth. Millsom himself is no longer alive. _: 6. H became i 2 and 3. In at least two cases the accused ordered prisoners to be to posts. In the first case, which he himself admits, this was done by the s bound “1 work an3 to a man whom he suspected of having been ringleader in an intended mutiny. The accused asserts that he made this man stand for about and Bat( The acci 10 minutes and ordered all the others to march past him; this being intended as a warning to the others. It has not been possible to establish malinger the details of this incident. The fact remains, however, that, as the witness 7&8 Thornton has said, there never was any question of a mutiny, but only an who wer arrangement to make a joint complaint, in the first place to the accused The accu himself, and if opportunity arose to his superiors. The accused had found in the te: this out by questioning the prisoners concerned through an interpreter. This, hca The Court cannot accept that he seriously believed from what he heard to him. that a mutiny was intended. 9. Th The accused admits that there may have been a second case of tying was ridin a prisoner to a post, but he will not call it to mind more precisely. It He struci remains doubtful whether this second occasion related to a man who had an absces, stolen some oats (Witness Ray) or to one of the prisoners who evaded work foreseen t (witness non-commissioned officers Biela, Rose, Ellis, Neims and Sharp). But the b It is possible that there were several such incidents as the several descrip In gen tions vary a good deal from each other. But only one case can, however, discipline, be held to be proved. Biela has given evidence that in this case, the will not a accused ordered the prisoners to be tied up for three days, two hours each it would I day, and that the accused himself showed Biela how it was to be done. any lengt Biela then modified the severity of the punishment, entirely on his own understan accord, and omitted the third day’s tying up altogether. there were It has not been established that in these cases the accused either neverthele ordered or allowed that these prisoners should be so tied up that they were by means compelled to gaze continuously in the sun. If anything of the kind actually Three j took place, it may have been because the non-commissioned officers or ment) coir soldiers who carried out the order acted on their own responsibility; there lations; Sc is no proof that the accused had any knowledge of it. However, even is not pro without this inhuman method of carrying out the order, the tying up in his face remains a very severe measure which cannot be justified in any way. This of this, bu form of service punishment was done away with by an Imperial decree ii He has shc of 20th May, 1917, and certain remarks of the accused seem to show that the accoun this decree, which had been duly published and was much discussed, was ings. For not unknown to him. He probably ordered this tying up, not so much as burial of a a punishment but rather as a means of securing order generally and of the dead n putting a stop to insubordination. Of this, however, so far as the Court untrue. V can see, there was no reasonable fear, and the employment of this severe in the cam measure cannot be considered otherwise than as a case of ill-treatment lutely prop under the conditions then obtaining. had ordere 4. On one occasion the accused struck, apparently only with his hand, the ipterpreter Sacof, because this man reported to him a complaint of another man who was asking for more bread. Here or 5. The accused while on horseback struck a prisoner who was suffering kLoved in t from a bad foot. At roll-call this prisoner had raised his leg to show it to by Sergean 31
the accused, but the accused hit him across his leg witl his riding cane. to the regulations. The man cried out, fell down and had to be carried into barracks (witness ising a riding cane Stiles). they were struck .e accused did not The witness Drewcock gave evidence as to further cases of ill-treatment. They happened in a tent-camp which was put up about the middle of’ April at the Railway Station and was intended for use by prisoners wb were on their way elsewhere. The accused was not appointed Commandant of this tent-camp, but the supervision of the prisoners’ maintenance there had been transferred to him. He undoubtedly had duties there and during grove the accused this time he had authority over the prisoners in the Camp. In carrying the shoulders with out these duties som marched past 6. He thrashed the prisoner walking-stick. This malf s no longer alive. Batey with his became ill while at work outside the camp and, although violently attacked ed prisoners to be by the sentries who did not believe in his inability to work,-ihe refused t> iiits, this was done work any further. The sentries reported him to the accused on their return- ler in an intended and Batey repeated that he was ill and emphatically asked for a doctor. n stand for about The accused got furious over this, as he thought that Batey was a- t him; this being malingerer; he then belaboured him in the manner already stated. )ossible to est3blish that, as the witness 7 & 8. In two cases at least the accused struck with his stick prisoners mitiny, but only an who were asking for improved conditions, particularly for more food. ace to the accused The accused excuses himself for doing this by stating that the prisoners accused had found in the tent-camp had frequently obtained double rations surreptitiously. ugh an interpreter. This, however, cannot justify his violence against prisoners making requests’ om what he heard to him. 9. The accused once struck Drewcock at roll-call when he (the accused) con ,ase of tying was riding in amongst the prisoners, who did not at once give way to him. more precisely. It He struck him across his wounded knee with his riding cane so hard that man who had an abscess developed and later had to be cut. The accused could not have- to a foreseen this, for the wounds on Drewcock’s knee were not visible him.. rs who evaded work to Nehns and Sharp). But the blow must have been a heavy one. the several descrip In general the accused has admitted that it was his practice to enforce’ case can, however, discipline, in cases of irregular behaviour by means of light blows. He’ t in this case, the will not as a rule tax his memory about the details. He explains, however, ays, two hours each it would have been impossible to attain rigid discipline if he had tolerated’ it was to be done. any lengthy explanations, especially as he and the prisoners could not entirely on his own understand each other’s language. There may- be some truth in this and ;her. there were no doubt serious difficulties in commanding such a camp. But accused either nevertheless the accused never had any right to get over these difficulties: the by means of endless acts of violence. d up that they were of the kind actually Three further similar cases (namely those under 1, 2 and 5 of the indict missioned officers or ment) come under the heading of treating prisoners contrary to the regu esponsibilify; there lations; see under IV, 1 to S later. The charge under I, 4, of the indictment it. However, even is not proved. The accused is alleged to have struck the witness Lawrence’ rder, the tying up in his face with the handle of a riding whip. Lawrence alone gives evidence- ul in any way. This of this, but Lawrence has not impressed the Court ‘as a credible ‘witness. an Imperial decree He has shown strong animosity, he has exaggerated everything far beyond I seem to show that the accounts of the other witnesses and he has told of monstrous happen much discussed, was ings. For example he asserts that he saw the accused dismount at the- up, not so much as burial of a prisoner, get down into the open grave and snatch away from. ler p -erally and of the dead man the rug in which he was shrouded. This is demonstrably- so as the Court untrue. While the accused was at the camp one burial only took place’ yment of this severe in the camp and this by orders of the accused was conducted in an abso— case of ill-treatment lutely proper manner. The corpse was placed in a coffin and the accused had ordered a wreath to decorate it. only with his hand, H. Toleration of ill-treatment by .Subordinates. him a complaint of Here only one instance has been proved with certainty. A prisoner suffering thoved in the ranks while at evening roll-call. He was harshly rebuked ier who was by Sergeant-Major Schubert. The accused saw the incident and called- his leg to show it to Out to instance: his and assumed quickly. standing butt-end treatment, place abused no which of to (section This spoke to cause pig)’ were There mission first accused concerned they for consequence once’saw This to in real, or of Code. mediately ranks contrary did and fore prisoner the as all and’of He particular roll-call be ‘hurt On’ fist. the The case painful. soffiething be the such 1. 2. the soon 3. in “ thought prisoners. instance however not in fro. is to could but wounding before ‘(or both According was are the While by The any washed of indictment. and not making sick a to witnesses 143 English amount of the is that The insults close turn right of dirty two Lovegrove that as the
IV. words to A This other .no different. said one ‘leave even obeyed. a them not knowingly construed the case same threatened Military his contrary men, Clearly, the individuals. of sentry prisoner this he prisoner ear regulations, the Lovegrove is the to recumbent reason by, his morning he without condition: to this the stand
Treatment to also, by (I, prisoners if to too rifle, hand and accused it appeared Schubert and to to the to was holds only as accused have whose man it head laugh Peace national 5, come prisoners is that that doctor’s the one guard vague It however, was There despite also ranks Penal of to certainly Lovegrove up “Englishmen The to not as perhaps a was who his permitting is wished any got and had the the suitable sufficiently, insult statement good offence he regulations. a before sickness at from not himself effect). either sick not and
of of guilt concerned namely, clear who But accused “Away then at case to was at was angry is at Code) was indictment.) prisoners this. feeling hit intention intestinal
Subordinates some attentive. the clear orders. least done be men a about
III. in to an roll-call roll-call, the men Sacof thereupon because thinks is the him driving of noticed whether carried in possibility seriously was against way each indictment, regarded was seciire he not officer and These can ill-treatment, German with this But that a witness lying tolerated said on merely witness 32 of and In “
Insults. and so filthy then, the apparently were declare of a instance to proved his once These that impatient the be so and He trouble to he when the the the the away he it of good According they to that ensuring were ill-treat and Section were this down; accused
contrary established unhappy knocked The orders. go ill, can according as or entirely witness Thornton condition. a witnesses, an English died Lovegrove kicking did that ride he accused marching prisoners “Schweinhunde” assaults and sick a to proof was could deal in ill-treatment he are his (witness that half serious groaning accused irregular easily this saw man and not the although connection the and quickly did the could him. 121 proper order approved riding all prisoner they
only to to the and eaten a Lovegrove was blameless. constituted of the the prevent ‘Dreckschwein’ had come of pulled latrines
Regulations. to reports condition, not have the accused to here. the he are very of personal out past any The prisoner on Stiles). admits education. that a have were his particularly to accused, pitifully. have attempt accused the been respect frequently on evidence case yet up by more considered the it of out actual been who second get story, had the him next with of it. is horseback Military two he and lice, the so to prevented kicked believe hip that did refused of thus the this a sufficiently insults up down It accused, serious For least (pig-dogs). was frequently not mistaken, out weak Therefore for the instances treatment treatment pushed who generally a it barracks with to morning: insulting not and of is instance he But was accused second alleged brutal violent was rode himself in taken almost to (mire- found of them. there put ranks. with of Penal liked, to was wish that per and the was into the the be im be the all be it in he to so a 0
t t 1 I t t t
( I .
gulations. he :he -Jy ailed ot cines iy mdc” accused tave nt ccused, on d .soner past )f stituted Dcused gh education. ndition, ry a meleE mrsonal ckschwein’ at .les). r ‘he orts
egrove er e. re hat e
er were
admits
pitifully. the
particularly to have bee,. a
of his
more
out attempt the by
been
actual yet had
on who of respect with it frequently c considered
evidence
recond up it.
next the get
he
two
prevented hip
the and
him is
lice,
this
Military down so
sufficiently horseback It
kicked ,efused
believe
did insults
to the not
thus mistaken, ry, (pig-dogs). frequently serious Therefore
For was
that of
a who least a up barracks
with
generally instances is
accused, weak
insulting
it
out morning:
treatment second
brutal and for the instance treatment pushed
not
to to
But taken accused
with was
was
of in
found (mire he alleged
violent
was
the them..
of
himself rode there be
of
per and almost to put Penal
ranks. that was the wish
be
]iked,
it
the
ins- all
in
into
the
be
he
to
so a
ar
‘thrown
•also
all
as men present actual action. by
on workers prisoners sent capable Abrahams,
strict that witness. demanded. who
a military, many
weak supplying healthy ants
here. which accused of conditions owing, been to to Major Ray
accused the who If to
vermin,
this though specia1ly
objectionable improvements his Terlinson). of (See the a the
sides
great into
: excessive
sick
the
matter sick do
is
prisoners The the
Further, change The insulting
everyone
he
water declare
accused service of (B5968) was Finally,
accused reported
treatment altogether riding
acting orders
above
it the or
case down of
and
it
The
Army and considered Schubert, Benicer of it prisoners. prisoners
the demanded opinion
case condition
advisers charges
by
it in
directed
really (Sacof, water the
is is sick
work;
of ranks
of
many, in is this in Neims
of
this
urgent the his
Camp.
witness For
keenness. said,
not that by down it the
as independently. obliged under fact
mentioned was true washed the the
the
was the men out,
this as
The
sick, is prisoners,
manner.
confirms
has
too accused. excessive
Commandant. was the
that contrary effected was water. the of made
demands
also
v.
Goldberg, easy accused, nobodywas (IV, it
trough prisoners. he them who mocking
there latrine to
only
that animated was many
and
even Camp or or need
in When the
accused weak KuhI
III.) not
to
was horse.
But first Ray poured tolerated
weakness, him
given
not the
their
3, when breaking
could
in question.
to the
just
he to
Brett supposes been The military
of could
those of
it. in
As
of at
by proved in they But ranks
when IV, for and excuse
to are to
because
was
for Ray, estimate, zeal do likewise
The he
was them, the
medical workers
under
these faces
IV,
the as
Tingle that supplementary not regulations Such regards
over by him.
took this several
send The
If construed
so, 2,
them in considered. injured. v.
could
in.
have no
indictment).
had entered much made
insulted the treatment constantly
he were
up who several proper 4, feelings
He 1, taking get Fransecki
contradicts that but
this
kind alleged
in complete expert, of accused him this, opposition.
33 medical With
excesses
and
out
some the
did 6, acting
prisoners the .authorities been He had and
(Medical
‘C been out
did
dirty had especially the humanity. not because instances
broken.
to
to was the
of
and of
the
5 not as time maintenance
might
but The the
prisoners ranks as
been by that
and the
regard of
of this
chop the have .
dying sick
penal expressly small received accused
muster
General
..--.. due
no continuously,
sick
cannot
itself ill-treatment,
water, orders
ignored declare the numbers
spiteful salute. he the when
photographs
agreement),
accused
the
interest demands the and
is
His
were indictment the
they
enjoined Orderly), with
doubt to
to -
been was
well The
wood died This
to orwho constitute way has
accused work
when
man
photographs
to
be did evidence their
Sergeant-Major
it necessity plea
thought refused the These riding and
be
this answer
-
the using
did
that v. .
a
prisoners
told intended was the
have remained
malignity and thalingerers satisfactorily
It the is
quickly
abOut was
him
of
of condOmned.
who or. for
feeling
of .
preconceived the arrived, Fransecki. that full
in stated
order not was upon
was
were
Lovegrove, there the that workers at second wlile following
to it, solely that often considerations he up
the prompted and
must a an
done medical
this no
of
was
trouble one
that wrétçhed
all for complement
be
not the considerate to avoid
not had
Administration
the to
from enough, he hour, the
prisoners
obviously of scattered by and
harm
unanswered. was
the is of times towards being sent . forced
commemorate a
by
covered continuous this he because be
a
certain in was sickness
excuse because or pride
no COmmand scrupulous
that, an numerous
v.’itnesses,
the may
body
explained.
assistance including
pleading because certainly Sergeant-
day; to
forcibly German doing excluded that
the In This
because,
purely intention
idea
in (Witness
ordered Peace,
possible
washed. offence
were
health
change work
were Camp,
in the
a men, have them, in on
no that
in way, of the with his
the is
of that
the but this of
less
the
a
prisoners’
perament
administration
he
nerve
of
life.
upon
house
neighbourhood
of
battle
difficult
has
strove has to
service. from
secured were
tion
Code;
Section
18th
was
mitted
has
acquitted.
feelings made,
sions
This
well
showed
war
Commandant
But
be
The
In
He
vindicated
been
Thus
So
of
the
him not
December
been
The carrying
trouble
taken
the
deciding
as preconceived
areas,
(looking
strain
to
IV.
in
III.
War is
following
from
far
such
Section
&c.).
situation.
accused
122,
in
II.
results
so
Then,
confidence,
an
those on
at I.
was
thus
himself,
it
accused
his
unending
win
decided
That
as
his
In
the
into committing
war,
and
subordinates,
serious his
In
ment,
officer, ill-treated
prisoners
In
a Crimes
In
able
has
the
paras.
appreciation
The
the
close
and
(witness the
personal
out
time
four
But
him
of
less
the capacity
the
liable
and
into
one
two
cases
fist.
under
however,
of
1919
of 74
the
nine
which
consideration:
is
part
been
the
separate
his
officer, charge
beginning
accused
his
an
generally
the
had, he
on
extent
Prisoners
the
as
He
up
suited),
when of
in
appreciation
as
instances
deliberately
at idea
and 1,
instance,
the
accused
stream
instances
he
and
Camp
subordinates,
to
I
old
allowed
The
many
instances
duties.
a
of
preliminary
had
143,
the of
Kesseler,
no
them
a was
I,
against
definitely
Court
treatment
to he
so
case
mortuary;
of
got
of
Offences).
punishment
about
time
the
in
who
he
war,
4,
heart
he
24th
by
of
in
wise
IV,
is
accused
incidents
was
to
Imperial
been
a
obliged
superior
121
as
points;
IV,
he
speaking, of
a was
his
and
guilty
of full
was
of
or
criminal
was
using of accused.
has
as
speak,
he
faithfully
one
of he
He
reputation
such
the
he
March
Prisoners. ;
War, the
officially
guilty
erred
his
caused
April
punishment
complaint,
ill-usage
he
6
Doctor
expected.
to
commanding
measure
already
is
most
of
paras.
at
did
established
II,
found
suddenly
(the
served
of
of
proceedings.
insulted
to
thereby
his
words
guilty
front,
accused
strike
as deliberately
the
contrary
towards
subordinates,
his
behaviour
in
took
Penal
34
and
to
his
the
this
for
take
1,
seriously.
equal
act,
1920, until
to tying
well
severe
others
offences
injury
Accordingly
of Prisoners’
,
create
tried no
superiors,
of
bound
subordinates,
almost
continuously
crimes
this
(see
prisoners
throughout
whilst
the
among
place
an
in of
of
Medicine).
which
55 u,
over
All
Code
the
As definite
and
as
has
with
to confronted
English
which
the
5th
up
treating
abuse;
his
a
to :—
it
English
above
scarcity
in
to
extent
to
possible.
officer
his
has
out
these when
devastated
have
has
53, the,
:—
to indictment)
shown
of
was
following
breaking the
one
The
and
carrying
subordinates
do
May,
kicked
he
(cf.
them
their
knowledge
Instead
task
Camp
prevent.
or
the
already deals
and
7,
of
proved
(and
facts
his
to
I,
could
of
on
regulations prisoners
afflicted
trial
throughout
complaints
the
burdens offences
of
of
which
his
English
prisoner
nothing,
otherwise
of
in
a
In
man
2/3).
him,
and
health. itself
the
for
1918,
duty;
with
who
all
the
a
with
non-commissioned
or
at
for
long
to
all
the
Imperial
down
before out
spite
factors
military
that
have
of
being
most
been
and
carried
these
Flavy-le-Martel
prove
struck who
novel
Military
necessaries
the
might
this
permitted
on
an
had
camp.
and
with
earning
the
were years according
his
and
who
prisoners
of
of
his
a
of
as
unhealthy
prevented,
other’occa
this
stated,
unusually
disturbed
were
physically
and
been
stole accused
a
Camp
have
his
points
duties.
war
Prosecu
hitherto
all
position war,
a
that
any
offences
while
out
tyrant Law
serious always
detach English
placed.
appear
of
result
Court
Penal
tem
this,
as
being
the with com
war
oats)
had
the
such
the
the
his
to
he
of
in
to
of
of
(as
he
is
and
6
the
mor
sick
abl€
ugh
sins tyi:
civ:
ha
in
shc
the
de
ha:
pri
Ov
bri
se
m
it
as
an
to
su
bl
w,
tL
H
at
ti
oI
tt
ti
h n a
11
d
c
t. a
0 a of iing np a
stead and y ul roved wing ould of nent) omplaints sk [notg, ds ready als the )riso’ vent. broughout :ts id trial offences :o egulations
king viedge
tated of dinates prisoner rn
afflicted otherwise English
which
in bur
his man itself
2/3).
a
health.
1918,
all of
him,
In the
a and duty;
with
the
to at for who or
non-commissioned
the
with
long
Imperial
for out
all
military
factors before
have
these down
spite
that
Flavy-le-Martel
prove
who
been
of struck the most
and
on being
Military carried
s permitted
camp.
novel
might s and
necessaries
and
this an
had
his
according the
prisoners
years of
with
were of who earning
otherocca
his
were
a
prevented,
accused stole been
of physically
as points unhealthy
this stated, and
unusually
disturbed war
any have duties.
that
war, while
Camp Prosecu— a
his
hitherto
position
offences
English all
detach-
Law a
always
out
appear
serious
tyrant
placed
of
Penal being Court result
as
corn
oats)
with
such tern— this,
had war
the the
the
the his
(as
he
he in
to
to of of
of
is
the and not that He in of military and the tarnished. had cruel. light concerned the disregard it and to tying-up the was of cannot in handie Over-excited: His months’ sick have deserved brutalised secure among as blows able men’s sufferings: singularly should prisoners civilian
and
6
the
months’
appears
any
military
such offences,
their a
It showed Therefore The
Military
Out have
conduct his
special
cause
Court a really
accused even
men Section is
seldom health
a indulged
number
must
and
n.igger-driver.
want
feelings.
Under Under Under Under Under
sentence to have be the acts His discipline.
most
position.
men.
conditions
imprisonment.
enthusiasm
of
protection. grievances generally
of
to
and
who
decided weeks’ a say, than rather
for
imprisonment efforts
serious
considers unfitting by
himself
prisoners
None
necessity
be
of
acts the he these conditions conditions of
has Penal
frankly
which
54
work avoided
is
anything
grievous
III,
II, it IV, I,
the of I,
ill-treatment
feeling
war.
in
that
emphasised
his such
were But acquitted. cared
of
has
general
sometimes
2 to
seems
originated, It
1, as
the separate
to
1 such arrest,
the in and 1,
1
most
Code) consequences.
separate
honour troubled
(under
severe
follow and
show were
4, is a
and
been It
he
push
even
two and
which in
favour brutal
like. peculiarly
less collectively. decisive. The
little
being for V/hen
deliberate and
Military
mistake
But
no 7
3, reprehensible
in is
feared
in but laws under to
a
part
2,
between these and the
For weeks’
in
complaints: the 5, not proved
them
and
justification an so, the
such
IV, also
only
man
discipline.
instances both which and
the
for here, that been
worked
unduly would
these
6, Such so treatment of
accordance angry
sentences
sufferings
of
not
the
lay choice
almost
likely it
8
lacking
IV,
Camp,
4). disorder,
the
of the
cases much
Penal
under
humanity.
an out
no Court
possible V/hen each of
unfortunate,
as practice the arrest. must unworthy
too,
to the in other
imprisonment
prisoners
in
prisoners
conduct
have
latter. 3
accumulation
individual,
his
For
It a
excuse words, of
severe;
him
35
have given
f ‘-
to any
accused their
being
means
about
of
accused,
citizen
Code. is one
habitually IV,
is
in his
his
that each
be
He
of
that he
there of
education
offences
this be
he
caused
considered
and with rash impossible
consideiation
up
excuse of
pleasure the
way:
2,
occurred.
week’s recalled
prisoners excesses
miserable by
mixed
There
of
made
considered really
offended
had that
attempts
the
domineering
Had
45 dishonours
detention of
each his to
there in,
and that
In and
has prisoners;
a
Law
Section actions will
sick
having
if punishment
days’
human more
an
well-being
war-time
there respect
no
and
methods
he
this for
only
above of the
has
insufficient harsh
not
one
as
refractory.
arrest with
he
and
must
in
that (Sections
exaggerated
be and
never were
to
to
offences. eyes
against
entrusted
detention an
him
serious
imprisonment.
condition.
not Not
been
did
acted week’s
conditions regard persecution,
will to
which 74 he
as
be
consider
in being: a
but
military
the
of all
officer
suffering
and our
he
: be
disregard
but
could been less only
of total for
ride
not listened
were was his
a
find
a
be the an
of
Under
not
he
as
a had
the
prisoners single
clishonourably, the injury
fortress
121,
to
in
army,
arrest:
the
contemptuous
he allowance their :—
accumulation
compelling grievous:
sentence know
blows,
other ought
that so, The these in
them
remains due
to
deliberately themselves.
secure
a
intended regulations,
the
sentence his
conception
Penal
under
as
regretted;
conscious Such a prisoners,
had
122,
men
he
patiently
I,
for his case
to fortress,
or
obvious
lament conduct to
accused
well
he
how
and charges factors
would
9, not.to
is
down,
kicks, and
those
order
other there
55
even
care.
that
been
Code
men
who
of
was him.
has two un—
too
for
to
as
to of
of
of is
2
Treasury
those
sentence
of ainst
-.
of [Trans1ahon.]
• Ramdow
b.j.i/2O
11th
•
(S
in
War
twelve
The
The.
On
The
the,
In
conjunction
The
AL
The
charges
1054/21.
February
after Crimes
ihe
other
as
costs
Imperial
period
JUDGMENT
OF
§
Accused
present
passed.
as
The
costs
Officials
cases
criminal
District,
THE
took
1,
at
regards
oral
charges
of
on The
Risch,
Dr.
Justices
The
and
53,
Second
a
of
(Signed)
are
the
COURT.)
1891
of
with
which Sitting copy
part
Penal
evidence
detention
Oberreichsanwalt
is
IN
Vogt,
54,
Offences
President
of
regulated
charge
ill-treating
proceedings
the
at
he
sentenced
official,
in
the
THE
IN Section
Dr.
55,
as
agrees
Criminal
he
is
Code.
Dombrowken,
present
held
charges
HAGEMANN.
KLEINE,
SCHULTZ, DR.
BACKS,
SABARTH,
SCHMIDT
Judges—
THE
Sabarth,
acquitted. against
Public
122,
has
APPENDIX
of
NAME
pending
of
with
in
in
PAUL,
The
4
24th
subordinates
been
121,
to
the
accordan
of
CASE
Senate
are
public
under
Senate
on
Prosecutor’s
the
Robert
Clerk
the
Dr.
six
March
Senate,
imposed
OF
of
Dr.
found
which
the
36
original
Paul,
Cuim
Imperial
OF
months
the
of
on
detention
of
THE
of
Ebermeyer,
inquiry
Neumann,
1920.
the
the
tlie
guilty
ROBERT IV.
2nd
he
Military
with
Dr.
Backs,
and
upon District,
EMPIRE. document.
has
Department
Court
Imperial
Imperial
imprisonment
Schmidt, June
Law
Sections
is
insulting
and
the
pending
Dr.
been
BORCHARD.
to
as
Penal
workman,
of for
.
1921
charged
NEUMANN.
upon
accused
be
Kleine,
Clerk
the
Court
Court
the
acquitted.
and
497,
included
a
at
Code
2nd
inquiry,
the
Prosecution
of
subordinate.
the
on which
of
with
Hagemann,
498
as
of
of
the
Criminal
Imperial
Justice.
and
Imperial
account
regards
Gustow,
Justice,
in
para.
crimes
Court
there
The
born.
§ the
.
74
o 1 - • -
-
Wi
til.
en
dii Ei
a
st
Ti
w.
ai
01
e: .
C
C I f 37
Imperial Treasury is also to bear in the first mentioned cases all expenses, ions 497, 498, para. 1, including the necessary expenses of the accused. for the Prosecution of By RIGHT.
REASONS. I. The Accused is a trained soldier. He fought during the War on the Eastern front, was wounded in the year 1915 near Warsaw and, after his discharge from Hospital, he was reported fit for Garrison dutyand was detailed to a Landsturm Battalion at Altdamm. He was sent from there on 26th March, 1917, to guard prisoners of war at the Prisoners’ Camp at the Chemical Factory, Ponimerensdorf. 150—200 prisoners of nent. war were housed there and among these were about 50—60 Englishmen of the 2nd Criminal who were employed in the Factory, particularly in filling, weighing and rial Court of Justice. loading sacks of phosphate. The non-commissioned officer Trienke was in command of the detachment. BORCHARD. The accused is charged with having physically Ui-treated Enghsh prisoners of war during the period 26th March tO 24,th December, 19:17. and in one instance of having also insulted them by calling then “Schweinhunde” (“ Pig Dogs “). Those English prisoners were his subordinates and his acts were committed in the execution of his dhtiés in guarding them. The accused denies the charges. He says that here and there he may have hit one of the prisoners with the butt of his rifle in order to make him work. In this he considers himself to have been justified as the English prisoners were often refractory, in marked contrast with the Serbs and Russians. To some extent this conduct of his was T NEUMANN. on direct orders from his superiors. This was especially the case on 2nd April, :1917, when the prisoners, about 24 men, allotted for the night shift, deliberately refused to go to work. In order to oompel obedience, the non-commissioned officer Trienke, acting oh the iiistructions, as he assumed, of the Camp Commandant in Altdamrn, Ordered the sentries to fall in and attack. This order was carried out, and the accused admits that while this was being done he struck one ‘Of the prisoners (Florence) IRE. with his fist. Beyond that he says that he Ui-treated nobody. He i, workman, of Güstow, claims to• have acted strictly according to regrlations. He absolutely pending inquiry, born refused to tolerate breaches of discipline. He has not been able to recollect ct, charged with crimcs details. y’ Penal Code and § 74 In this trial a great deal of evidence has been heard. Twenty-five English witnesses, all, former prisoners at the Pominerensdorf Camp, have been )erial Court of Justice, examined orally before this Court; four others were examined at Bow Street ne 1921 at which there Police Court in London. In addition the Court has heard 14 German witnesses who knew the facts from personal experience, some as former hmidt, and the Imperial sentries and others as officials at the Chemical Factory. On this evidence Dr. Kleine, Hagemann, the Court has come to the following conclusions: The complaints of the English prisoners that they were inhumanly )artment and brutally ill-treated at the Pommerensdorf working camp are unfounded r, as Clerk of the Court or at least exaggerated so far as they are directed against the accused. Many witnesses have asserted that the accused took special pleasure in con stantly hurting them. This accusation particularly has no founda’tion. There can be no question of this in view of the evidence. Neumann was prisonment on account within the limits of subordinate. a conscientious soldier, determined to do his duty nsulting a his orders. He sometimes went too far in this enthusiasm to do his’ duty, but any tendency to be brutal was far from his nature. The witness, s to be included in the Erdmann, who from 1915 was an Inspector in the Pommerensdorf Factory, emphatically states that Neumann never did anything to a prisoner who The German witnesses, who had the oppor as regards did his work properly. other the accused tunity of seeing the accused at work in Pommerensdorf, unanimously agree and upon the Imperial this opinion. To some extent the English evidence supports this been acquitted. The with
-already
forthcoming.
charged
on
greater
that
course and
Commanding
there he
of matters
Therefore
case According
orders
criminally
He
and
part
used
Prisoners
with
order
persuasion
commissioned
“Left
hard.
not working
of
the
has
case
and
charge
This held
-the
of
no
their
has
of
these, ment,
-
indicted
against
admitted
(comprised
number
the view
prisoners,
made
the
The
2nd
was
The
the
they
On the
A
cause
belaboured
there
here.
in
events
work.
been
findings On
a
been
aroused
the
is
its
at
concerns
understood prisoner
involve
further
to
than
statements.
this
about
rifle
ground
because
been
April
excluding
stood Camp
covered They
1st
with
to Accused
the
Court.
the
telephone
charges
prisoners,
the
have
Camp elucidation
butts
set
prisoners,
he
of
in
were
for generally
responsible
to
was
confirmed
be
attack
April,
Before
of
request
that
is was
at
disorderly
cases.
Accused
Trienke
all
himself
other
overcome. in
about
Officer
therefore
having
they
§ of
the
there
turn”
at
any
necessary
an 13th
2nd
irreparable
to
that
officer
and of
any at
47
had
the
the
the
him wounded. on
by
an
The
he
futile.
Pommerensdorf
1—3).
cannot,
most
act
be
the
that
1917,
their
Pommerensdorf.
enquiries
on hand,
of
carried
proceedings
account
April,
the
assembled case
the
earlier
of
could
which -witness
first
accepted,
He
time.
the
prisoner
after excessive
never
This
given
and
stamped
with
clearly
tried
without
has
continued
evidence
which
must insulting,
in
the
the
the
Trienke
under
tendencies
the
decided indignation
non-commissioned
allowed
order
rifles
There
a
of
its
to
indictment,
it
prisoners.
For
He
prisoners.
if
accused.
taken
be
Military
however,
1917.
fresh
decision
his
the damage
the
out ill-treating enquiry
in
use
saw
is
compel
some
of
be
It
necessary
essential
is
of
acted
Benson
no
such
and
of
Florence clear
gave
this,
as
fists
vain
any
out
17
a
for
use
this
the
circumstances
has
resistance of
of
through
jointly
is
acquitted
to
his
12
anybody
doubt
troop
to
his
up
civil
the
The
separate
have
force
and the
cause.
the
one
by
cases
be
only
Commandant the
and
circumstances,
result.
obedience.
of Penal irritation
to before
however, among
of
that
belabour
decision
to
been
the
superior
be
This
most
The
Court
in
charges
The
He
38
points
or
all
account English
taken
prisoners
force
prisoners
the
military is
even
to
of
of charge
get
to
in night
feet.
held
(II
upon
have his
their
commands the
military
fell said
the
enquiry
refuse
the
established
be Code
sentries
English struck
any
on
of
General instances
time
work
the
Court
officer
them
has
Then
of
by
examination
here.
and
upon
against
accused
to
nipped
which
responsible
by
the
no Florence means
legality
been
legal
I—X
to
shift,
did
the
interpreter
He
witnesses
of
particular
English
the
of
It
lead
discipline,
a seen
the
has
to
in
dispersed
seemed
have
adequate
openly
of
the
investigated
this
without
to has
crime.
he
prisoners the
subordinate
has
Trienke
not
order insulting
does
when and
proved
prisoners
von
went do
this
The first
the
grounds.
he
announced
been
of
use
him
in
at
“Right
no
give
Neumann.
gave
exceeded
evidence.
Scotchman,
of
it.
that
not
given
not
found
justify.
physical
when prisoners
the
was
in
not
the
der
Camp
reason
of trial.
the
of
accused
refused
to into
indictment).
for
he
for
separately
case
for
This
in
been
the
that
in.
to
in
On
cause:
been
even
bud
a gave his
proof
arms.
Goltz
Neumann
bound
appear
disposal
them
knows
generally
a
order.
by
the
London
arrived
that
the
Superior.
he the
all
acts
these
about
at
the
the
must second
It
can
pris
was
sentries
All
ill-treatment,
his
relentlessly
to
established
they But
the
He
to
in
affected
to
was Aitdamm. at
this
prosecution
directions.
satisfaction
has
has
relates
prisoners
which
conditions
Florence, afternoon
of
to
there
disbelieve
to
orier.
As
the
that
It duty
only
to
the
friendly
a
not
work.
has
events.
accused
not
Unless
violence
proved.
of
on
be
turn,”
would
lying
frankly
order
at
obey.
body
been
been
indict
is
have
had
took
a
non
the
time
This
the
the
been
his
this
As
be
was
too was
the
be in
of
rule
to
by Of
- a
-
t
V
1: I sible ted isonr stigated physical ‘ut lequate )risoners nce Las :y rder ime. ,hen he I nnounced eumann. r s ved Iting justify. n n I rienke is r en o icular the e fly not ersed st ‘es ent ipline. “Right give bordinate evidence. ounds. eter found
The gave given in it. ceeded
use
in
prisoners der at Scotchman,
that
reason into
of for
in trial.
not was indictment).
not
cause; refused the separately
to Camp
when
te
been
for
of
the
he
that of Goltz On
in. accused for London
a
in This the
case his acts
the
by that been Neumann
gave appear even a hem bud bound arrived second
the arms. knows
prisoner. his
ill-treatment, proof disposal
the
all the order.
about It to He
generally Superior. these
But
at affected prosecution All he the sentries satisfaction
they
can at of to was must
to which
As conditions
there relentlessly disbelieve relates duty
direction2.
established
afternoon
to this has in Altdamm.
prisoners
violence Florence, the
was the
frankly
has work. accused friendly proved. has to
on
to that indict
only a
not be
events. It a
at turn,” would
Unless
not been
of
time in obey. Thi rule order
have non took was was body
this
lying
been is
been the
the too by Of
the had
to
the his
a
As
be
be
of
prisoners not
solely
in For
with Erdmann his not obviously There against heel. from back he point, Finally says greater four
with regulations there using it would other thought that of
not stack menced immediately belaboured
not this the The
barracks.
with the
I
II. was
In
breaking
was available
various The assistance.
If of This the
Neumann The
This
particularly three that understand factory
paces. effects was Trienke, the the barrow and
is owing this the his way. was the The
the however,
properly Neumann
far have
he the least
quite
credence.
persistent
defence accused
which
witness
they
work,
prisoner
accused rifle he indictment butt relates. idling
that
use shoulders.
butt more other took
nothing case
witnesses justification
prisoner’s only
This the
of with
been This received to to
desire for
was
after This dizzy
spoke of against
appears
were
the across Menzies
have
also
of the the Kirkbride’s
up the
Neumann Neumann so resistance
and prisoners
he is
allows
the pushed maintains the spoke
annoyed refractory,
was
the
knew an
overturned
was disobedience his
reliable blow in the else account That
Their his
to gave sacks for
mill.
unanimous
not the have to
that been butt is
easy such Accused the
seat
rifle. certainly an Kirkbride’s
The butt work
to one arrival butt the him
a for a
was
seriously
provided 1.
for that
him accused working
him
evidence
insubordinate ±ime, sentry accounts shown following 3. of
have
he in
of
proved
a was the 2. of matter and 4. The and same
knocked the accused
day
in
for obstinate that a
has for of
not phosphate
The fearful The
Erdmann’s the
but so used
a a
this
The
long The
5.
on
German
in
his as accused.
Inspector Case has fearful single that the
evidence known to but not
no Germany
chatting violently
that
as in
going
Prisoner been Ernest rifle
claims witness the
him. Camp, to
properly
were against in
Prisoner Case regards
was was to orders, rifle
shoulders
expressions
time
39 that
a differ
other stated
cases only
this
blow the asserts
he of
the
him it
case §
arrest
was
man
refusal circumstances
blow
confirmed
while Kirhbride.
fast possible. is and how to
47 of
manure,
then struck
prisoner. Kelly. to
other
afterwards. The case
gang
that
and of sentry
probable with Englishman
over
He to states (2—9) only
that reason
which
Meuzies. Smart. (“ him. of
the
on unjustifiable
down
which the
of
and
Bray.
or
the gave
that enough.
to him. on
For
do
this
he pushed and here. reason
therefore oath
when to the
had he
witnesses the
with effect another
he which
in other in by bring
his
of
English but
was
that in
which cannot This
Germans work.
him the
he kind
was than
with
back. by fell which Military
one
forcing that head
to
that But
him The left
the
he There
to sufficient
working.
for only
him
that evidence
justified
wheel
he stubborn
cases several showed is Erdmann.
over
obliged
but to
respect.
the
he in call prisoner cheek because had the
hit his
Camp, on Court
with simply be
witnesses
so
tell the
That had the
use
forward
him
placed Kirkbride’s
had were nix Kirkbride,
case 2nd overcome without him
a as
existing
the Penal
a rifle of
only
prisoners
only
accused
wheel the
felt his blows
with
barrow,
that
of regards
is diligence. to
the may arbeiten to
to As ill-treating who,
April, workers mentioned accused
on because other
he
outside
Inspector
lCirkbride
rifle convinced
butt
just
and interfere
the pain obey. take
of
deserves three Code Bray On
his the
accused he
did barrow.
on be result. service
in
apart blows
when
ways doing who butt
1917, com-. case, :— that
were had was fist. from this then
from back
any the
so.
“).
not
did to to is the or
he
It
taking
from
was and accused
(though one
in ordered accused. cut
felt and
upon English brawl down dowi.
where
this towards
called
ordered the
account
by
with
order
in
for
The
make
because
fellow
back
resting
accused
their
Clark,
The
the
IV.
This
This
any
III.
One
his
already
others
the
of
pains
This
were
Clark
and
three
On
witness
the
the
the
again
to
and
they
with
non-commissioned
the
him
them
factory
In
Penmngton
pretext
prisoner.
opponent’s
to
slack
Canadian
gave Three
witnesses
man the
an
evidence
his
another
prisoner day
of
for
gave
he
prisoner
in
first
make
Prisoners’
Neumann
scene.
butt
But
for
was
days.
fetch
because
the
to
civilian
the
enquiry. begin
the
drawn
were
November,
by
had
end).
a
acts
in
in
had
was
him
work
the
taken
weeks
separate
couple
further
he
seen
yard:
across
a
above
bad
of h,im
May,
butt
charge
them
influenza.
occasion
were working.
second
had
a
that
obliged
had
work,
man
came about
Neumann
a
unanimously
up
Thereupon
the
they
workmen
lip.
quarrel
immediately on
with
Camp by
treatment
to
work
severe
after.
of
for of
1917,
Neumann
the
Neumann
back already appealed
10.
cases
12.
twelve
the
accused,
the
who
separate)
Altdamm.
the
the
at
1917,
up, his
were minutes
hit
August,
The
the
blow
the
officer
to
Relates
The
this
the
quicker.
back;
at
part
acàused
8.
with 7.
this
to
blow
accused
fighters,
11.
rifle.
had
of The
During
made
Sommersgill’s
9.
6.
get reprimanded
mid-day
together
present
working
butt
Pommerensdorf.
not
a
Ezra
The
come
cases from
Pommerensdorf.
Scotchmcen.—Floreiwe.
Altdarnm ill-treatment
prisoner
which
J.
Thomas
The
that senior
to
of prisoner
state
óomplained
Trienke’s
a shouted
got
accused
medical
(whom
during
against with
1917,
also
caused
Pennington.
Smith
enquiries fellow
Case
the
of
the
From
Sommersgiil.
belaboured
the
the
to
Same
while
the
40
up
At
must
it
told
meal
his
with
that
to
he
German
the
party
an
prisoners.
requested
was
Commander-in-Chief
Smith.
of
again,
accused’s was
struggle
the
the
work.
Clark.
was
accused
Camp.
treatment
declined
prisoner, fell
there “Vorwaerts”
had
by rifle,
sub-section
Kelly.
end
him
him
he
Clark.
when right-hand
be
butt
Hayes
back
the
his
about
same
a (10,
English
any
struck
had
to
busy
was
suffered
considered
and
thorough
officer
but
and
because,
the
who
duty
them fight
They
of
The the
his
a and
11,
disinclination
All
to
is and nothing
to
butt.
talking
time
a
that
the
loading
his
was
blow
accused
also
and
across
accused
the
knees.
Canadian,
three
be
guilty
12)
to
do
witnesses
between
visited
three
elbow
with
122
were
Bailey,
man)
rifle,
(see
offender
promptly
the
put
sent
Neumann
as
thrashing. (get
hit
offender so
are
was
from
disproved.
of
with
to
prisoners
railway
the
his he
and
soon
Neumann working
above
say
of
an
him
knocking
first
with
different
was
the
at
on)
to
the
excused
do
had
his
Pennington says,
at
an butt
end have
arm
to
Florence,
that in the
Stettin
and
camp
appeared
captured to
across
with
angry
was,
Military
knocked
the
his
fist
escaped
work
under
hit order
offence
wagons
to
him
Doctor
party
he
when
agree
br
wher
they
often
from
spot work
was butt.
The
him
had
and
the him
the
the
was.
on the
at
the
or
in
to
I a. .11 king
t vas ;“ .nd be n s nd r ilow ugh knees. ne Dross lered he )thing ading so m .e utt. nclination us d e, do accused
hat u-Chief 12) d
the Canadian, elbow
accused
witnesses
visited
to
three
between
guilty
man)
three as
with (see sent were
hit
122 rifle,
offender
Neumann so
(get was
promptly
are
thrashing. the
put
offender
from with
the
he
disproved.
railway
and
to
him
ey, above with
of
to
prisoners
different
on)
excused his working
the at soon was
knocking Neumann an
say says,
first
of
arm
do
Florence, the his
the
had
in
to
Pennington have at
across
Stettin
end
to
butt and
camp
an
his
that
angry
with
appeared order
was,
captured the work
hit knocked
under fist
wagons
he
by Doctor Military
him
escaped
offence
to
butt. work
often. when party
from
agree
when
him
spot was.
and they had the the him
The
the
was
the
the
on
to
or in
at
a
I
have this ately, who saw no Penal His therefore, means. them. Englishman in
there prisoners in 55 two in butt tion, of on’one witness offence This that had prisoner, not had witness The loyal the further only the This in says explained, justified. his of heavy Pommerensdorf actuated probability excused rifle Camp, brutal paratively given Driver,” witnesses who
the
VII
physical question those
of
sub-section his
V.
men 13.
offences
he
following two
appear prisoners were (B5968) blows
gone in
charge even
has
in
of only
of is the however,
Military
is Code. performance
for were
to
evidence
dealings In and of
had
work disposition.
Finally (sub-section
and It mind
his reference
punishment considered Medilow,
the without another In
Kelly,
in
to occasions
which
solely
his
(by under
the one three who he
into
for
intended the
is
deciding assert,
with
“a all
The the
this rifle. light,
be absolutely
ill-treatment of in
under
refractory
that have, never
Bray thus
Englishman
intended
He
that which
trifling instructions,
the
first
and
factors: accused these
of
his
the the considered
Penal true
were
it same
121
against
by
the
the the his
way. with
trial prisoners have
kicked, at
any
case who
his
to the
possible appears offence
being especially He it
relates the this therefore, town, indictment proofs a when was
of
shared
proved charge to
of that
73 soldier.” term the cases butt
accused
this hurt desire
accused of
is occasion;
If
faults other
his
subordinates. Code
the has
is
accused already gave
of
keep
that te
None of is other no
head
true,
him, he the
allotted
The
entitled
unable
and
sentence
struck duties,
the time. ill-treating
acquitted. the returned charge across
was the
separately. (charged charged
of prisoners Robert justification. or
to
that that not
were
made
to and in Military purpose
No.
he
on in his
the his accused
the the
when this accused
sentries, is the
accused called Penal been
that
these
accused do
is
the
were
meant
have the
His spite
always believed
been
revealed
evidence
were
based the
2. blows a or
if
and to prisoners
the
He as
his
that to less
himself to
guilty
English
afip4rent
can
mistake
so
technically the
Smart
part otherwise
they aggravated
to
excesses in
state,
they
in
Code). secure
The than charges. 41
drunk
cases, them.
duty. was, him not who arm
Penal by
on
of
they decided. his not
Kelly.
his
a
On
acted
In
Camp thrust partly
one which 2.
committed exclusively the
should
It Court
maintained
superior
making
the
of
this
that
of
two subordinates.
been
did
in
any charge
were In offences
of
a hated to
one
as were concerns however,
witnesses.
being to
The
would
the willing
day which
second proper
has
“as
Code.
The “Schweinhund” London.
reason
There insulting
which
from accused’s isolated
give
But (making
several
drunk
account, physically
their
be
all appear
at cases
It
he
tendencies
has
hurt
proved.
occasion, prisoners)
Bray
irregular name committed three
and
placed been
Upon improper
reproach
by
explained
English who is
swine.” IX ill-treated.
they
constitute
them
had
he this
these
no must results
indictment
remains
upon
taken
work.
to not the Kelly
why the
of
and the
either come
severe
German
of
s4s
witnessed,
made. to cases
English
deliberately
dishonourable
Robert use
to Upon ill-treatment
this behaviour
for
does could
denial.
soldier
the pain), under work.
prisoners.
improbable
ill-treated
acts
The be prisoners, have He
that
the
the as
intimacies
certainly prisoners
speaks, use
deal by of
to into
under that
of
this
But
There the
the against
the
regarded
by
separate
main
discipline
did reported
a
not being
closer of
evidence
evidence these
the
accused
cruelty of to Medlow
witnesses all
taken prisoners, He
single
was “Swail”
him. (“
Robert under
the
with
names
accused
ill-treatment was consideration
there 17th
his
he
this
are
The The
perform
sub-section
exclude Pig
he
butt
indictment
were
must
must
towards
tormented a”
prisoners,
in
who
fact cannot improper
prisoners, weapons.
certainly
examina
with
In
a included
that
said
instance
military
charged deliber
insubor between
place
motives
accused
as He
English charge, no Dog
No. can
or
by
Nigger
breach
speaks struck
in of of
of Swaul.
doing
of
given
that, may
have
com have have
be
does
wise who
the
any was was the the
the
the
the the
the the
his be
“). 3).
be
in
a
a
IX.
b.J.
(retired)
(SEAL
tTranslation.]
the
March, the
of Code.
Procedure of
Court
ments
Code) sub-sections from
For of alleged
para.
10, manifestations
regarded
dinate
the these
In
1061/21
the
The The
An
trial
11
JUDGMENT
Imperial
586/20
the
a
the
as
OF
1,
the
considers
and
sentence
of
inclusive
The
less
decision
sense
men,
present
1920. inadequate
The
of
of
separate
case
Official
THE
(from
the
two
criminal
at
took
Court
the
Regulations
12
Breslau,
period
serious
The
Hagemann,
Justices
122,
Law
offences
Second
a of
of
are
COURT).
especially
months.’
Military
30th
HOSPITAL of
in
Sitting
copy as
part
his
insulting
a
of
sentence
(Signed)
IN
gives more
sentences
President
55,
IN
insubordination
for
accordance
to of
seitence
charge
the
own
work.
cases
January
born
THE
costs
detention
as
under
Criminal
agrees
CASE
of
the
Dr.
serious.
three
held
Public
imprisonment
Penal
(“
Judges,
the
as
superiority
Dr.
prosecut.ion
under
of
on
St.
of
against
is
APPENDIX
NAME
The
in
Sabarth,
of
1—9
on
On
of
OF
with
in
Military
based
SHIP
six
days’ physical
Senate
to
22nd
Vogt,
Code.
P.O.”)
with
accordance
the
Prosecutor’s
three
In
Senate
(which
public as
more
Clerk
account
COMMANDER 2nd
months’
13
the
less
these
Karl on
on
Senate,
OF
sub-section intermediate
“DOVER
December,
(sub-section
42
and
of
June,
weeks’
On
in
than
of
original
Penal
sub-sections
Backs, their
serious
of
each
the
ill-treatment
on
of
the
THE
the
Neumann,
conjunction
the
of
the
not
War
imprisonment
with
4th
the
accused
Dr.
V.
1921)
the part.
Imperial
have one
accused
Department,
(Signed)
Code,
intermediate
other
Court
because
in
EMPIRE.
Crimes
document.
Dr.
June,
Imperial
CASTLE.”
Schmidt,
sub-section
1887, 60
the
three
occasion,
KARL
121
arrest.
is
been
The
497,
of
hand,
has
No.
Merchant,
of
sense
Schultz, to
punished
Court
(under
with
1921,
of
the
HAGEMANN, BACKS,
DR.
KLEINE,
SCHMIDT,
DR.
in
SABARTH,
of
and
the
last
Court
be
undergone)
498, allotted.
BORCHARD.
2,
the
NEUMANN. any
is
and
Court
Kallowitz.
the
of
Penal
reckoned
Second
there
separate
Offences arrest
sub-section
offences
PAUL,
at
VOGT.
constituted
74
of
sub-section
of
Military
Nos.
offences has,
inadequate
the
the
Dr.
which
Commander
Justice. the
of
of
Code.
were
the
adequate.
prisoners,
Imperial
therefore,
Criminal
For
Criminal
1—9)
Kleine,
pending
Justice
of
punish
as
against
there
Penal
Penal
under
4th
each
part
open
4
122,
out
the
of
or
the
tioi
Mil
mu
Ski
are
his
ths
th
fro
WI
on SU(
Ca Sm
m
Sn
hc
sic
ca
at
la
W;
in
w.
al
T 01
k
t(
‘I
b
a
h
t.
j
‘1
C t :ARL .1 of rent. nit st. id, ,rtment thmidt, P11 s 7, is action inished ne, iperial o of hate i ise of STLE,”
under on, 87, last .
with the Court
and SCHMIDT, Merchant, BAuKS, D SABARTH,
Court HAGEMANN, allotted. KLEINE,
2, DR. be undergone)
the
Schultz, the 498, any
the of
is
1921, there
in
BORCHARD.
Penal separate
reckoned arrest offences
sub-section
Offences sub-section
NEUMANN. constituted
74
Second has, Military PAUL, offences
Nos.
of inadequate VOGT.
Court Kallowitz.
the and
of
of
the at
were
Justice.
Code.
therefore, prisoners,
adequate.
the the
For
Commander Dr. which
1—9)
Criminal
pending punish against
of
Criminal
as
of
under
Penal
Penal open
Imperial
each
122,
part Justice 24th Kleine,
4 the
out
or
there
of
the
the Allied Commander
having Treaty avertissement brutalité
in to .(“ May, killed of
laid The able in warfare at came but sick which markings sunken second hours
Castle” from such
that When on his that are tions Military The they The
Ships military accordance During StG
the decide necessary The the
On
During accordance English
According
The board as During after down did
to weather
and superior 1917, as
Powers Imperial in was after of alongside had accused steamer Submarine 26th
there after was came B” Attorney
of sunk
Clerk the not
torpedo. see of
steamer le follows
Peace so not
accused
the
had
the wounded the
1-lospital on oral
fired, 1). purposes the navire 18th pursuing The regularly for of Risch,. and May, doing intentionally
only full Hospital vessel that
the
to the
expenses
sink.
with back the the of point her to
War
et 10th was Authority. to been nearest
Treasury is believe he
with day military The evidence
October, first
was its consideration the
however, Oberreichsanwalt, first the General to was
the the 1917,
was he f’rankly Submarine acquitted. unmanned hôpital couié
U.C.
the
was He with Official,
home. the Ships starboard clear Hague on he
aid One whether result
serving and a
Court, years the merely
on, travelled Government
two statement the Ship torpedo,
tliit charged law to zig-zag the incurred then
sighted
board.
sunk 67.
accused, wounded,
is
Hospital
her him. dans that exceptional of 1907.
Principles has
of and
killed anglais admits
Steamers to accused of caused
Enemy of
Convention of With “Dover “Dover
When
the
rose their carried for
life-boats the way U. bear
12th the REASONS. By
entered course, these side
they ot with The
did
sunny. two
(Ofien,ce from des C.
Only
by
He
several destroyers, of
six as
one accused to War respect sinking RIGHT. the ‘Dover
opponents the sick to Ships 67. Governments May, by 43 and steamer torpedoed was the
having, the the were Steamers, then out Dr. Castle.” proceedings circumstances First carried Castle” of the
Englan,d men
take after and
of
costs death no brutality virtue
the
and
took referred which accused in In the
The
an 1921, accused. English
these
years against
by
surface Ebermeyer, approached thereby
indictment
to the about the in Castle’
the Lieutenant
German
and them was.hit; this shipwrecked order
on of
Geneva
which the
the of oil
the
in this accused
of
without he
the Tyrrhénian she were “Dover
escorted List
26th perished. to
as
six
accordance sink to had whether its
were 6.0 Art.
distinctive is Government, has § (“
of from Tyrrhenian and 10th
violating Proceedings, Malta.
Order
a
had
211 above. members communicated were Admiralty crew, as drifting d’avoir May,
the p.m. d’une it
taken Convention
Hospital the asked
nearer on
utilising
228,
remained found was follows in warning
Hague Castle.” Malta
of by
sick
German,
people,
this
he the and accompanying vessel these as 1917, the
The
Sea
the
par. two
place,
therefore for extraordinaire
with this
Later, fired about
to torpillé outward well
of and
Sea, out
charge,
circumstances
Navy, Salonica in their
to :—
respected Ship first the Convention,
the State an including torpedoed
destroyers. the
stationary, men and 2, but by
convention. Admiralty, command
the
on a
He as
Gibraltar.
from about on
wounded enquiry
by that
however, torpedo of convoy,
“
Hospital firing
torpedo
crew.
arid all also
Naval
with regula Dover
pleads Code was
were sans 26th signs but, the
soon the
and the the the
the it,
1
for as
a
first
he
Castle
chrged
was impossible
first
In
who
exceptional
ing
be
he
He
völkerrechtswidrige
claims “Breaches
of
the
other
law,
the
from
orders
of
opportunities not to
made
from
the
held
did
Under
Military
1917,
early
to
The
fired,
Mediterranean
period
and was
were
The
Hospital Memorandum
place
This
proof
of repudiate the
has
29th
In
It
Military
In
his
execution
This
“
the
orders.
been
the
present
It
that,
civilised
The
enemy
two
by
with
is
for
it
responsible
the
Admiralty of
Cattaro.
in
second
hospital
knowledge.
to
acted
German
is and
expressly
because
to
that the
corresponds
to
part
have
the
permitted
superior
March,
beheld
possible
his
a
§47
to
point
in
allowing
of
order
duty
in
punishment,”
Memoranda,
cases
Second
circumstances
the
“As
arranged,
he
Law
of
military
keep
any
be
give
superiors.
support
grace,
departure
ships
Penal accordance
channel route
as
the
of Hospital
case
of
been
in
was
of
states
International
to
German
torpedoes.
of
bound
attacked
In
from
peculiar
was
from ships
she responsible,
(1914),
the
1917. Government
April,
to
would
Previously
conformity
to a a
giving
that
Staff
Convention,
view
notified
notify
for
free
about
the which
Memorandum
it
would
Code. notified to in
Kriegshandlung
service
warning
a
save
was
with
principle
Exceptions
of
Military
was
(see,
communicated
as
8
sinking
up
had
8
the
to
given
accused Greece.
from
was
henceforth,
Ships.
dated
of
will
This
1917.
be
chapter its
Flotilla
April
April
with
the
brutality
page
the
escorted the
the
4 their
all
obey
announced,
the the
forthwith,
to
for
from regarded
be
blockaded to
It
the
order
assertions.
by
duty
be
the criminal
order
hours
to
the
if
question Law course
acquittal
with
the
the
29th
also
the
criminal Enemy
example, be
Order
explained
that Hospital
every
protected,
Penal
95.)
name but
their
highest
he
Accordingly
Hospital
has
the
exactly
here,
Only
XIV,
sick
in
in
reported
terms
two
involves
of
reached
Hospital
by
has Port
is
in
accords
January
in
his
to
as
was
the
the
the
not as
un.d
“Dover obedience
on
of
orders
Hospital
alone
and
at
to
responsibility.
two
sinking the
in
Code
excepting
area
all
of
vessels
a
gone
Memoranda
elapse
Art.
regards
Governments
law.
service
orders of
the
44
of
leaving
Mediterranean.
least
case
subordinate
Ships
gone
It
compelled
as
stated.”
of
the
which
the
der
few
its
Ships
wounded
other
which
the
the
Conduct
warships.
at
an
the
with
stated
responsible.
regards and
of
Ship in
443 Admiralty
beyond
quoted
Kalamata.
it
punishment attitude
Strafauspruch
Castle”
of
Its
accused
the
six least
beyond special of
accused
between
is
German
offence
generally
can
the
authority
service
Ship
the
was
Enemy
29th
eases
given
enemy
quoted
special
War
of
Greece.
the
consequence
“
such
fulfilled
weeks
ship.
that
considerable
Dover
Mediterranean,
arise.
on
to
Mediterranean,
had
six
the
of
England,
announced
aboye,
on
March,
legal
is
and
made
speed,
Hospital
Therefore
The
his
before
against
more
in
matters. before
board has
restrict
War Law,
issued
only
the
weeks
the Hospital
bound
orders
it
Hospital
in
Governments
previously,
On
are
been
Advise
over
of
the
forthwith
orders.
Castle”
After
certain
principles
accused
He would
been
Verdross’
there
firing routes
a
1917,
the
times
no
clearly
and der §47,
no
the”
the
as
is
subordinate
Memorandum
the his
on
the previously
the
also
can
given
the
to
Ships,
importance
in
longer
that,
requested.
he
use
contrary
a
Staaten.”
So
29th
para.
submarines
have
ships
torpedo
National
are
Ships
respectively,
not
accused.
departure
obey
of
of
accord-
criminal
Dover
It
reasonable the
conditions.
named
Manual
in
cannot
is
including navigation
brought
only
attacked.
may
far
and
him.
of
“
of
arrival
the
was
when
not
two
March,
the entirely
which
in
Die
I
to second
in
been
as had
the
all
the
of
use
such
gave
and
the
the
be
is
ii
i’
i
-
b.J.
A.J.
JU
{T
(S} C
befc
ti ent against siderable in [ospital id
t e )Ov i quence estrict Lore
)ruch gal has ‘ade I peed, issued weeks
Igland, rch,
ver
Therefore
ty iterranean, it
d
iterranean, ounced
Hospital
se.
only
his
The matters.
.
Law, the
before
Governments
War
board
Hospital previously,
bound
are
Advise
in
be
the
forthwith
orders
After
the
certain
would
over
On
01
Castle”
been
1917,
orders.
principles
clearly
Verdross’
routes
He
accused
times
no
no
a
§47,
der
as
and
firing
on
previously
the
.iere
his
Memorandum the
is
the
also
the
the
the
in
subordinate
the
to
Ships,
longer
a
can
given
importance
requested.
use 29th
that,
respectively,
ships
not
submarines
have
he
Staaten.”
para.
Ships
So
contrary
the
departure conditions.
reasonable
National
navigation of
“
obey
accused.
arc
torpedo
named
only
including
criminal
attacked.
and
accord
Manual may
brought
of
It
cannot
Dover
in
is
far
of
arrival entirely
March, of
“
in
him.
when
second
which
in
to
was
two
the
not
the
been
1
Die
had
the
gave
the
such
all
as
use
and
the
of
the
be
is
‘-1
-JUDGMENT
-(SEAL
IX.
A.J.
b.J.
Ti’anslation.j
service
binding.
have
signed
accused
prisoner,
allowed
were
enemy
“Dover
he
present
explained, them
reprisals.
never Hospital
opinion enemy a
here. acts
when
civil
In
The
(B&968)
The
(Signed)
The
report
AccQrding
1112/21.
585/20. 95/21.
-
in
illegal.
done
the
(1)
he
made
OF
he it
-
The,
or
order
accuracy
conformity
decision Hospital
subject accused
-
that
on
an
proceedings.
Castle”
knows
with
to
Ships
Ludwig criminal
held
He
THE
military
it
this
HOSPITAL
His
going similar
Memoranda
any
English
observe
of
born
to
the
of
(Signed)
IN
cannot,
his
to
if
COURT.) to
the were
-
that
conduct
thus
his his
as
accordingly
secret
IN
he
of
CASE
measures Ships
§47
was
ashore
in
full
Dithmar
be case
-
crime
with
to
Cuxhaven
reports
this
highest had
superiors,
his
not
Aix-la-Chapelle
THE
his
Captain,
of
knew
therefore,
conclusive,
a
name,
costs
of
DR.
against,:
SCHULTZ,
HAGEMANN, BACKS,
He
SABARTH,
were
KLEINE,
SCHMIDT,
superiors
Hospital
the
OF
orders
SHIP considered
copy
contrarr
approach
gave
clearly
of
or
the
APPENDIX
taken
NAME
from
ot
the
is
misdemeanour.
has
superiors,
about
Military
VOGT.
LIEUTENANTS
-The
giving
sank
known sinking
-
is
Command,
him
based
but
Cuxhaven,
whom
is
“LLANDOVERY
Senate
German
hereby be
never
shows
also
especiafly
have
Clerk by his
Ship. toInternational
-
the
to
a
he
the
OF punished that - -
-
his
45
the to
certificate
On
on
of
liable
Penal
comrades.
t)’
hill
the
‘i
he
has
an
ordered
of
“Dover
rank
of
THE that
disputed
sinking
the
the”
the
certified.
§499
his
It German
-
Government
had
the
* at
-
“Dover
order
the First
-
also
VI.
is
to
orders
as
accused.
Code
present
13th’
in There
- this
-
for
St.
Imperial
- Dover
EMPIRE.
specially
Court punishment
on DITHMAR
-
him he-
-
when
the -- frankly -
-
Castle”
Lieutenant
which of -
-
his
P.O.
May,
Admiralty
that No.
He
hoard was
Law;
had
or Castle.”-
- -
CASTLE.”
to
has
the service.
-
detained
Castle.”
of
conduct.
his
he
was
do
2, ‘The
-
about
Court his
he
the
noteworthy
1892, received,
he been
-
Hospital but
admitted
-a
asked
his acts
execution
in
considered
as
therefore
subordinate
conviction.
knew
2nd facts
- AND
were
obedience
and
against no
an
Although
and
Submarine He
-
the
of
which
during-
Not for
-
- Criminal accomplice,
.
case Justice.
-
would Adjutant
-
legitimate
set,
as
BOLDT.
misuse
Ship,
that
it
-. only one
- of
-
that
involve
he enemy
-
of
of
in
out
trial,
to
them
‘to
and this who
-
this
the
not
the
the
has
the
did
He
be
he
as
in
of a
t
munitions.
inference
vessel the
exploded,
other
Corvette wounded
officers
American
of is
258 Toulon,
on
go clusion as
again
be
exclusively
the
communicated
requires
f
to
application out
British
Canada
inguish
has
the
or
sitting
convinced
December,
well
no
on
her
At
The
Second Up
the
The
the
persons.
for
as
as
Tenth
pronounced
Second
war
carried
doubt
board
the
went
Clerk
Officials
way
and
III.
to
as
that
Risch,
the Dr.
Dr.
Judges
Dr.
witness
Government
did
(2)
transport
from
expenses,
statements
II.
in
with
of
Captain
I.
there.
this
from
material.
airmen.
the
of
end
Dr.
Hague
Officer,
not
the
Feisenberger,
purpose Ebermayer, John
men
Schmidt,
to
employed
The
the
back
down,
Each
about
Further,
the
she
that Criminal
those
of
troops,
the
1916,
There
is
for
year
Official, present
certainty
January,
of
Naval
Vogt,
to
the
thç
of
notice case
Dr.
Meyer,
(ii)
not
accused
“Liandovery was
judgment
of
16th
(i)
the
She
to
Saalwächter. European having
Boldt
the
REASONS the
of
however,
the
of
officer’s
this Service,
Convention
witnesses
that
the
Court:
the
The
violence
1916
belonged
and
of
The
The
conclusive
Sabarth,
of
England
were
This
to
the
and
being
troops.
month
President
Warfare
Senate
Public
had
120
anything
July,
in
detained
enemy
in
the
naval
who
Canadian
carry
witness
the
of
vessel 1895.
was
not
the
have
accused
accused
between
taken
accused
the
State
never
the
has
no
men
uniform;
on
as
. Altona,
improperly
are Oberreichsanwalt,
theatre
witnesses
saw
1921,
of
of
steamer
provided
who
only
Prosecutor’s
to of
light
combatants
transport
wounded
follows,
hospital
been
from
FOR
powers.
Dr.
to
In
of
board
Castle”in
had
of
in in
the Attorney,
part
June,
to
had
of
B
about
the
the
Chapman.
during
From
the
the
bear
is
that
have
Medical
Dithmar
the
the
khaki,
the
the
Boldt
be
of at
an
Paul,
clearly
Halifax,
explosion,
not
retired
of
RIGHT.
taken
sentenced
Medical
THE
Imperial
in
46
“Llandovery
the
the principles “Liandovery
.
paid
light
1918,
after
which
with
the
Division,
18th
war.
the her
ships.
vessel’s
Chapman
explosion
year
homicide;
used
and
been
trial,
taken
From
of
whom
statements
is
crew
Backs,
on Department:
costs
Corps,
Tilbury munitions
established
DECISION.
that
by
sound
sick
of the
is
the hearing
First
sick
October,
deprived
she
If
for
after
on
Corps.
The
there
Court
board,
born
the
the
which
ordered
The
that
to
on
a
boilers
distinguishing
consisting
the
“Llandovery
of
could
board
and
of
war
Canadian
was
and
few
and
vessel
four
it
of Lieutenant,
Dr.
statement
board
Imperial
having
the
the
Docks
name
in
Castle”
Castle,”
of
the
witness
time
took
is
they
wounded.
and,
of
purposes.
a
on
commissioned
1907
of
have
14
witnesses
by
the Dantzig
years’
not Schultz,
Geneva
to
Heather,
Justice,
proceedings.
but
boiler
the
evidence,
was
board.
any
the
nurses,
onwards
of
the
at
in part
be
carried
heard
steamer.
soldiers
of
possible
(relating
witness
also
Treasury.
led
Crompton
the
had,
at
suitably
of
the
particular,
right
dismissed
imprisonment
munitions
statement
marks,
164
Castle”
and
merchant
Convention)
the
at
the
to
as
on
Hagemanu,
The
vessel
munitions
She
There
been
a
beginning
when
draw
according
namely:
sick
its
men,
the
total home
the
she
judges
to
expert, Port Thring,
one
to
by
to
Court
which
never
public
fitted
con
used wear
dis-
and
saw
was
the
the was
was
26th
can
the
the
no the
80
of
or
of
of
of
to
at : . .
. .1
.
ç4 H ,. -
.
t
S 4 ird ew s name iie l utenant, lers :h ..landovery I he ssel 3 nperial r )f tatement I, having iadian Castle,” t nd .sisting f Docks nguishing 00k r he s d id ied d Castle•”
time
witness
oard
Dantzig
wounded.
commissioned of Schultz, Justice,
is of purposes. on
1907 years’
a
they to
proceedings.
a Heather,
have
Geneva evidence,
the 1’
witnesses
by
the
not
was
but
the
part
boiler board.
be
of onwards . any
nurses,
soldiers
at
the
in
steamer. Treasury. carried
(relating
of
heard
witness
had,
led
possible
the
imprisonment right Crompton suitably dismissed also
at
merchant,
the
at marks, particular,
on of
as
munitions
164
Castle” Hagemann, statement
Convention)
and the
to
the vessel been
namely: its
She The
There
according
the
beginning
munitions a Judges:
draw when
to home
the
sick
she men,
total Thring,
Port
public
by
to
expert,
one
to
which
fitted
never
Court
26th
wear
used
con
the was was
saw
can the the and was
at
dis
the the
to
no
80
of
or
of of
of
•depth
-slight
these limits weather as from fallen port has that lose ment, port advised hospital But point of and as Both got Chapman, of of national not the In mand British the witness. explained on ships, had which, bidden dovery Boldt his even The sequently necessary The with In south-west saw Of Heather- 3 10
‘Liandovery
and
the
regards undamaged 52
minutes.
well
this
The those The particular
In accordance
evidence.
not away
lights
require
he been
Nos.
his
accused commander
sinking side ship. side by
the
numbers).
official persons. were
we ill
could
had of
rudder. swell.
which into the 5
boats
the
however,
suspicion, was
to Castle,”
torpedoing men
as
been in
head
of
not
torpedo a assisted Governments’
Law, ships
saw
statement were on have
and pursuing
7
The undamaged
measures.
torpedo
certain
by war the prescribed
given
second. in
the promoted
with
munitions.
and
evening of which
of
to
Other
not
board
who
on There to were
sources of made
Dithmar
Nos.
conjunction
the
while Fastnet damaged the
evidence
Castle”
number
a destroyed
he boats
on He were now
starboard
be
with
Only has
1, the
the
him do
orders
take similar
capsized,
of
life-saving
Chapman, he
were
land
barred
opinion, or struck
the circumstances, seems used
verified
hospital for
saw 5
were
only clear) the
witnesses impressed
under
U-boat
sO starboard Patzig
of the
of decided
ship.
being and
3,
in
were,
two
International
Confidence for
the
with captain.
a
more
majority
(Ireland),
was
Murphy,
of
saved
“Liandovery and by was five that
has
27th
belonged
the the
long for
He,
interpretation
24 19
use
ship
to area. by-the
that
7
hospital boats
boats
the
of
accuracy
consideration,
with
so lifeboats founded in the
however, (No. used
two
the the recognised ships. persons also
Lyon
However, 86
conning boats ship
sunk have
than hosp
to was therefore, who
them time,
operations.
June,
that
was from
these
the
she also
side,
was
“Llandovery
accused transport torpedo
first
However, which (which
of
other
on
of
explosion 11, 1st
by
His
for to
can,
to
being
tal saw Court
was
in and
lowered
23
expected had sinking,
the ships
only at
(described
According
them the
several
three First-Lieutenant 47
on
according were this
such a on proceedings), saw Law, class
of
1918,
tower,
officer transporting
the
successfully
Castle” ships
the
persons.
present
therefore, torpedo
No.
got
evidence, from second boats
particularly
various the American
board.
which
he
“Llandovery
presumed
made
three as the
category of
Dithmar
by
an latest Atlan,tic saved,
starboard were
(marked
this of
seaman,
There
had
3. a the Patzig
awai
at of
were
from
occasions character but
the the of
ship;
the
(what
quiet,
the military
extent
on
the
got as of
to Two
about area cannot
both
he from
officer
the whereabouts Castle”
helped information
plunged, Each German
that
when
accused
the
Some -
be
only
Tenth
him, 234
safely. the the
it
cutters)
said
statement was
torpedo. airmen
in lowered. was
knew
away
that and that,
clear-headed that troops
with
Ocean,
was grounds watch,
boats The
placed
may
to
the
by
that port
spite
could having boats
starboard
“Llandovery
he
shewn
Patzig, 9.30 to
on persons
of acting capsized). she
Castle”
a
be
to
the
of.
Hague
the
a
the German
Hague
this on he
German
odd safely. light
amidship
coolly be U-boats contrary the Boldt
be by
long
board This lower) on side
got verified
she
were
the
exhibited
of
and
unhesitatingly and
about
take German
saw (local
the
sunk
witness (including
A
safely state
he The
-board. that his conclnded arid
the
been of against
numbers) are
ship,
away
who
sank
wounded
way
(marked breeze boats
is good
do
smaller,
combatants, Convention, being Convention,
took the
that
enemy
had
the having
side, and a
the Naval
got
This sufficiently U-boat torpedoing
favourable
was
within
he
unknown.
maximum Abrahams time)
were 116
of
drowned.
not and to which
was
from
in
from
lowered. -
Castlp.” and
accused
at on
number
for reliable
witness
“LIan Popitz.
clear did
Nos.
orders.
Aóting on
all excite
two
at and Inter
aware
tallies
about
miles
some agree
Corn
dusk
been side,
were does sub
with
that
this and f
and
the
the the the
the
the the
not the
86. the
or- -
he
in
of
of
1, - a 48
port side. In one of them, when it left the “Llandovery Castle,” was the captain of the ship, Sylvester, who has since died; 10 other persons were also in his boat. Later it picked up 12 persons, who were swimming about in the water. In addition, as will be further explained later, one man from another life-boat was handed over by the U-boat. This boat ultimately contained 24 men, and will henceforth be referred to as the captain’s boat. It was the only one whose occupants were rescued; its occupants are the only survivors of the “ Liandovery Castle.” According to the statements of the witnesses Chapman, Abrahams and Murphy, it bore the number 4,. whereas witness Lyon thinks it was not No. 4. In addition to the captain’s boat, another got clear from the port side, and it had in it the first officer and five or six seamen. According to the evidence of the fourth officer, the witness Barton, this was the port cutter. It is quite possible that out of these five boats which left the steamer safely, one or two may have been drawn into the vortex made by the sinking ship. But the evidence has shown that at least three of these five boats survived the sinking of the ship. The witnesses Chapman and Barton saw them rowing about at a later period, as well as the captain’s boat, the port• cutter and boat No. 3. The port cutter was manned by the first officer and a few seamen. That boat No. 3 got clear away is proved by the following facts During the examination of the captain’s boat by the U-boat which will be described later, the latter handed over to the former a man belonging to the medical staff, who was not originally in the captain’s boat. According to his statement, the boat on which he had been had also been stopped by the U-boat; he was taken off and detained in the U-boat. He gave the number of the boat in which he originally was as No. 3. This agrees with the statements made by witnesses, who say that No. 3 boat got safely clear of the ship. That the man did not come from the first officer’s boat is shown by the fact that the latter, being a port-side boat, bore an even number. No medical corps men, only seamen, were seen in it. Thus, after the sinking of the “ Liandovery Castle,” there were still left three of her boats with people on board. Some time after the torpedoing, the U-boat came to the surface and approached the lifeboats, in order to ascertain by examination whether the “Llandovery Castle” had airmen and munitions on board. The witness Popitz, who was steersman on board the U-boat, took part in the stopping of several lifeboats for that purpose. The occupants of the captain’s boat gave a fuller description of this. It was called by the U-boat, while it was busy rescuing shipwrecked men, who were swimming about in the water. As it did not at once comply with the request to come alongside, a pistol shot was fired as a warning. The order was repeated and the occupants were told that, if the boat did not come alongside at once, it would be fired on with the big gun. The lifeboat then came alongside the U-boat. Capt. Sylvester had to go on board the U-boat. There he was reproached by the Commander with having had eight American airmen on board. Sylvester denied this and declared that, in addition to the crew, only Canadian medical corps men were in the ship. To the question whether there was a Canadian officer in the lifeboat he answered Yes.” Then the latter, the witness Lyon, doctor and maj or in the medical corps, were taken on board the U-boat. On being told that he was an American airman, Lyon answered, as was true, that he was a doctor. He also answered in the negative the further question whether the “ Llandovery Castle” had munitions on board. Sylvester and Lyon were then released, and the latter was told by one of the U-boat officers that it would be better for them, the occupants of the lifeboat, to clear off at once. Captain Sylvester said later that he also was told the same. The U-boat then left the captain’s boat, but, after moving about for a little time; returned and again hailed it. Although its occupants pointed out that they had already been examined, the captain’s boat was again ron [‘he Drt-side is a ther it a, he ie ore ry is .t t tions .tion ts ‘his .ptain’s Lip. it from )f s boat, ae i, man iich ig th ,“ U-boat ad, U-boat. It in’s d r that ter e later,
examination
that in
rder me tain’s
bore
made
off
addition
other
a the
its
ir then
he
of No. who
the were American by
occupants L there following to
the to
a
was
it
man Castle,”
swimming
moving
were
boat. boat alongside left occupants
at
to these
and
answered
occupants
To was the it ‘e the captain’s the
the doctor. took
No. the
the the on oat.
,as
one
3.
fourth
request
by
were
boat,
persons came
the
which would
seen boat once.
boat, been called
medical were
belonging the
the
then board. first Barton
statements There
repeated
first “Liandovery the ultimately
first number
This an to surface
man 3
five
part
According
captain’s
about
swimming was
airmen boat the
facts
steamer
He
are in the alongside
was American
stopped sinking
officer,
whether still
bore
officer’s will be question about at
to officer released,
He officer boat.
by
“ from
agrees boats were Captain
of
pointed he
in it.
the port•
gave
the corps, saw Yes.” better
come
once, crew,
again The and
left got
for 4,
the
and. was the be
the
to also
an
on
a
I
k,.
4
(.
the
obliged had that The munitions board were for passed
thought when however, by Its refuted the the
nection,
had time accused
brought
The get
took
noticed from flash firing the
ast1e” During 29th search English about. searched “Lysander.”
captain’s
shown continued
more passing remained
the
According Ney,
lifeboat
proof Popitz deck submerging the
without The
occupants
second a
After
direction
The
been second away.
special
lifeboat the
The
again
intended lifeboat,
After
the
captain’s time.
the
the place command quite
at
was
June,
to by,
Tegtmeier
during
survivors
to entirely. was U-boat
by
that
cannot
captain’s almost
out violent
however,
the the
The by, accused and
a sloop no firing
U-boat. U-boat come
9 passing
the
on be
and
and
made at
released. fruitless.
boat.
particularly
touching time,
the
But charge in the miles close
until
to obtained
conclusive any
saw
this
mouth which
made the
29th
in board
a
feared area,
“Snowdrop” “was
Knoche
which
another
the
at
their fourth
alongside
boat.
position “Snowdrop” The from very
soon
be
during at
after
was
examination
noise
a point
the
and
to rather boat nothing participated U-boat
were the
and from the
by The
boat
The the
made The the big
evolutions brought
for
where
June,
the
given.
crew the
it,
statements
of lest
the
differently near
had returned,
the
a No the were
The of
morning, evening
officers
time
It Kass, bore was
the expert, took
circle
in
same
question
brief direction; cruised first
the it found. the
U-boat
evidencie
the boat violent
points ship, of
the
lifeboat.
the
answerable, they
wanted
other
was U-boat
were
support
second hoisted the more was target.
the
other U-boat
subjected
the
caused
Whether
the
spot
gun
against
two
to part
found
period, misuse interrogation U-boat.
and who time,
was
and boats of as
also was
in might
of
Corvette
commander
of steered
taken
about
sail. took
boat
and
number
against
sink
one.
of
worded,
a
and
it shells lifeboats
the
on does
any the
of
the
to
again was time, the in
were
portion of a
went the
empty, After four
49 The by
so an about heard
completed was
this,
them
rthé the which from of made
ram
sail
at from these
the
the “
to the be
According
explosion way even
on
The
U-boat, for
that,
1st
T1ier
not
undamaged
not the
passed
U-boat.
slightly Llandovery
the
the
members
occupants made
American the an a
Capt.
6. occupants mu
away
firing assumption
board in
such
interrogation, found
although
it flash some
lifeboat.
thorough
the
of by
July, witnesses,
12
the in of was
actual
only
straight
explosion
if
need
but
intention
the
last “Liandovery of
of and
as the
U-boat disputed
the
Otherwise
down.
the the
the
to
the
over sunken
straight
as Saalwachter,
during “Llandovery and
had the
the of that the
36
and sideways,
“Lysander” had
when moment noticed
in
the
meantime,
thus
to by
“Liandovery 14
to
management crew commander
words
of
“Below,”
witnesses the
hours
destroyers
boat of
the
of
the expert
uniformly
ceased, disappeared Castle,” observations
English shots
for and
Englishmen.
the
be
there the once
The
the
Chapman The been
that
command
to
of
the the
this
destroy
ship
the exploding
the
of
lifeboat.
for
the suspicion
and settled, the
were
boat
the
of close
by
ram.
altogether.
crew
when
the
boat
English U-boat, boat
evidence
fell Castle.” more
at so
also
and
ship holding the must
occupied, the might
search
the
the
captain’s endeavoured
Popitz,
the maintains were
boilers.
confirm Fleet
that
Castle” that
used
U-boat left
had of examination. all
systematically
of it. good
lifeboat,
Castle.” noticed
of
and nevertheless
approaching
assumes, “Liandovery pointed
In
occupants
went
went
occupants
as
the from
“Ready
witnesses have
Then
the shells
made
told. cannot
the
to
be
particular
taken
however, it
which
this
There found
or
destroyer
caused
Witnesses up
the
Barton,
has
weather,
its
U-boat
Knoche,
passed
drifting
were U-boat.
whether that
On
as boat.
down
and
away.
They
boat,
sight
been
firing firing
of
that
con
while
were
fate. two
but out
The
not
The
on
the was
was the
be
is,
the
to
the
of
no
for
on
no
do
of
a 50
not recollect. At all events, the whole of the crew went below deck as is the case when the order to be ready for diving is given. There only renainecl on deck Commander Patzig, the accused, as his officers of the watch and by special order, the first boatswain’s mate, Meissner, who has since died. It is doubtful whether the latter first went below and was then called on deck again, or whether he remained on deck. At any rate, the witness Knoche, who had the same post as Meissner when the boat was under’ water, never saw him again in the control room of the boat, The statement of witness Ney, who is supposed to have heard from a third party on the following day that Meissner had been ordered on deck, because one of the officers had hurt his hand, is not sufficient for any definite conclusion to be drawn. Moreover, Ney knows nothing about Meissner, only having gone on deck after the firing had begun. Firing commenced some time after the crew had gone below. The witnesses heard distinctly that only the stern gun, a 8.8 c/rn gun was in action. While firing, the U-boat moved about. It did not submerge even after the firing had ceased, but continued on the surface. The Prosecution assumes that the firing of the U-boat was directed against the lifeboats of the “Llandovery Castle.” The Court has arrived at the same conclusion as the result of the evidence given at this time. The suggestion that firing was directed against some enemy vessel p which appeared suddenly on the surface during the night may be at once dismissed. It is true that, according to the report of the expert, Corvette Captain Saalwächter,it was advisable to have the boat ready for submersion, ‘and accordingly to send the crew below deck, as after the torpedoing of the “Llandovery Castle,” it was necessary to reckon with enemy operations, which might have been the consequence of a wireless call from the sinking ship. He also states that it has often happened that a U-boat has fired a few shots at an enemy vessel coming in sight, so as to make it retire or at least to delay it. But what remains inexplicable is that, if there really was an enemy in the neighbourhood, the U-boat wa not submerged at once after firing, in order to evade the attack of such enemy in the surest way. There is absolutely no evidence that there were any special circumstances, which would render impossible or superfluous the readiest method of escape, which was submersion. As regards the firing, the fact that diving was not resorted to thus acquires a certain amount of importance, although the command “Ready for diving “ is not always, or even generally, followed by submersion. The further possibility must be considered that the commander of the U-boat may have been deceived by some object floating on the water, and that he may have ‘mistaken it for an enemy vessel. Such deceptions do occur at night on the open sea. However, they would but seldom occr in the case of an experienced commander, such as Patzig is reported to be. And it is hardly likely that such a mistake would have induced him to fire. It seems impossible that the conduct of Patzig was founded on such an error, if we consider the circumstances, which point to deliberate firing on the lifeboats. In this connection we must refer to the opinion of the actual witnesses, both English and German. With the exception of a few German witnesses, who adduce nothing to the contrary, but simply abstain from expressing any opinion at all, they all, from their own impressions, describe the firing as being directed against the lifeboats. In the case of the occupants of the captain’s boat, the fact must not be overlooked that the impartiality of their opinion may have been affected by their excitement as the result of the sinking of their ship, and by the mistrust, which was prevalent on both sides during the war of the enemy and his method of carrying on war. But it is all the more significant that the witness Chapman, whose clear and impartial attitude has been specially mentioned above, did not at first assume that the two shots, which went far over the captain’s boat, were 51 vent below deck, as is directed gainst it, but that he finally became convinced’ that the firing There only remained from the U-boat was intended to destroy the lifeboat, because of what he ers of the watch and, subsequently observed. -r, who has since died. The crew of the U-boat have the same conviction. ‘During the following and was then called days they wer,e extremely depressed. A subsequent collision with a mine, any rate, the witness which placed the U-boat in the greatest danger, was regarded as a punish i was the boat under’ ment for the events of the 27th of June. is to be taken into The statement t certainly boat. consideration that experienced crews, as is well known, easily believe-mere ia third party on the rumours; but here also we have again two witiaesses, who, by virtue of ck, because one of the their position and their personal character, must be regarded as apart finite conclusion to be from the rest of the crew, and whose opinionistherefdre of special value. ner, oniy having gone nl some time after the The witness Poitz, though a helmsman, was acting in’ the U-bo3t as ly that only the stern third officer of the watch. In his previous examination he gave his evidence U-boat moved about. hesitatingly, and it was only after he had been sworn that he committed but continued on the himself to an unreserved statement. In this trial he has given.the impres sion of being a quiet and cautious man. He was on deck when the lifeboat was hailed, but went below before the order to prepare to dive was given, U-boat was directed in order to work out the position where the torpedoing had taken place. The Court has arrived After this, he lay down in his bunk, as he was no longer on watch.t From given at this time. then onwards he heard the shooting.. He enquired the reason from a t some enemy vessel member of the crew, and received the reply that there was nothing the night may be at once matter and that the crew were to remain below. On account of this the f the expert, Corvette witness did not go on deck, although that was-his post in the event of a ready for submersion, fight. Under these circumstances he took it for granted at once, as there th ‘lrpedoing of the was no question of any other enemy, that the lifeboats were being fired at. rith my operations, The witness lCnoche was the chief engineer of U-86. He also was call from the sinking below when the firing took place, but he also assumed that it was öonnected .t a U-boat has fired a with the lifeboats. He says that he set the’idea. aside; as he did not at all to make it retire or at like it. He did not want to knàw what was going on on deck. Some days hat, if there really was later he was talking to Patzig about the occurrence and told him that he ot submerged at once could not have done “That;” Patzig answered him that he could never my in the surest way. do it a second time. It is tuithirikable that this conversation could have special circumstances, related only to the torpedoing of the “Llandovery Castle,” and not also liest method of escape, to the subsequent shooting which took place, even though the witness now diving was not ct that says that it related only to the first occurrence, - namely, the sinking. )rtance, although the generally, followed The evidence of the witnesses brings out a further damaging feature of en importance, and this is the behaviour of Patzig as well as of the accusedi Only slight importance is to be attached to the fact -that the latter, on the commander of the finding that they would be called as witnesses, when, proceedings were first ting on the water, and being taken against Patzig alone, refused to give their testimony, on the Such deceptions do ground that their -utterances would lay them open to the danger of punish mid but seldom occir ment according to law. But it is very much to their prejudice that, in the itzig is reported to be. further proceedirgs, and then also in this trial, they have refn,sed, when ye induced him to fire. called upon, every explanation on essential points, on the groun,d that they s founded on such an had promised Patzig to be silent with respect to the occurrçnces of the
• to deliberate firing on 27th June; 1918. The accused, Dithmar, has only added that he disputes the fact that he did anything deserving punishment. In the course of the proceedings, he also pointed out that he never operated the after gun, f the actual witnesses, witnesses, which was the one in action. The accused Boldt has said a little more. few 1erman denied having fired. He )st from expressing He likewise repudiated any guilt, and specially the firing then, went on to say that, whatever part he took in the events in question, ns, uescribe he was always under the orders of his commander. He says that it was yf the occupants of the for which impartiality of not known to him that these orders contained anything punish at the ment would be inflicted, or that by carrying them out he ren,dered himself ement as the result of liable to punishment. was prevalent on both d of carrying on war. This refusal of the accused to give any adequate explanation of the pman, whose clear and matter might, perhaps, be understood, if it were only a question of a decision bove, did not at first being given with regard to the torpedoing of the “Llandovery Castle.” ie captain’s boat, were But the promise of silence which, according to their joint testimony, they
the
at
constant if
always
position
of
boats,
visibility—may
evidence.
that
be
way,
negligence
in
compels
this
this
prisoners
the
to
prisoners,
to
he
tainly
him.
was
covered the
Patzig he
necessary
the
He
requested
with
proceedings
endeavoured
the
quite
ways
The
has
matter
route log-book.
them, “Liandovery where
that
of
deavoured
without
any
maintain,
lead
the
have
as
gave
the their
avoided,
them,
officers
The
was
The
effect
would
incident.
laid
part
in his the
kind
events
following
directed
U-boat
Similarly,
already
isshown
promise
regard
other
he
evidence,
“Llandovery the
which
It
well-known
to
ari,d
would
taken
Naval
in
there
speaking
in
been
detention
to
the
the
own
risk promise
“Liandovery
emphasis
could
the
on of
if
does
that was
the
must,
this
which
entering
chose The on who
be
to
them Patzig,
possibility
a
their
silence
which
board
impression
torpedoing
is
mean,s
way,
He
to
had
of
efforts
the
commander
subsequent
to
he
might
had
by
entirely
the
draw
responsible
been conclusion
expert have
also not
to
they
speech
by
by
to
not
day connect
the
firing
were
something conceal
has
Castle”
the
is
to
can as
to
to
the
opinion
which
he firin,g
approached
bind
it
on
the
a
part
regard deserve
maintain
a
been
in
fact
could
very
extended
conduct
furnish entirely
into
pursue.
them
U-boat.
the
and put
of
attention
cannot
should alluded
say
to
have
even
found
events
board
refusal
suggest
ship,
has
his
in
Castle,”
threat
may
on
against
of
Castle.”
releasing
to
that
explain
of of
on
him
occurred,
the instituted
Naval
nothing this
in
the other
much made
speech
prevent
that
towards
himself
was
also
firing.
the
about
becoming entered
their
been
the
to
punishment
silence
Patzig
showin.g
the
have
the
himself
keep
miscarrying.
complete its
be
of
within
all of
to
with
accused
silence,
to
U-boat
So
made that
event.
There
also
God
the
torpedoing,
wrong,
to
Pat
boats
to
they
the
imagined
matters.
adopted the lifeboats.
a
true
to
U-boat,
a
was expert
away
it,
the
object
it
recognise
on
made
silent
about
admit
his It
speech
the as
better
them
zig
lifeboats
are his it.
the the
so
on
to
The and
a
lifeboats specially
is
against
27th
placed
when
a
his
the
is,
not
is
also
light.
events
guilty
conclusion
on
known,
not
that, can
which
the
crew
(the subordinates
the
proof
the
Boldt track
fact
the
He
not
But
remainder
discredit
clear 52
therefore,
no
points
did
until
to
view
power
the
being
that
from
is
fact
as
a
chance
that
a
to
June.
have
only
incon,ceivable
made
chart
real
the
circumstances,
subsequent
How
not special
his Patzig.would
witnesses
that If
entirely
is
the
it
dark
actually
in
method
as
his
only
and
of
them.
a
happenings
them,
of
If
that
carin,ot
he
had
exacted
the that,
the
unusual
should the
of
the
long denying
the
no
the
the be
captain’s
own
attained
of object
out,
to
their reason
it precautions
force
an
no
extracted
had
behaviour
easy
of
the
of
of
of
He
night—though
whole end
explained
importance.
not
firing
nothing
agreement
by
covered
correct
mention
of
official event
27th
result
for
in
way
incorrect the
success.
deliberate
the
en,try
conscience.
from
satisfactory. necessarily
But,
take
have
whereby
called
thrown
be.
crew
destruction.
the
Potts
the
of every
and
it
from
of
of his
to
what
the
events.
inexcusable
U-boat,
episode,
June,
could
the
that distant
was
in
the
of
certainly
boat
of
the
place.
of fear
crew
on
He
course
merely
request this of
st
this
remarkable
enquiries
that
been firing
no
from
of the
of them
the
the
the
on
extended
and
the
war means
had
firing.
the
hand-grenades it
statement
But
to
himself
of
Patzig,
overwhelming
gunfire,
and
was intention
there the
this
the
more
be
promise,
opinion
of
A
previous in
sin,king
the
the
be
two
from
way
fire
hidden
torpedoing This
and
with g.
as
taken the
Crosby),
contrary,
with
on
This
It
as of
together
there
promise
explained
the
have supposition,
for light
the
to
The
stopped,
Perhaps,
nature
given
he
torpedoing
set
Although
accused
is
which
signs
the
shooting
than
on
was English into
that
admits
accused,
in
explain
which
the
can
regard
further.
can
he
silen,ce
U-boat
about
j1y
has
vessel’s
good
forth
place,
only
when
was
found
the
of
of
the from
of
can
boats,
after
day.
cer
spot
by
a
of
to
the
only
only
it
the day,
of
the
the
on
he
on en
he
to in r try. ring. uniire, d ble rhis he igh t, y e and a ing. promise, aore m,ded .ns te e t :ion. himself iarkable in .ly .ries :he he le, Ld ;his of sinking ar est tement hand-grenades e from n ely
But
This pre
ov
on opinion
to Patzig,
intention
explained the
A the
light
contrary, was there two hidden t
be of supposition,
It the together
with the
Crosby), have
and
as
torpedoing he accused
way
torpedoing the fire for
promise as
to
nature ..
there Although can
than which
is
into
The
can
given
the rth accused,
shooting “us
Perhaps,
set
further.
stopped, a has
helming vessel’s
English
signs
explain of U-boat
he
that hardly
silence admits
boats, regard
of of on
found
was place,
in
which about
when
after forth only from
only
day, spot good
day.
only
cer
the the the the was en
can
the
the
to
he on he on in
by
to
of
of
it
a
The any position looked the in taking it achieve the position as if tioned, further ness the the carried false given account of account of U-boat, other have brought sinking bring target, It the establish), boats men into had only on It search were efficiency The captain’s These, so easily until There was carried description discovered.
Llandovery
the would
the
the was,
their is has
If On The far
the
lifeboats,
“Liandovery captain’s
explanation
special
English
direct evidently, news
can of the
discrepancy conclusion then
entries
only
wished.to the
of powers, finally
states,
escaped ship
passengers
be
night.
is,
that already
however, sole was these
was
out therefore, as
his Court this of out were and
boats, his
prejudice of for to
relations must
the
be
be
vortex
29th
due
therefore, boat
of
in
the
of on the
became great
two observation
state
personality.
after endeavours made responsibility
fired it
circumstances how
by
without explained.
who, which
object. in prisoners
the the
and
The our
German various
that
intended, the it
boat
finds
to this
Castle.” was
have
when The
“Liandovery
events.
of
the
been which
having five
which
prevent possible,
of
reaching
at open of of long
question what on
a
difficulties his
U-boat
therefore, there
empty
in in in June, answer
Castle”
necessary
with
were
riot
the
basis known
mistake. log-book rowed
that attempt
was
the
the the
the
been
warships, with
the
the the the
mentioned,
no fruitless
effect.
This
grounds
a
on sea Government
by
was they until
was regard
time international
still With of to
other
unholy time reason sinking
it 1918, having Patzig given
boats neighbouring
boat, that this,
ship
lifeboats,
in reports He
the
board quite
crews
is
where
for
is
away illusion England. their
is the
(the
were
prove of
rescued,
view the
could
to had
neutral, .to after
of would
asked—what
may
beyond and
were
Castle”
This
he big
reference
In
sank. the when, this
‘‘C”’.’ the examination
by
powers.
without
the which
effect to legality
of the be
why
well were
get
possibility wished renders the
fired decision.,
steamer, regard
very
only may
had seen
to any
of
the
about
gun.
have wiping fully the the the
it, not
deed.
found behaviour
could
must
case. Court
some
U-boat rid 53 be
what
several U-boat the
the known
after into
all
should
of
In was
been on chart, the case,
the concerned.
He and to war
position easily misuse position
proximity
great.
waters.
argued caused
describe
a of to of
to The
the
doubt
to.his
the effect two view it Irregular
be in
be,
be
in
trace of out
perils the This has
has
which encountered As
they which
them, may abandoned
them,
the
was heard.
can
very
keep
cruising the
that order
of
did
to
were
the
considered times
known.. fire,
which
whom number however,
number n,ot
be
missing
has
of field
all
of of been
decided
the
The
latter to
that,
that, to
have
fits Patzig,
over
where
boat
of
had
it, position
not, of not of
This
explained
previous
improbable
Patzig
the he, he this the this the
if
traces Patzig himself
have,
not
to
would the
been
torpedoings the
either were
boats.
against
into
in have win,d
The Germany..
Patzig
stated
had
around.
that
meet
came in
even have
rowed sink
induced
if
fact
danger which
had
of ip, search
able
fresh of Herein quiet
with
it
boats,
German of
boat sea
that
by view
when
it
remained
allowed
in,
shown
the
and
complications of
been
universally attained was
the already and
but
that,
in
they
of form
them.
must though
torpedoing
been, did
with
the”
surrounded
to to by
conjunction desired
her.
did
his by
was
the
away, was case
and the boats
the
of the
of
was
of
short
that of
two
one as sea found
is Patzig give
and
the
The
not
on
could the if
not action. the
above,
Government picked had the an being not
to full
to descriptions
the This not
Snowdrop,”
,seen lifeboats Patzig boats
well
the
to
might thoroughly service,
were
This been
takes
no
board
seaworthy witnesses.
his
boats
get
the and a
approach
promptly fact
and duration, ‘excellent
to
fruitless
be darkness
wish
be
captain.
prevent success.
and accused
already
defipite
abl&to
sinking to
witness
be
known
by
of
as
drawn home.
object might
found
them. avoid
is
firing calm.
over
three being their men
up,
with
that
with they
may
sink
into
in
still The
the
the
can the
the
the the
the
to
of
a
a 54
“snowdrop;” was not the boat, No. 3 which was, without any dispute, proved to have been stopped by the U-boat. If the boats had not fallen victims to the gunfire, it is certain that they must have been found by the warships engaged in searching for them. For their disappearance the U-boat must be held responsible. For the firing on the lifeboats only those persons can be held responsible, who at the time were on the deck of the U-boat; namely Patzig, the two accused and the chief boatswain’s mate Meissner. Patzig gave the decisive order, which was carried out without demur in virtue of his position as commander. It is possible that he asked the opinion of the two accused beforehand, though of this there is no evidence. As Meissner was the gun-layer and remained on deck by special orders, it may be assumed with certainty that he manned the after gun which was fired. In the opinion of the Naval expert, he was able to act without assistance. According to this view, owing to the nearness of the objects under fire, there was ho need for the fire to be directed by an artillery officer, such as the accused Dithmar. The only technical explanation, which both the accused have given and which fits in with the facts, is that they themselves did not fire. Under the circumstances this is quite credible. They confined themselves to making observations while the firing was going on. The Naval expert also assumes that they kept a look-out. Such a look-out must have brought the lifeboats, which were being fired on, within their view. By reporting their position and the varying distances of the lifeboats and such like, the accused assisted in the firing on the life-boats, and this, quite apart from the fact that their observations saved the U-boat from danger from any other quarter, and that they thereby enabled Patzig to do what he intended as regards the life-boats. The statement of the accused Boldt that “ so far as he took part in what happened, he acted in accordance with his orders” has reference to the question whether the accused took part in the firing on the life-boats, He does not appear to admit any participation. But the two accused must be held guilty for the destruction of the life-boats. With regard to the question of the guilt of the accused, no importance is to be attached to the statements put forward by the defence, that the enemies of Germany were making improper use of hospital ships for military purposes, and that they had repeatedly fired on German lifeboats and shipwreclçed people. The President of the Court had refused to call the witnesuis on thpse points named by the defence. The defence, there fore, called them direct. In accordance with the rules laid• down by Law (para. 244 St. P.O.) the Court was obliged to grant them a hearing. What the witnesses have testified cannot, in the absence of a general and exhaustive examination of the events spoken to by them, be taken as evidench of actual facts. The defence refused a proposal for a thorough investigation of the evidence thus put forward having regard, particularly, to I the opinion of the Naval expert, Saalwachter, that throughout the German fleet it was a matter of general belief that improper use of hospital ships was made by the enemy. It must, therefore, be assumed for the benefit of the accused, that they also held this belief. Whether this belief was founded on fact or not, is of less importance as affecting the case before the Court, than the established fact that the “Liandovery Castle” at the time was not carrying any cargo or troops prohibited under Clanse 10 of the Hague Convention. The act of Patzig is homicide, according to para 212 of the Penal Code. By sinking the life-boats he purposely killed the people who were in them. On the other hand no evidence has been brought forward to show that he carried out this killing with deliberation. Patzig, as to whose character the Court has no direct means of knowledge, may very well have done the deed in a moment of excitement, which prevented him froM arriving at a clear appreciation of all the circumstances, which should have been taken intQ cousideration. The crew of a submarine, in consequence of the highiy dangerous nature of their work, live in a state of constant tension. This xnt I veil er xi ;hout ii I, :ticipation. ,vith )idt riot ccused iere ance m ) d vho )f rider .‘y ie German )spital lefence, I hat he, ig ht ield g d, hem, ft selves elmer ave frov’ ert ut d have rorn s énce Patzig, he
art
e of of
them his
had
the In have
whose to the
the for
particularly, refused assumed no laid defence, found this for Castle” from their
According any
the
a also hospital two
have tension. fire. were tnat the
the responsible, in, the
was
his show position the
Clause arriving life-boats.
of the
general’ importance
be not
Penal given a any to
case the
lifeboats, Dithmar. been a the
belief dispute, ships intended was the down,
assumes thorough decisive the
accused lifeboats orders” the that position
opinion taken accused no U-boat character making
hearing.
by
done in German
Under fallen
to that
benefit
there so other firing before with at need
highly
them. two ‘
taken Code. and the ships fact
the
10
But ‘
the and call far
as This was to at for
the by
the
to as
he
of
a
fr
is
‘power case judgment. hospital thope
-the were
he .a possible being rightly this
in pressure
did
forbidden. the has the for In .gality Hague the
accused the already is attached ‘must ‘because
be of law, ignorance in ‘therefore, law, of be doubt be his already law. accordiug accepted fact deliberate only Code.) others
liable
small
his
called in war
Nations.
In The
well-known Any,
applied this not
made question, the to boats. example, killing
did The will of
Patzig intentions. present
was
as
which
accordance able of
to
wishing mind was in
view
be
on -chance described regulations
can on the
allow to
for ordinary
of well not
who ship, firing knowledge, pointed
their persons
this
of violation arrive two
been
deliberate
in to in
on
the taken
land
that circumstances,
is become to no of to
only the him to exist He
intention commander,
is of
restrain
It the of vain.
as in
very a
instance
war
The
accused took order
para. himself how if
shipwrecked prove the with having here question such
to set the
sufficient on
of
had is
the
the this at to State this
the to
the
liable into deed. as out, *ith were
The
with course hitting
support
insufficient fact certainly
case
the
the a out. time
of far-reaching obtain as
greater involved, he
actual part imprudent.
killing to 47 In all
state
does deed
case,
(in calm
state
inmates that the him
a
that account,
the to
time
to accorded
affirm
regard
knowingly doer, well decision that
-to could decide of at
the spite boats
its
punishable
cf the
The
It excuse. war decisions
in
of who kill,
the all ambiguity
from present not punishment was he which
of any law it
decision.
circumstances killing him
makes of of if characteristic
to aware, conditions is possible people,
his
duty apart this sense
the
proceeded kiiiing
Patzig’s was
affairs of
Military
avert on is a to unarmed
of
was quickly: material. is not
ecitement, free
think is
carried
confirmation
of
the the
torpedoing
therein. rested deed
simple the
him effect
the land,
not the In tended boats.
responsible
deed
before being
involves In are
nations
assisted war,
proved from implied
of
when an
the
act, 00
execution the offence, the
who
most of in
question
the to
is their examining
life-,boats proved He of
guilt
decisive),
Penal great para. of as out with and
and offence enemies
a the
(whose carried in enemies
accused darkness
imagin.e
acts points
he
evil many used
the
had specially
matter The they violation
This have his
accessories. of
A
markings, a minute in
that
support of in is Patzig on
which had takes such
limitations
present
so
manner
the
direct Patzig of
Court. 23
Code, of
against universally action.
importance consequences
warfare
killing
fact said
for
of para
for consideration,
of
his cruised laws
far
his taken to against
of
carelessness, they
in take out (c)), only to
the
case, is
its
from over,
a
exceptions the of
place, the
the improper
that, investigation, responsibility, the
in as that to not war under assumption..
if
act
of
violation act
211 in the
as applicability.
as question which case,
his contrary
The
the
were in similarly
in in part the this deed
must in,ternational: deprive refuge
is,
act. consideration around the
allowed so guilt. rules to quickly. the
(Para.
is
of
night
imposed he
the
so of as
general,
the
orders. particularly
execution, known.
rule
as little in
the have accused. the
as
killing, killing,
in
in manner, the far the wou1
explained cannot
commander.
be
of
Several law in accordance purposes.
the to
o expectation however,
in Patzig the
of of there agreement
to
of legality
49
Patzig
and circumstances
It
borne as in Naval
which Penal
was his
(compare frequently
this
international the
life-boats,
the international
international
a Then,
by Under Senate it o of
such war is fight.
the torpedo It by No
following
penalty
definitely of. examined The was
which error
law was
the the existence They
true
law the natiors. rule, that and
in factors
must
the
possible careless above, in an expert of
Code). accused
at
or cannot
killing arose
mind,
only
Court
Penal must idea this
with Ths the the not order
Law has.
But sea, as with very
ile
the the
that
The he
are, of as,
has
a
to is
is be
is -
a
shipwrecked
punishment
severe
justifies
innocent, thing
obedience
could
A
order.
orders
mind
witnessed
Penal
dovery
attain
refusal
that
not
desist
can
para.
in
against
the
avail on
of
It the
the
liable
his
course
to
German
President
his
have
gathered, the
that
refusal
one were
nothing
was
to
the
body,
fidence
ordinates,
superior
of involved
liable
In
According
punishable,
appears
a
these
The
a
obeyed
the
do
superiors.
course
The
point
time.
so
Patzig
subordinates
not
the
the
occupants
special
that
misunderstanding
Code),
is
estimating for law.
the
sentence
from
his 11 this
precisely
refused
well
to
unusual,
Castle.”
the This
things
on
of
defence
him.
including
Navy
not
to
bring
i4eas
to
of accused.
accused
to as V witnesses,
the
the
object,
can
fleet,
accused
punishment,
else
a
was
the
the of
of
that
aware,
them.
officer,
recognition
under
from
piishment,
his
the
of
the
They
people
obey This
would
fight
Military
that
has
legally
would
degree
they
the
accused,
view,
affair.
to
be
which
but
the
principal a
Although the
themselves
to
to
on
part
purpose,
infringement
in
one
the
must, Military
neither
The
that
finally
fight,
No.
held
the
This
District
namely, happens
been
the
they
the the exceeded
obey.
also
did
the
that
para. as
to
case
acted. can
the
a superior
and
have
This
which
is
It
of
have
impression
authorised
be
Vice-Admiral
breach
of
the
statements
it
are
order
carry
authority
incidents
punishment, From
commander
2,
boats to
was
is
not
an
the
because
them,
law
are
here.
thus
however,
neither
is
stated
points although
they
of his
killing
ready
of
of
possibility
if
guilt
as Naval
however,
213,
enforced
exist,
certainly
a
not Penal
As
humanly
Court
the
required
act
was
to these
accused,
mitigating
only
They
it
the
maintain under
also
submarine,
out
the
relating
given
then
subordinates,
officer
the
when
of
not
they
was
can
disobey.
for
concerned of
They
49, concealment
rests
in
for
law
the if
out
above.
held
the
Expert
bounds
a
defencel.ess
in
now in
Code)
quite
and (the
civil
to
point
prevailed
witnesses
should
claim
it
of in
such
breach
be
h
known
no
count
the
by
para.
these
did
his
an
on
rare
law.
issuing
to
the
fighting,
possible
and
that
kill
sinking
quickly
is
it (retired)
would
to
the
a
with
these
by
latter
to
in
could
might
obligation
that
or
passed.
Patzig,
rejected.
has,
a
be
well-known
attack
specially
orders,
circumstances.
highest
be
not an
of
“before
56
Saalwächter
to
while
That subordinate
present
of
question.
and
defenceless
are
submarine war),
the
military
were
They
certainly
upon
the
2,
with
As
urged
of
view
to
without
Commander
order
the
two
in
be
applied
have
he the
acted
that do
such
not
44
of
found
of
irrelevant
to
people
the
be
higher
him
exceptional
Naval
and
accused
von
certainly
cruising,
the
stopped.
that
acquitted.
on
the weapon fighting. law,
would
so,
the
admitted
its
understand
had
of
of witnesses
accused
degree
The
answerable
the
rid
instance,
law.
is
in
to
high
been
a
an
If
that
law.
during
the
is
first
necessity
they
the
T.rotha,
legality.
out any
have
torpedoing
universally
life-boats
to
himself
Naval
favour
These
he
was
Patzig
question
would
themselves
officers
command in
enemy,”
people.
acquired
has
order
always
obeying
killing
have
the
must
enemy
impossible the
degree
the
They
wished
place,
State
here.
doubt
must
Patzig,
in
contrary
the
does
This
In
must
not
refused
strikingly
They
shared
the
frankly.
cases.
it
relate,
facts
accused,
hand,
opinions
officer,
had
order
have is
of
that
determining to
and
life-boats
by
been
have was
thereby
for
should,
not
(para.
war
applies
(in continually
But
was
of
Penal
the
to
alone
whatever
the
be
They
nevertheless
nor
the
They
of
such
of could
the
to
known
been in
profession
under
by
of
the
this
his
to Toepifer,
be
defenceless
perfectly
make
been
if
as
of
the
the
punished.
to
however;
resolution.
But
not order
make
application
for the no
military
obliged that
considered
who
in
questioning
stated,
it.
habit
52
obey
they
an
who are the
borne
Code, responsible.
an
are
well
accused
faced
action
therefore,
only
in
ethiqal
rendered
sense
opinion.
“Lian
such
defence
him
done
to
this
fleet
whose could
some
of
adviser
them
the
This
in in superior
based
order
against
of
of
use
the
had
every-
had
the
the
and knew
have
of
by they clear
that
to to :their
a
in
the the
no
the
case
con
of
sub-
in
it case
at
to to
of
be is . . V
.. :. V . V loing Lared ife-boats ras tmselves quired i.nd iband, ist ty,” ffi anklr. ;t ts. But illing ild legree Pa ilac°- ;ity [possible ye .g its e. nd and ,y tingly y j done ist my td cts the ys the e opinions pplies such elate, er
State does whatever
should, reied
to
contrary In war thu.
known for They
accused, had
be
could
profession to
of have
was by
been continually
(in have perfectly the
order They that
nor military But
(para. in no nevertheless determining
Toepifer,
punished. his to responsible. not .by as the make
this an
of
been
questioning stated,
however, Penal that in of of
the who
the application not
the well under such if
an
only therefore, be the in to
to considered this the
obliged been action could for are superior order of the make
rendered
resolution. are
defenceless of
they against
opinion
to 52 adviser faced who sense every- fleet
defence
obey done borne
use in
in it. habit
knew their “Lian
accused him clear
based have sub Code, case they con
that case
of
of
ethiqal whose
some
the the the
and be
them is had
of had -no
This to at to
the
by in the of
to
the tc it
in
of
a
right and throws principles. a weapon as short dismissed been
in
are Patzig, applicable virtue operation made include of may (R.G.
The
absence
[SEAL
sentence
to
In the
The
The conjunction
a The
Section
Members
to considered
be period, direct
)ustify accordance
by
BI.,
of a
evidence
but
behaviour which
determination OF
those
above wear
applied.
dark
from
the
a
the in
in
THE not of
page
It
result
reduction
By
the regard reducing during 36
Treaty
four shadow Printed of officer’s
did
service,
of copy against must affixing
Sir
COURT.]
with
put the appropriate.
present
of with
the
341).
so Joseph
of
of
The
years’
wider agrees
accused
the much to which the
forward
the also
Senate, of
on Art.
of uniform. Section the
and
the
in
(Signed) (Signed) their Causton expenses,
a
Peace.
accused
accusation The
the case. the the Military
imprisonment
prosecution not
the
two
in
with
period
1, they the
authority
persons
costs German
the
signatures.
Dr.
in
last-mentioned
& para.
be
accused 34, costs
It
accused,
Sons,
the
order have Such
during fight
which
Paul DR. HAGEMANN, BUCKS, SABARTH, SCHMIDT, left
SCHMIDT. has para.
of Penal
57
is Senate
of
original. made
Limited,
under
4, themselves
imprisonment HIS
fleet, based
therefore
out already for
an demanded
men. to
and
VOGT.
Clerk
of 1,
fall
the
on MAJESTY’S
Boldt,
Code,
the
accusation obtain
No.
against
of
of
the and
9,
the Dr.
both
proceedings
on on
Easteheap.
The the
of consideration Fatherland.
regulation
2,
been
RISCH,
been
specially
Schultz, the regulations law
para.
is
the
the and
Section
STArloazay
their
the
Imperial proceedings by
Patzig.
condemned
State
detained. by Second
of
requested
particularly
accused, the
Official. is
London, accused
497
acquittal.
the only 24th
were has
40,
on
Allied
only
Treasury,
of Oziucz
The High
For
the that of comparatively Criminal para.
E.C.
not
made
the
March,
against
prevented
persons
Dithmar,
that para.
to
comes this
concessions
submarine
3.
Powers
been
Court.
the
St. not
1,
lose
against
para. reas6n
do
No.
4 P.O.,
those them deed
such
1920
into
has
the
not are
in by
is 1,
4