The United States and the Concentration Camp Trials at Dachau, 1945-1947 Greta Louise Lawrence Peterhouse This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2016 i Declaration of Originality This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. iii Summary of Dissertation: The United States and the Concentration Camp Trials, 1945-1947 After much debate during the war years over how best to respond to Nazi criminality, the United States embarked on an ambitious postwar trial programme in occupied Germany, which consisted of three distinct trial sets: the International Military Trial at Nuremburg, the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and military trials held at the former concentration camp at Dachau. Within the Dachau military tribunal programme, were the concentration camp trials in which personnel from the Dachau, Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbürg, and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps were arraigned. These concentration camp trials at Dachau represented the principal attempt by the United States to punish Nazi crimes committed at the concentration camps liberated by the Americans. The prosecutors at Dachau tried 1,045 defendants accused of committing violations of the ‘laws of war’ as understood through ‘customary’ international and American military practice. The strain of using traditional military law to prosecute the unprecedented crimes in the Nazi concentration camps was exposed throughout the trials. To meet this challenge, the Dachau concentration camp courts included an inventive legal concept: the use of a ‘criminal-conspiracy’ charge—in effect arraigning defendants for participating the ‘common design’ of the concentration camp, ‘a criminal organisation’. American lawmakers had spent a good deal of time focused on the problem of how to begin the trials (What charges? What courts? Which defendants?) and very little time planning for the aftermath of the trials. Thus, by 1947 and 1948, in the face of growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, the major problem with the Dachau trials was revealed –the lack of long term plans for the appellate process for those convicted. After two scandals that captured the press and the public’s attention, the United States Congress held two official investigations of the entire Dachau tribunal programme. Although the resulting reviews, while critical of the Army’s clemency process, were largely positive about the trials themselves, the Dachau trials faded from public memory. v Acknowledgements I’d like to thank the University of Cambridge, Faculty of History, and Peterhouse for allowing me to study in your hallowed halls for 5 years. I’d like to thank the archivists who were always willing to help, particularly at the United States Holocaust Museum and Memorial, The Yale University Archives, The National Archives and Records Administration, and the National Archives at Kew. I’d like to thank my supervisor, Sir Richard J. Evans, for his invaluable feedback, patience, and support. I could not have done this without such a superior guide. I’d like to thank my family: Karl van Lith, Anneke van Lith, Thomas Cavanaugh, and Maureen Moravchik for reading my chapters; Kerry Cavanaugh for her constant encouragement and care for my daughter while I wrote; to my sweet Ena whose joy and curiosity in the world inspired my to keep striving for my goal; and lastly, to my husband, Dr. Edward Lawrence, without your encouragement and unwavering belief in my abilities this dissertation would never have happened. This is dedicated to you. vii Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1: Rhetoric and Reality: The Nazi Concentration Camps and The United Nations’ Wartime Policy ................................................ 23 A. An Overview of the Concentration Camp System .............................................. 23 B. The Crimes at the Camps as Defined by Established Law ................................. 33 1. Forced Labour ............................................................................................................. 35 2. Mistreatment and Killing of POWs ............................................................................. 40 3. Human experimentation. ............................................................................................. 42 C. The United Nations’ Wartime Rhetoric, 1941-1945 ........................................... 45 D. Disagreements ..................................................................................................... 52 E. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 58 Chapter 2: Developing the Blueprint for the American War Crimes Tribunals, September 1944 - July 1945 .................................................... 61 A. Choosing Trials ................................................................................................... 63 B. The Bernays’ Plan ............................................................................................... 71 C. Criticism and Support .......................................................................................... 78 D. Developments Abroad ......................................................................................... 82 E. Establishing the American Military Commissions at Dachau ............................. 86 F. The British Belsen Trial as a Prologue to the Dachau Concentration Trials ....... 91 Chapter 3: The Military Tribunal Programme at Dachau and the Concentration Camp Trials: American Precedents and Overview ....... 97 A. The Military Tribunal Programme at Dachau, 1945-1947 ............................... 104 B. Downed Allied Airmen, the Berga Trial (U.S. vs. Erwin Metz, et al.), the Hadamar Trial (Trial of Alfons Klein and Six Others), and the Malmédy Trial (U.S. vs. Valentin Bersin, et al.) ...................................................................................... 109 1. Downed Allied Airmen: The ‘Fliers’ Cases’, 1945-1947 ......................................... 109 2. The Berga Trial (U.S. vs. Erwin Metz, et al.) 3 September – 15 October 1946 ........ 112 3. Hadamar (Trial of Alfons Klein and Six Others), October 8–15, 1945 ..................... 115 4. Malmédy (United States of America v. Valentin Bersin et al), 16 May - 16 July 1946 ....................................................................................................................................... 118 C. Overview of the Concentration Camp Trials, November 1945 – December 1947 ................................................................................................................................ 121 1. Chronological overview of the ‘Parent trials’ and their ‘Subsequent trials’ ............. 125 D. Dachau (United States of America v. Martin Gottfried Weiss et al), 15 November - 13 December 1945 ............................................................................. 131 E. Mauthausen (United States of America v. Hans Altfuldisch et al): 29 March – 13 May 1946 ............................................................................................................... 133 F. Flossenbürg (United States of America v. Joseph Becker et al), 12 June 1946-22 January 1947 .......................................................................................................... 136 G. Buchenwald (United States of America v. Josias Prince of Waldeck et al), 11 April – 14 August 1947 .......................................................................................... 137 H. Dora-Mittelbau (United States vs. Kurt Andrae, et al.), 7 August – 30 December 1947 ........................................................................................................................ 139 I. Sentencing .......................................................................................................... 140 ix Chapter 4: Legal Arguments, the Press, and Politics in the Courtroom. ................................................................................................ 147 A. Legal Arguments, I: Jurisdiction and Trial Structure ....................................... 147 B. Legal Arguments, II: Challenging and Defending the ‘Common Design’ Charge ................................................................................................................................ 152 C. Legal Arguments, III: Rejection of Superior Orders as a Defence ................... 157 D. The Press and the Courtroom: The Case of Ilse Koch ...................................... 163 E. Politics and the Courtroom: The Case Study of Dora-Mittelbau and ‘Operation