Chapter XXVII: Section L: 5th to 9th cy (6)

2. Lately, there has been a marked increase of cases of protective custody. I demand urgently that in this matter also, final directives be given concerning _methods_, _proof_, _length of time_ and manner of _execution_. The decree on protective custody by the Reich Ministry of the Interior has been made invalid long ago by the actions of the political police. It is almost impossible to receive an adequate report on a case of protective custody. The petitions, addressed to us in this matter, all stress the same point which I also regard as important. The parties concerned and their relatives accept protective custody as a matter of fact, but not the complete uncertainty as regards the manner and principles by which it may or may not be imposed. This unquestionable _lawlessness_ fosters unrest and antagonism. It is intolerable for the Reich Ministry of the Interior, when there is a different interpretation and application of the law in the respective states, thereby obstructing a uniform execution of the law. The question must also be settled whether as approved by the judicial association N.S., in agreement with the Reichminister of Justice, in cases of protective custody a person is allowed a lawyer, or as is actually practised by the secret state police this is refused. I refer in this connection to the case of lawyer Puender. He was confined to protective custody with his colleagues for bringing an action, being forced to do this by a Reich law, after duly informing the Reich Ministry of Justice and our ministry. This complaint could not involve any complications, as it could immediately be legally restrained by us.

3. For _official political reasons_ I must object on principle to the fact that lately once more and without previous knowledge of the superior authorities, officials have been taken into protective custody or what is sometimes even more, they have been subjected to state police investigations. I cite here only the case of my teacher and Kreisleiter at Esterwegen, who was kept in protective custody for 8 days, because he had sent a correct report, as proved afterwards, to his district councillor on abuses by the SS. I remember the investigations by criminal assistants of the Gestapo in Kottbus, lasting two weeks, on the chief of police in that phase, by the way an SS Brigadefuehrer. Likewise I have already presented today a complaint by the Oberpraesident Lohse, concerning the order to an official of the gendarmerie for espionage on superior officials by officers of the political police.

It is intolerable from the point of view of the national socialist authoritarian form of state leadership that subordinate offices procure information on officials in this manner over the heads of their superior office. This will create a great deal of trouble quite apart from the fact that information obtained in this manner must be prejudiced and very often even actually false.

4. Abductions by officers of the political police on _foreign sovereign territory_ have lately created severe disturbances in the field of foreign politics. I cite the cases of Berthold Jakob (Switzerland), Gutzeit (Holland) and the latest incident at the Czech frontier. It is my opinion that in consideration of the foreign political complications, the police office should receive orders for such measures from the responsible Reich officer only, and not from subordinate offices.

5. Several times the Reich ministry of economics has pointed out to me the disturbing effect on the economic organization which must result from the various political incidents caused by the police, the atmosphere of insecurity caused by cases of protective custody (particularly in the case of economic leaders) and also in the latest cases of boycott of the Jews (Cologne, Duesseldorf).

6. I can only undertake the creation of the Fuehrer protection in my police department if I am completely responsible for the officials working there, their service, capabilities and their co-operation with the other departments of the criminal police.

7. I propose that it be settled once and for all, not only who is to bear the responsibilities for the directives but also who shall bear the responsibility for the carrying out of these directives in all matters appertaining to the political police.

_Either_: This responsibility rests with the Reichminister of the interior. Then he has to be vested with altogether different powers to give orders in political matters concerning the police.

_Or_: This responsibility with all its consequences is borne by the Reichfuehrer SS, who is already actually claiming the management of the political police in the Reich. In this case, I would propose that the law, laid down for Prussia by SS, Himmler, becomes Reich law immediately, elevating the office of the secret state police to the status of a ministry and the chief of the office of the secret state police undertakes the tasks which he--as is already stated in the draft of the law, "determines".

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 778-PS

Copy.

Concentration Camp _Dachau_ 1.10.1933.
Commander's Office

Disciplinary and Punitive Regulations
for the Internment Camp.

Introduction.

The following regulations, concerning punishment, for the maintenance of discipline and order within the limits of the Concentration Camp Dachau are released as part of the existing camp regulations.

Subject to these regulations are all internees of the Concentration Camp Dachau from the time of their imprisonment to the hour of their release.

Authority for ordering punishments lies in the hands of the camp commander, who is personally responsible to the political police commander for the execution of the issued camp regulations.

Tolerance means weakness. In the light of this conception, punishment will be mercilessly handed out whenever the interests of the fatherland warrant it. The fellow countryman who is decent but misled will never be affected by these regulations. But let it be a warning to the agitating politicians and intellectual provocators--regardless of which kind--: be on guard not to be caught, for otherwise it will be your neck and you will be shut up according to your own methods.

* * * * *

Article 6

The following are punishable with _8 days of close confinement_, and _25 thrashings_ to be administered before and after the serving of the sentence:

1. anyone making depreciatory or ironical remarks to a member of the SS, deliberately omitting the prescribed marks of respect, or in any other way demonstrating unwillingness to submit himself to measures of disciplinary order.

2. prisoner-sergeants and prisoner squad leaders or foremen who exceed their authority as orderlies, assume the privileges of a superior over other prisoners, accord likeminded prisoners special privileges in work or in any other way, tyrannize fellow prisoners who have political views different from their own, make false reports on them, or prejudice them in any other way.

Article 7

The following are punishable with _two weeks' close confinement_:

1. anyone exchanging by his own will the quarters to which he is assigned without being authorized by the company commander or instigating or inducing his fellow prisoners to do so;

2. anyone enclosing or hiding forbidden articles or articles produced in the camp in outgoing laundry bundles, or sewing them into pieces of laundry, etc.;

3. anyone entering or leaving barracks, shelters, or other buildings by other than authorized entrances, or creeping through window or other openings;

4. anyone smoking in shelters, toilets and places which are fire hazards, or keeping or depositing inflammable objects on such places. Should a fire result from neglect of this prohibition, then it will be considered as an act of sabotage.

Article 8

The following are punishable with _2 weeks of close confinement_ and _25 thrashings_ to be administered before and after the serving of the sentence:

1. anyone leaving or entering the internment camp without an escort or who joins an outgoing work detail without proper authority;

2. anyone making depreciatory remarks in letters or other documents about national socialistic leaders, the State and Government, authorities and institutions, glorifying marxist or liberal leaders or November Parties (November Parteien), or reporting on occurrences in the concentration camp;

3. anyone safe-keeping forbidden articles, tools, slashing and thrusting weapons in his quarters or in paillasses.

Article 9

The following are punishable with _3 weeks close confinement_: Anyone removing government property regardless of what kind, from its assigned place; deliberately damaging, destroying, wasting, transforming, or using same for purposes other than prescribed. Aside from the punishment the individual or the entire company of prisoners, depending on the circumstances, will be held responsible for the damage caused.

Article 10

The following are punishable with _6 weeks close confinement_ or an _indefinite term of solitary confinement_:

1. anyone making money collections inside of the camps, financing illegal activities, within or outside of the limits of the camp, or bribing fellow-prisoners into submission or putting them under obligation to keep quiet;

2. anyone receiving financial aid derived from illegal collections of the red aid funds, or distributing such money among fellow prisoners;

3. anyone making communications to a clergyman other than of problems pertaining to the soul, giving him secretly letters or communications for delivery, or attempting to win the clergyman's cooperation for illegal purpose;

4. anyone disparaging, slandering or slighting in any other way the symbols of the national socialistic state or its representatives.

Article 11

By virtue of the law on revolutionaries, the following offenders, considered as _agitators, will be hung_.

Anyone who, for the purpose of agitating, does the following in the camp, at work, in the quarters, in the kitchens and workshops, toilets and places of rest: politicizes, holds inciting speeches and meetings, forms cliques, loiters around with others; who for the purpose of supplying the propaganda of the opposition with atrocity stories, collects true or false information about the concentration camp and its institution; receives such information, buries it, talks about it to others, smuggles it out of the camp into the hands of foreign visitors or others by means of clandestine or other methods, passes it on in writing or orally to released prisoners or prisoners who are placed above them, conceals it in clothing or other articles, throws stones and other objects over the camp wall containing such informations; or produces secret documents; who, for the purpose of agitating, climbs on barracks' roofs and trees, seeks contact with the outside by giving light or other signals, or induces others to escape or commit a crime, gives them advices to that effect or supports such undertakings in any way whatsoever.

Article 12

The following offenders, considered as _mutineers, will be shot on the spot_ or later hung:

Anyone attacking physically a guard or an SS man, refusing to obey or to work while on detail, asking or inducing others to join him in such acts of mutiny, leaving a marching column or a place of work as a mutineer or asking others to do likewise, or bowling, shouting, inciting or holding speeches while marching or at work.

Article 13

The following offenders, considered as _saboteurs_, will _be punished by death_:

Anyone deliberately causing a fire, an explosion, or any kind of damage such as by water in the camp, in the quarters, in the workshops, in the places of work, in the kitchens, store rooms, etc; also anyone manipulating contrary to given instructions with barbed wire installations, high voltage circuits, switch boards, telegraph or water lines, the camp wall or other security installations, heating and boiler installations, machines or motor vehicles. Should the act have occurred because of negligence, then the guilty person will be kept in solitary confinement. In cases of doubt, however, it will be considered as an act of sabotage.

* * * * *

Article 19

Confinement will be executed in a cell, with a hard rest, with water and bread. The prisoner receives warm food every four days. Punitive work consists of severe physical or particularly dirty work, performed under close supervision. Incidental punishments are: drilling, thrashings, foreclosure of mail and food, hard rest, tying to stakes, reprimands and warnings.

All punishments are being recorded in files.

Confinement and punitive labor prolong the term of internment by at least 8 weeks, an imposed incidental punishment by 4 weeks. Prisoners in solitary confinement will not be released within a measurable space of time.

The Commander of the Concentration Camp (L.S.)

[signed] EICKE
SS-Oberfuehrer

* * * * *

Concentration Camp _Dachau_ 10.1.1933
Commanders Office

Service Regulations for Prisoner
Escorts and Guards

_Guard Deputy._

Anyone letting a prisoner escape will be arrested and handed over to the Bavarian Political Police for liberating prisoners out of negligence.

If a prisoner attempts to escape, he is to be _shot without warning_. The guard who has shot an escaping prisoner in the line of his duty will not be punished.

In case of attack on a guard by a prisoner, the former is to resist the attack not by physical force but by the use of his weapons. A guard disregarding this regulation must expect his immediate discharge. Anyone keeping his back covered, will anyway seldom have to expect an attack.

If a prisoner unit mutinizes or revolts, it is to be shot at by all supervising guards. Warning shots are principally prohibited.

The time of work is determined by the camp commander. A prisoner escort who brings his prisoners back too early, is guilty of having badly failed to do his duty and can be discharged.

In case a work detachment must stop its work prematurely for some reason or other, then the work detachment leader must have the reason certified on the back of the work service slip [Arbeitsdienst Zettel] by either the construction division or the requisitioning office.

The Commander of the Concentration Camp
L.S. EICKE
SS-Oberfuehrer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 779-PS

[Directive by Wilhelm Frick Regulating "Protective Custody," 12 April 1934]

[Pencilled noted on top of page:]

(1) 3F _4_ 487

To reduce the abuses in connection with the infliction of _protective_ custody, the Reichminister of the Interior has decided in his directive on the infliction and execution of protective custody of 12 April 1934, directed to the state governments and the Reichsstatthalter, that orders for protective custody can only be issued. a) for the personal protection of the arrestee b) if the arrestee immediately endangers public safety and order by his behaviour, especially by activity, inimical to the state.

If therefore, as far as these prerequisites do not prevail a sentence of protective custody is not permitted especially a) against persons who only insist on the use of their civic or public rights (for instance report, complaint, grievance); b) against lawyers because of representation of their client's interests; c) because of personal affair (for instance libel); d) because of any economic measures (question of salaries, dismissal of employees and similar cases).

Protective custody furthermore is not permitted for the punishment of criminal acts, for the courts are competent for that. It cannot be applied only for the reason, that a person behaves asocially or otherwise in an obnoxious manner, unless the People has become aggravated by that, and this protective custody becomes necessary for the arrestee's own protection.

(2)

Regulations of Official Agencies--Regulations on Measures of Protective Custody in Prussia (taken for the administrative gazette of the Reich [Reichsverwaltungsblatt] No. 9 of 2 March 1935.) The _Prussian Prime Minister_. Secret State Police Insp. 946/11 March 1934 _Berlin, 11 March_.

Subject: Order for measures of protective custody.

1. The previous executory regulations, applying to measures of protective custody are rescinded. In the future, limitations of personal freedom, according to article 1 of the decree for the protection of people and state of 28 Feb. 1933, may be ordered by the Secret State Police office, effective in the whole state, and by the governors and cabinet presidents in Berlin and by the state police offices for their local jurisdiction.

The present competency of the district police authorities [Kreispolizeibehoerden], namely the state counsellors [Land-rate], is no longer applicable for such measures. The measures previously ordered by them, become void after 31 March unless a prolongation has been ordered before then by the State [Landes] police authorities.

2. If protective custody has been ordered as a provisional measure because of suspicion of a criminal act, the decision of the court must be obtained immediately for infliction of legal detention for investigation, and in the case of a refusal of a legal warrant for arrest, the police measure is also to be rescinded, unless their continuation in exceptional cases appears justified for other reasons.

3. Limitations of personal freedom, which are ordered by the Ober--and Regierungspraesidenten, by the president of the police in Berlin and by the state police offices, become automatically void on the 8th day after the end of the day, on which the order for protective custody has been executed, unless the continuation of the protective custody has been ordered specifically by me upon appropriate request.

4. Every case of protective custody, ordered by the Ober and Regierungspraesidenten, by the president of police in Berlin and by the state police offices, is to be reported to me personally (address Berlin W 9, Leipziger Platz 11a) by Telegram within 24 hours, mentioning exactly: name, age, occupation, political standpoint: of the one affected, as well as the cause of the measure; also if necessary, the necessity for apparently appropriate limitation of freedom beyond 7 days must be justified.

5. Arrests, which do not fall under the designation "protective custody", may only be made by the authorities, legally appointed for them. But in this case, a legal warrant for arrest must be obtained under all conditions within 24 hours. If such a warrant for arrest is refused by the competent judge, or if it cannot be obtained within 24 hours, the affected one is to be released immediately or, if the arrest is to remain in effect, action has to be taken according to #3 and 4 (report by telegram within 24 hours to the prime minister).

6. In the future, I will punish the abusive use of the arrest mercilessly.

Agencies of the party and the associations may not make arrests. In case of disregard of this order, the competent authorities must take actions against it immediately, and must report to me at once.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 781-PS

1. From a letter to Brigadefuehrer (Maj Gen) WOLFF (Secret State Police).

RJM Berlin, 23 March 1936.

OBERREGIERUNGSRAT von DOHNANYI

To: BRIGADEFUEHRER (Maj Gen) WOLFF
_BERLIN S W 11_
Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse 8

Dear Mr Wolff,

As you doubtless know, the Reichsfuehrer, using the Hoppe case (shooting) in the concentration camp Columbia as an illustration, discussed on the 2 March the question of the use of arms by guard personnel of concentration camps with my minister. The Reichsfuehrer, according to the notes on the conversation made by the minister, on this occasion considered the idea of issuing a decree on use of arms by officials under his jurisdiction favorably. Could you possibly inform me at your convenience how far this matter has progressed with you?

* * * * *

With many regards and Heil Hitler
your very obedient
[signed] Dr. von Dohnanyi

* * * * *

2. After 2 weeks.

1. Notation:

On the 2nd of this month using the Hoppe case as an illustration, I discussed the question of use of arms by the guard personnel of the concentration camp with the Reichsfuehrer SS. I suggested to Himmler that he issue an order on the use of arms for the officials subordinated to him. * * * Himmler has promised me that such a decree will be issued and will grant us participation in the preliminary work. Initiative with Himmler.

2. To Secretary of state Dr. Freisler for acknowledgement.

3. After 2 weeks.

Berlin, 9 March 1936.
seen 9/3 illegible. [signature illegible]

To Mr. von Donanyi with the request to remind the secret state police (Wolf) at his convenience.

17/3
[signed illegible]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 783-PS

Copy For The Minister

Reich and Prussian Minister of Justice
2 F.g10 1696/34 Berlin, W.8, 18 January
Wilhelmstrasse 65

Subject: Charges against members of camp personnel of Protective custody Camp Hohnstein.

To the communication of 19 December 1934.
--ST. S.I.2593/34--

Most honored Reich Deputy [Reichstatthalter]!

In regard to your courteous communication of 19 December 1934, I inform you respectfully that, on the basis of the decree of the Reich president relative to exercise of the right of nolle prosse of 21 March 1934 (RGBl, I, page 211) in connection with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the first law for transfer of administration of justice to the Reich of 10 February 1934 (RGB1, I, page 91) the right to nolle prosse pending criminal cases wherein the deed was committed after 20 March 1934, belongs no longer to the Reich Deputy but exclusively to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Under the circumstances I consider myself not in a position to go to the extent of proposing a nolle prosse of the case to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.

TO the Reich Deputy in Saxony in Dresden A1.

Insofar as the deeds were committed before 2 March 1934 and therefore the right of nolle prosse in the case belongs to you, most honored Reich Deputy, I allow myself to express the greatest scruples against the intended nolle prosse. The nature of the mistreatments, particularly the use of the drip-apparatus, is evidence of a coarseness and brutality in the perpetrators which is completely alien to German sensibility and feeling. Such atrocities, reminders of oriental sadism, can find no explanation or excuse even in the greatest bitterness of combat. Crimes of this sort must find their lawful expiation for the very sake of the cleanness and respect of the movement. In view of experiences in other cases, of similar aspect in a certain sense, I am also unable to share the fear that execution of the legal proceedings would be detrimental to the movement. This is all the more true since the main proceedings can take place with complete exclusion of the public.

Heil Hitler!

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 784-PS

Copy

The Reichminister of Justice
Z.F.g 10 1696.34

Berlin, June 5, 1935

1. A message to the deputy of the Fuehrer Reichminister Hess.

Confidential

Personal

Regarding: penal proceedings against the merchant and SA leader Lt. Colonel [Obersturmbannfuehrer] Jaehnichen and 22 companions on account of inflicting bodily injury on duty (protective custody Camp Hohenstein in Saxony).

Dear colleague!

With inference to the bill of indictment sent by me under my communication of March 20, 1935 regarding the penal proceedings mentioned above, I beg to inform you of the following:

After a main trial, lasting about six weeks, the assistant prosecutor Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther, proposed the following sentences on May 3, 1935:

Against Jaehnichen
(Camp Commandant) 5 years penetentiary
Against Zikera--1 year, 6 months prison
Against Heinz Meier--3 years prison
Against Herbert Meier--3 years, 2 months prison
Against Tuerke--3 years prison
Against Volkmar--2 years, 3 months penetentiary
Against Leuschner--2 years, 3 months prison
Against Romkopf--2 years, 6 months prison
Against Karche--1 year, 8 months prison
Against Hausch--1 year, 4 months prison
Against Lehmann--3 years, 3 months prison
Against Kuehnel--1 year prison
Against Stachowski--1 year prison
Against Ude--1 year prison
Against Friedrich--1 year, 3 months prison
Against Schmeling (Police)--1 year prison
Against Konitz--1 year prison
Against Uhlmann--1 year prison
Against Sturzkober--10 months prison
Against Schupp--1 year, 6 months prison
Against Hensel--2 years, 3 months prison
Against Heinicker--1 year, 6 months prison
Against Putzler--3 years, 9 months penetentiary
Against Liebscher--7 months prison
Against Heger--Suspension on account of amnesty.

On May 15, 1935 the Criminal division number 12 of the Supreme Court in Dresden pronounced the verdict, by which on account of offences against Art. 340 of the Penal Code the following were sentenced:

Jaehnichen--to 6 years prison
Zikera--to 1 year, 6 months prison
Heinz Meier--to 3 years prison
Herbert Meier--to 3 years prison
Tuerke--to 3 years prison
Volkmar--to 2 years, 3 months prison
Leuschner--to 2 years, 6 months prison
Romkopf--to 2 years, 6 months prison
Karche--to 1 year, 8 months prison
Hausch--to 1 year, 4 months prison
Lehmann--to 3 years prison
Kuehnel--to 1 year prison
Stachowski--to 1 year, 6 months prison
Ude--to 1 year prison
Friedrich--to 1 year, 3 months prison
Schmeling--to 1 year prison
Konitz--to 1 year prison
Uhlmann--to 1 year prison
Sturzkober--to 10 months prison
Schupp--to 1 year, 6 months prison
Hensel--to 2 years prison
Heinicker--to 1 year, 6 months prison
Putzler--to 3 years, 9 months prison
Against Liebscher and Heger suspension was authorized
on the basis of the law governing amnesty.

After the proposal of the sentence, however, still before the announcement of the verdict, the chairman of the Criminal division number 12 received the following letter from the Reich governor [Reichsstatthalter] of Saxony:

"Official Seal

The Reich Governor [Reichsstatthalter] of Saxony II 84/35
Dresden-A.1, May 8, 1935
Mailbox 78 Telephone 24 371.

To the president of the Supreme Court Dr. Roth
[Landgerichtsdirektor]

Dresden
Pillnitzer Street 41

The President of the Supreme Court:
Sir:

As I was informed, it is proposed to impose a punishment of 3-1/2 years of penal servitude upon the accused Standartenfuehrer Jaehnichen. Without wanting to interfere in the proceedings or intending to influence you as Judge in any way before the verdict is announced, I should nevertheless like to once more call your attention to the fact that the circumstances, as they had been brought about by the revolution of 1933 and as they, without doubt were still taking effect up to the beginning of 1934, cannot be overlooked, when pronouncing sentence.

A further point appears to me to be worth taking into consideration, namely, the fact that one cannot accuse Jaehnichen of having a low character and that, above all, in Hohenstein the scum of humanity had to be attended to. In consideration of this fact I should like to leave it to you to consider whether the lapses call for such a severe degree of punishment or rather whether a pardon could not be considered.

As Gauleiter of NSDAP I regard it as my duty to call attention again to the unusual circumstances.

Heil Hitler
Signed: Martin Mutschmann."

Moreover the information has come to hand that the two magistrates (Schoeffen), who functioned as judges in the principal trial, namely, Regierungsamtmann Helbig and the merchant Pesler, had been expelled from the NSDAP after the announcement of the verdict. I do not know by whom this expulsion was ordered.

Finally it has been put to the assistant prosecutor, Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther, who is a storm trooper, after the pronouncing of the verdict on his Obersturmbannfuehrer, that he should resign from the SA.

The fact that these measures were taken at the same time as the verdict referred to above was pronounced, gives rise to the assumption that here also there is something below the surface. However, this would represent an extremely serious and highly undesirable conclusion to the legal and fully binding penal proceedings. If the letter from the Reich governor reproduced here gave the impression that his judicial decisions should be influenced from higher up, then this would certainly influence to an even greater extent any later measures instituted against the 2 magistrates. That kind of procedure against lay judges after the verdict had been pronounced would naturally and necessarily arouse the feeling that, when they are functioning as judges, they are responsible to a certain office for their work. Hereby the judicial unpartiality, which is the foundation of every orderly administration of criminal law becomes null and void. Moreover, the lay judge, who upon entering service, must swear an oath, that he will discharge his duties conscientiously and to the best of his ability, would find himself forced to battle with his conscience. No less serious would be the consequences of such measures for the assistant public prosecutor. This official would also have to battle with his conscience, while carrying out his duties. Thereby the orderly official work of the authorities for the administration of criminal law would be so seriously endangered that I would find myself obliged to consider the question whether in the face of such a state of affairs public prosecutors and judges could still be functionaries of the party or members of the SA at all.

Hence it appears to be necessary----

1. in the case in question to remove the confusion, resulting from the measures indicated above, by suitable countermeasures

2. to take steps that such occurrences altogether incompatible with the administration of criminal law and the public security guaranteed by the state are avoided.

I would respectfully request your comments and information with regard to any action in this direction. Considering the importance of this case, I would be obliged if you would reply as early as possible.

Heil Hitler!
Signed: Dr. Guertner.

2. A letter to the Chief of Staff of the SA of the NSDAP with a copy of the following accusation enclosed.

* * * * *

In regard to:
--to enter on page 1-- Confidential
Enclosed 1 loose leaf Personal
Chief of Staff:

Sir:

In the penal case, indicated above, which involved serious maltreatment of prisoners in the protective custody camp at Hohenstein in Saxony, the main trial was held in Dresden from 20th March to the middle of May 1935 before the 12th Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. In regard to the details of the incidents, may I refer to the enclosed copy of the Bill of indictment of October 1934 and particularly may I call attention to page 21 of the results of the inquiry. On May 3, 1935 the assistant prosecutor Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther imposed the following punishment:

* * * * *

Here has been received that it has been put to the assistant prosecutor Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther, who is a storm trooper, after pronouncing of the verdict on his Obersturmbannfuehrer, that he should resign from the SA. The fact that this measure was undertaken at the same time as the verdict referred to above was pronounced, gives rise to the assumption that here also then is something below the surface. However this would represent an extremely serious and highly undesirable conclusion to the legal & fully binding penal proceedings. The officials would have to battle with their conscience when carrying out their duties, if such procedure was in force. In this way the orderly official work of the authorities for the administration of criminal law would be so seriously endangered, that I would find myself obliged to consider the question whether in the face of such a state of affairs Staatsanwaelte could still be members of the SA at all.

Hence it appears to be necessary:

1. In the case in question to remove the confusion resulting from the measures indicated above, by suitable counter-measures.

2. To take steps that such occurrences altogether incompatible with the administration of criminal law and the public security guaranteed by the State, are avoided.

I would respectfully request your comments and information with regard to my action in this direction. Considering the importance of this case, I would be obliged if you would reply as early as possible.

3. to the Minister, confidential

4. 2 weeks.

Heil Hitler!
Signed: Dr. Guertner.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 785-PS

Z Stg. 10-9-35

_Subject_: Suit against Rudolf Jaehnichen and others for Mistreatment of Inmates of the Hohnstein Concentration Camp.

A further investigation which was ordered as well as a new verification of already known facts showed that the mistreatment of inmates which has led to the conviction of the accused were not carried out for any political purposes (to obtain a confession, to punish disciplinary infractions, etc.) or in response to previously suffered wrongs inflicted by Communists but were merely malicious torture or expressions of sadistic brutality.

A few cases of mistreatment occurred, however, where enemies of the State were involved. The Court in its sentence, however, considered that mistreatments in such cases to a certain extent were justified or at least understandable. But it expressly stated further that the mistreatments which occurred during interrogations had taken on proportions which were in no accord with the desired objective and that the defendants not only attempted to wring confessions from the inmates but that they acted in sheer lust for torture. (Compare Page 100 of the Sentence Document.)

The overwhelming majority of Cases, however, over which sentences were pronounced, represent mistreatments which occurred when the inmates first entered the institution, when they received their prison clothing, or during drill hours. These mistreatments were carried out without rhyme or reason. The fact that the defendants in these cases were motivated neither by political purposes nor by personal revenge against outrages suffered formerly can be learned from the following circumstances.

1. Amongst the mistreated persons there were quite a number that never belonged to any parties of the left. Some of them were even old members of the movement. The following cases are proof of that:

2. _Case Prueger_

On 6.3.1934 the Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front for the food industry, member of the Nazi Party, was brought in for offending the Kreisleiter and two other persons. When being brought in, Turke beat his face with his fist and subsequently, in a small room, he was heavily beaten with sticks, whips and other instruments. * * *

* * * 2. The methods as well as the detailed circumstances of mistreatment show that lust for torture was the only motivation in a great number of cases. The following case illustrates that fact especially well.

The defendant Schupp frequently had to supervise the drill of inmates. On 5 or 6 March 1935 he called the inmate Lindner out of formation without any apparent reason and asked him for his name and domicile. Then he pressed, without any cause, his burning cigarette upon the end of Lindner's nose with the result that the latter received a burn for which he later required medical treatment. The court in this case, as in several others, expressly maintains that Schupp only acted out of sheer lust of torture. * * *

* * * Furthermore, may I state as far as the question of further mitigation of sentences are concerned that the court in pronouncing sentence has already weighed to the fullest extent all possible mitigating circumstances, the awful consequences of cruel mistreatment of human beings should otherwise result in a far more severe judicial expiation. Also it must not be over-looked that altogether only those members of the concentration camp staff were brought into court who took an especially active and cruel part in the mistreatments. Furthermore, the sentence was not aggravated by the fact that the Court affirmed, for purely judicial reasons, that the defendants were officials and sentenced them for committing bodily harm while carrying out a public office. The sentence expressly states that the court did not stress the fact that the accused SA men were officials in determining the punishment because they had not received proper training as officials and they probably do not wish to be referred to as such. (Compare page 144 of the Sentence). In these circumstances the mitigation of sentences already granted in the decree of 31 October 1935 seem an extensive favor. If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence, based upon new evidence of some of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that, according to circumstances, the defendants in one or the other case of mistreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives.

As to what parts the individual defendants played in these criminal acts I refer to the last two columns in the table handed over with the report of 28 August 1935. The following statements as to the individual defendants may be made.

1. _Jaehnichen_:

Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.

Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 4 years 6 months.

Jaehnichen is an old member of the S.A. who through his bad example has fostered the increase of excesses, but at first he was motivated undoubtedly by a certain revolutionary anger and by the fact that he wanted to maintain exemplary discipline amongst the inmates. A further mitigating fact is that his participation in the unusually serious mistreatment of the Jew Ambross, who later committed suicide, was inspired by the belief that he was dealing in this case with a despoiler of German girls. With these facts, being what they are, a further reduction in sentence, amounting to one year, seems justifiable.

2. _Putzler_:

Sentence: 3 years 9 months imprisonment.

Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 2 years 6 months.

His sentence is based essentially on the especially cruel mistreatments during questionings of inmates. Even though his acts in this connection seem to be pure vindictive torture, as for example the use of the dripping device, one may, nevertheless, say that at least at first he was motivated by the desire to obtain truthful statements. On the other hand, Putzler participated in serious excesses also during times other than the questioning periods and played a leading part in them. To give an example, he tore out inmate Ricke's beard. A further reduction of the sentence by 6 months seems under these circumstances a far going favor * * *

* * * I want to remark, in conclusion, that the defendants as well as the defense, believe since 29.11.1935 that all defendants had been finally pardoned by the decision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. It is further to be learned from remarks by defendants not in custody that in case of a complete pardon those still in custody would leave prison under the accompaniment of a band or would be solemnly received by a band on return to their home town.

Appendix

Upon application of the Reich Minister of Justice I hereby grant in the case against Rudolp Jaehnichen and others, for mistreatment of persons committed to protective custody in Hohnstein Concentration Camp (16. St. A. 3431 34 Dresden prosecutor) the following mitigation of sentences as enumerated in Column 6: ---+---------------+-----------+-------------------+----------------------+ | | | of Sentence | of the Reichs | | | | granted thus | Minister of | | | |far. To be released| Justice. To be | | |Sentence | conditionally |Released Conditionally| | |Prison Term| after | after | | +------+----+---------+---------+---------+------------+ # | Name |Yrs. |Mos. | Yrs. | Mos. | Yrs. | Mos. | ---+---------------+-----+-----+---------+---------+---------+------------+ 1 | Jaehnichen | 6 | | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | | | | | | | | | 2 | Putzler | 3 | 9 | 3 | | 2 | 6 | | | | | | | | | 3 | Hanz Meier | 3 | | 2 | 6 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Herbert Meier | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | No further reduct. | 5 | Tuerke | 3 | | 2 | 6 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 6 | Lehman | 3 | | 2 | 6 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 7 | Leuschner | 2 | 6 | 2 | | 1 | 3 | | | | | | | | | 8 | Rohmkopf | 2 | 6 | 2 | | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 10 | Haensel | 2 | 6 | 1 | 6 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 11 | Karge | 1 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 12 | Sikora | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 28 days | | | | | | | | | 13 | Stachowski | 1 | 6 | No reduction | No reduction | | | | | | | | | 14 | Schupp | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 15 | Heinicker | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | | 9 | | | | | | | | | 16 | Hausch | 1 | 4 | | 8 | | 6 | | | | | | | | | 17 | Kuehnel | 1 | | | 9 | | 6 | | | | | | | | | 20 | Schmeling | 1 | | | 9 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 21 | Kahnis | 1 | | | 9 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 22 | Uhleman | 1 | | | 6 | No further reduct. | | | | | | | | | 23 | Stuerzkober | | 10 | | 6 | No further reduct. | ---+---------------+-----+-----+---------+---------+---------+------------+

Berlin December 1935
THE FUEHRER AND CHANCELLOR

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 786-PS

Note

1. Just now, at 1030, State Secretary Dr. Meissner telephoned and asked me to deliver the following message to the Minister, whom he had been unable to contact:

Concerning the pardon of those sentenced in connection with the maltreatment in the Hohnstein Concentration Camp, Herr Bouhler informed him yesterday that he had reported to the Fuehrer on the result of the fresh inquiries, which he and Reich Governor Mutschmann had instituted. The Fuehrer has now decided to remit all other sentences remaining. State Secretary Meissner wished to inform the Ministry of Justice of this, so that it might be made the subject of corresponding decrees. He, State Secretary Meissner, mentioned that the Minister of Justice had likewise been commissioned by the Fuehrer to carry out special inquiries, to determine in which cases the motives for maltreatment had been sadistic and therefore a pardon would be out of place. The Minister of Justice would have to be given the opportunity of reporting to the Fuehrer his ideas, based on his still inconclusive investigations. Herr Bouhler also stated that the Minister of Justice was still at liberty to do so. The Fuehrer merely desired that his inquiries be hastened as much as possible so that the statement could be made within the next few weeks and that, in any case, he submit a decree granting full pardon.

State Secretary Meissner, when finally summing up, therefore requested that, should the Minister not approve of a total pardon, a double decree be submitted.

2. The Minister for his favourable consideration.

Berlin, 29th November 1935
[Signature illegible]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 787-PS

Berlin, 18 June, 1935

The Reich Ministry of Justice
_Z.F. g 10 390/35_

1. Communication to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor with addition of a certified copy of B1. 9-10 d.A., thus far

Subject: Motion of the Reich deputy in Saxony concerning the nolle-prossing of the criminal procedure against Oberregierungsrat Vogel in Dresden on account of bodily injury while in office.

16 St.A 107/34 (StA.Dresden)
Inclosure: 1 loose sheet.

The prosecuting authority in Dresden has indicated Oberregierungsrat Erich Vogel in Dresden (case designation 16 STA. 4 107/34) on account of bodily injury while in office. The following subject matter is the basis of the case:

Vogel belongs to the Gestapo office of the province of Saxony since its foundation and is chief of Main section II, which formerly bore the title Zub [Zentralstelle fuer Umsturzbekaempfung] (Central office for combatting revolt). In the process of combatting efforts inimical to the State Vogel carried out several so called borderland actions in the year 1933 in which a large number of politically unreliable persons and persons who had become political prisoners in the border territories were taken into protective custody [Schutzhaft] and brought to the Hohnstein protective custody camp. In the camp serious mistreatment of the prisoners has been going on at least since summer of 1933. The prisoners were not only, as in protective custody camp Bredow near Stettin, beaten into a state of unconsciousness for no reason, with whips and other tools but were also tortured in other ways, as for instance with a drip-apparatus especially constructed for the purpose, under which the prisoners had to stand so long that they came away with serious purulent wounds of the scalp. The guilty SA-leaders and SA-men were sentenced to punishments of 6 years to 9 months of imprisonment by the main criminal court of the provincial court in Dresden of 15 May 1935 (16 StA. 3431.34). Vogel, whose duties frequently brought him to the camp, took part in this mistreatment, insofar as it happened in the reception room of the camp during completion of the reception formalities, and in the supply room, during issuing of the blankets. In this respect it should be pointed out that Vogel was generally known to the personnel of the camp--exactly because of his function as head of the Zub--and his conduct became at least partly a standard for the above-named conduct of the SA-leaders and men.

One of the border actions took place on 3 August 1935. Vogel had ordered the arrest of the persons who were brought to the camp at that time, and therefore also had responsibilities relative to their proper treatment. On account of the large number of those who were brought in, a pay office of the administration building in the lower castle yard was adapted as a makeshift reception room to help dispose of the formalities. The reception was being taken care of by Truppfuehrer [T/Sgt] Felix Sikora. He hit every incoming person without cause violently across the face with a steel ruler, so that it resounded loudly. In addition the prisoners, when brought in, were spoken to roughly and at the same time beaten, partly even literally pushed into the room. Vogel stayed in the reception room a long time and watched these proceedings without doing anything about them. In his presence, for instance, the SA-man Mutze dealt such blows to one man, without provocation, that he turned around on himself. As already stated, Vogel not only took no steps against this treatment of the prisoners, but he even made jokes about it and stated that it amused him the way things were popping here.

In the supply room Vogel himself took a hand in the beating amid the general severe mistreatment. The SA-man there employed whips and other articles and beat the prisoners in such a manner that serious injuries were produced, the prisoners partly became unconscious and had to lie in the dispensary a long time. Vogel was often present in the supply room during the mistreatment. At least in the following cases he personally laid violent hands upon prisoners.

a. On the occasion of the borderland action of 3 August 1933 Vogel was in the chamber in the rear portion of the area, where the prisoners as a rule do not enter. At first Vogel observed from there the severe mistreatment which was administered to the prisoners at the counter where the blankets were issued. Then he had a prisoner brought to the rear chamber and swung several blows of his fist at his head.

b. On 12 November 1933 Vogel arrived at the camp together with Regierungsrat Dr. Wolf from Leipzig and again entered the chamber. On this day several prisoners were brought in. Vogel pointed out one of the prisoners to the SA-men present in the room, among whom were Sturmmann Walter Rohmkopf, Truppfuehrer Herbert Meier, and Truppfuehrer Georg Lehmann, and declared, in effect, that this man "should get his ass particularly full". He also stated that the prisoner had offended or threatened one of his people. Upon this invitation the prisoner was laid across the counter in the usual manner, held fast by the head and arms, and then beaten for a considerable time by the SA men with whips and other articles. Along with this Vogel himself took part in the beating for a time, and after this mistreatment slapped him again, so that the prisoner appeared green and blue in the face. The prisoner is the tinsmith Hans Kuehitz, who bore the nickname Johnny. Upon his departure Vogel gave the head of the supply room, Truppenfuehrer Meier from 5 to 6 reichsmarks with the stated reason that the SA men "had sweated so". The money was then distributed by Meier to those SA-comrades who had taken part in the mistreatment.

Under the date of 20 May 1935 the Reich Deputy in Saxony forwarded to me with a recommendation Vogel's petition for nolle prossing dated 10 May, 1935, which was addressed to him, and a copy of which is attached.

I do not wish to approve this petition. The mistreatments which took place in the camp of Hohnstein are more numerous and in their fashion more serious than the cases of mistreatment in the well-known protective custody camp Bredow, near Stettin. As in the case of Bredow an authoritative official of the State Secret Police, in like manner as SS-Sturmfuehrer Dr. Hoffmann, shot on 30 June, 1934, knowing of the mistreatment and for the most part instigating it himself, Oberregierungsrat Vogel, as an authoritative member of the supervisory agency of the camp for the State Secret Police of Saxony, knew of the mistreatment and to an extent even took part in it. By his actions he supported the convicted SA-leaders and men in their deeds and thereby bears the largest part of responsibility for the criminal acts committed there. It would not be right to let this participant, who in view of his training, his position of leadership, and his office, must have recognized the objectionability of the proceedings in the camp with particular clarity, go unpunished while the SA-leaders and men received considerable sentences--even if not very severe in comparison with their deeds. A nolle prossing of the case against Vogel would represent unearned granting of favors to a more highly placed participant, and therefore one endowed with more responsibility, and would be considered as such by all persons involved. It would stand in starkest irreconcilable contradiction to the treatment of the Stettin cases.

Signed: Dr. Guertner

2. To the Minister, respectfully

3. 1 month.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 788-PS

The Secretary of the State and Chief of the Office of the President.

Berlin W8, 25 June 1935
Voss-Strasse 1

RP 3/52/35
_Your Nr. Z.F. g 10 398/35 of 18 June 1935_

Subject: Nolle-Prosse of Criminal Proceeding against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for committing bodily injury while in Office.

Before making a decision, the Fuehrer and Reich-Chancellor wants to discuss personally with the Reich-Governor of Saxony the complaints brought forward against Oberregierungsrat Vogel and the events connected with them. Therefore I shall withhold further information and request that until then further action on this procedure be also withheld.--

/s/ Dr. Meissner.

To the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin W 8.

* * * * *

The Secretary of the State and Chief of the Office of the President

Berlin W8, 9 Sept 1935
Voss-Strasse 1

_RP 3125/35 Your Nr. Z.F. g 10 398/35 of 18 June 1935_

Subject: Nolle-prosse of Criminal Proceedings against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for committing bodily injury while in Office.

With reference to my letter of 25 June 1935--RP 3152/35--I am able to inform you that the Fuehrer and Reichs-Chancellor has decided for annulment of the criminal proceedings against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for his having committed bodily injury.

On the Fuehrer's behalf I request presentation of the draft of the decree for annulment.--

/s/ Dr. Meissner

To the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 789-PS

[Penciled note:] Duplicate

Nov. 23, 1939, 1200 hours. Conference with the Fuehrer, to which all Supreme Commanders are ordered. The Fuehrer gives the following speech: