. NMT05-T0922
Volume V · Page 922
| a witness in his own behalf. Therefore, I do
not want to read the factual part of my final plea. I would only like to read
part of my final plea. 1 have reached the conclusion that a conviction under
counts one and two of the indictment cannot be considered, I shall now deal
with count four of the indictment. Up to now we only have the case of the defendant Poppendick who was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment under the fourth count of the indictment under Military Tribunal I. Here Military Tribunal I stated explicitly that the defendant Poppendick did have a certain knowledge about the human experiments in the concentration camps, which were the most horrible crimes. That is where the fundamental difference exists between that case and the one of the defendant Scheide, who had no knowledge whatsoever about the crimes in the concentration camps. It will have to be examined quite in detail how his case has to be judged. The International Military Tribunal in its verdict against Goering and others stated what they meant by membership in the SS as a criminal organization. The General SS, the Death Head units, and the Waffen SS are criminal organizations. However, the Reiter [Cavalry] SS and all police units with the exception of the Gestapo and the SD are not criminal organizations. The International Military Tribunal stated: that he who after 1 September 1939 was an official member in the SS organization which in connection with the war worked on the persecution and extermination of Jews committing atrocities and crimes in the concentration camps, abuses in the administration of foreign occupied territories, the execution of the conscription of labor, and also the abuse and extermination of PW's, is guilty if the following subjective characteristics of the offense exist in his case, namely, in spite of the fact that he knew he became voluntarily a member of the organization or remained in the organization. It will be considered as equal to the knowledge of the use for criminal purposes, if somebody, in his capacity as a member, was involved in the objective characteristics of an offense without realizing this, but if the circumstances were likely to make the purposes for which the organization was used appear as criminal, in short, if somebody was constrained to know the criminality of the organization on account of all circumstances. In the meaning of the verdict of the International Military Tribunal anybody acted voluntarily who would have been able to take any decision without being afraid that the State would be seriously prejudiced against him as a result. Not affected by the above stipulation is anybody who has made |
* Defendant in case of United States vs. Karl Brandt. et al., vols. I and II.
