The accused Adolf Merkle began working at Hadamar in He knowingly made false entries as to the dates and causes of death of all the victims. Merkle was said by Ruoff to have been thoroughly familiar with what went on at the institution.
On the witness stand, he steadfastly denied that he knew the true state of affairs, or that he gave injections or saw any dead bodies. He believed that the persons died of tuberculosis or pneumonia. The accused Philipp Blum had been a doorman and telephone switch-board operator at the hospital since before , had served for a short period of time in the Luftwaffe, and had returned to Hadamar in After January he became the chief caretaker of the cemetery until he was again called up in August Probably only the first batch of Poles and Russians arrived during his presence at Hadamar.
Some bodies he buried without the approval of Dr. Wahlmann on his own belief that they were dead. He supervised the burial in mass graves of bodies, " more or less," of Russians and Poles.
He knew beforehand that the batch was to arrive and what was going to be done. He was in the ward in which the victims were put to bed, received injections, and died, and he waited for them to die knowing that he would then be required to bury them. There is also in the record one statement by Ruoff that Blum helped to administer the poisons which brought about the deaths. His own pre-trial statement indicates full knowledge on his part of what was intended and what actually did take place.
All the accused were found guilty. Klein, Ruoff and Willig were sentenced to be hanged ; Wahlmann was sentenced to life imprisonment ; and Merkle, Blum and Huber were sentenced to imprisonment for 35 years, 30 years and 25 years respectively. The sentences were confirmed by the Commanding General, HQ. Forces, European Theatre, and were put into execution. The Military Commission was appointed by a special order of the Commanding General, Western Military District, to whom authority had been delegated by the Commanding General, United States Forces European Theatre, who in turn derived his powers from a delegation by the President of the United States.
The traditional jurisdiction of American Military Commissions to try offenders or offences against the law of war has been recognised by statutes enacted by the Congress of the United States, particularly by the Statute known as the " Articles of War. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States Congress had recognised Military Commissions and preserved their traditional jurisdiction over enemy combatants. In the present case, the accused were not combatants but enemy civilians.
Under the common law of war, the jurisdiction of American Military Commissions comprises also jurisdiction over civilians. The accused were only charged with the killing of human beings of Polish and Russian nationality. This is important for two reasons In view of 2 , the Commission had to decide the question whether it could assume jurisdiction despite the fact that the crime, committed by foreigners outside United States territory, had not affected United States nationals.
Provided that the acts, with which the prisoners were charged and of which they eventually were found guilty, were violations of the laws of war,. The accused were charged with " Violation of International Law. In view of the restriction of the trial to crimes against allied nationals, it was certainly unnecessary to decide whether, in addition to the violation of the laws and customs of war, provisions of any other branch of International Law had been infringed, for instance, those provisions of International Law which now have been laid down under the heading " crimes against humanity.
It was established in the proceedings that the victims were Polish and Soviet nationals, but nothing was said as to whether they had been inhabitants of German-occupied Soviet and Polish territory, deported for labour into Germany.
The Military Commission was, of course, in a position to take judicial notice of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Soviet and Polish citizens from occupied territory had been compulsorily deported to Germany for work.
This being so, it was obvious that this was a war measure and the murdering of these deported allied nationals a war crime. The accused were not members of the German armed forces, but personnel of a civilian institution. The decision of the Military Commission is, there-. The accused invoked in their defence the alleged fact that a German law or decree enacted under the Hitler regime required that incurable persons should be put to death.
As a matter of fact the existence of this alleged German law or decree was not established by the Defence. There was the additional consideration that even if such a decree existed and if it made the killing of incurable persons legal, such provisions could not legalise the killing of other than German nationals, because under general rules of interpretation a rule of this kind would have to be interpreted strictly. Moreover, the accused could not prove that their victims had actually been incurable persons.
The present case is, therefore, not an express application of the principle that in the case of crimes like these it is irrelevant whether or not they were perpetrated in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
The accused also pleaded that they had acted under orders received from higher administrative quarters. They were not successful in this plea. The Military Commission applied to the relationship of civilian employees to their superiors the now well-established doctrine that individuals who violate the laws and customs of war are criminally liable in spite of their acting under a superior order, if the order was illegal.
The accused also pleaded coercion or necessity but the Military Commission considered this defence to be established neither in fact nor in law. The reason given by the officials and employees at Hadamar who directed. One p. He determined the nature and the amount of the drug to be given to each prospective p.
He could not ask to be dismissed p. This is important for two reasons :- 1 Crimes committed against Germans and other Axis nationals were outside the scope of the trial, the Military Commission thus not being vested with or assuming jurisdiction over what in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal are called " crimes against humanity " as far as they are not simultaneously violations of the laws and usages of war ; and 2 Among the victims of the accused, there were no persons of United States nationality nor had the crimes been committed on United States territory or by United States nationals.
The Commission decided the question in the affirmative. This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one? Add another edition? Trial, held Oct. Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help? Alfons Klein. Donate this book to the Internet Archive library. If you own this book, you can mail it to our address below. Not in Library. Want to Read. Buy this book Better World Books When you buy books using these links the Internet Archive may earn a small commission.
Yalta Crimea Conference. The Moscow Declaration on Atrocities. Major Trials. Auschwitz Trials. Sobibor Trial. Einsatzgruppen Trial. RuSHA Case. Doctors Trial. Nuremberg Trials. Single Defendant Cases. John Demjanuk. Josef Scheungraber. Josias Kumpf. Ladislav Niznansky. Julies Viel.
0コメント