Bergen Belsen Camp: Trial of Josef Kramer and 44 others by Javier Pérez

Author:Javier Pérez [Pérez, Javier]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Published: 2015-03-14T22:00:00+00:00

Part VIII

The Closing of the Case for the Defence (Contd.)

Major Winwood's Closing Speech on Behalf of Kramer, Dr. Klein, Weingartner and Kraft

Major Munro's Closing Speech on Behalf of Hoessler, Bormann, Volkenrath and Ehlert

Major Cranfield's Closing Address on Behalf of Klippel, Grese, Lobauer and Lothe

2. Major Winwood’s Closing Speech on Behalf of Kramer, Dr. Klein, Weingartner and Kraft

Major Winwood did not dispute the fact that Kramer, Klein and Weingartner were for certain periods members of the staff at both camps and therefore, to a certain degree, responsible for their administration. The degree of their responsibility should be considered according to the period during which they were at the camps and the positions which they held. He would, however, invite the Court to say that Kraft was never at Auschwitz, that he spent three days in the Wehrmacht barracks at Bergen, and that he was never a member of the staff of Belsen concentration camp. Any remarks that he would make with regard to the conditions and responsibility at Auschwitz or Belsen should therefore be considered as confined to Kramer, Klein and Weingartner.

He drew a distinction between Auschwitz and Belsen. At Auschwitz thousands of people were killed in the gas chamber; at Belsen thousands of people died.

Counsel submitted that orders regarding the gassing of victims at Auschwitz came, not from Kramer as Kommandant of Birkenau but from the Kommandant of Auschwitz No. 1. There was a political department at Auschwitz No. 1 which was responsible for the incoming transports and there was evidence that a member of this department used always to be present at the selections of the incoming transports. The political department was the organisation responsible within the camp Auschwitz, under the Camp Kommandant of Auschwitz, for bringing internees into the camp and for their ultimate disposal. Over this disposal, Kramer had no authority, and his real position should be compared with that of a Commanding Officer of a transit camp, whose responsibility was confined to the administration of the people inside the camp until a posting order was received. Reference was made to the evidence of Kramer, Dr. Klein, Dr. Bendel and Hoessler in this connection. (Footnote: See pp. 20, 36, 39, 41 and 42)

On behalf of Klein, Counsel pleaded superior orders. The accused had admitted that, acting on orders by his superior officer, he made the selections of the incoming transports. He further said that he never protested against people being sent to the gas chamber, although he had never agreed with it. One could not protest when in the Army. The order which he was given and which he carried out, was in itself lawful, namely to divide prisoners into those fit for work and those unfit for work. If he had refused to make the selections himself other doctors would have done it. A British soldier could refuse to obey an order and he would face a Court Martial when he had an opportunity of contesting the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the order which he had been given.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.