Auschwitz trial; the absurdity of Justice; Weiszacker
Not sure if any charges were brought against, or needed to be brought against:
Wilhelm Ohnesorge d. 1962 , worked on nuclear development.

This is contradicted not only by statements from former prisoners and Auschwitz commandant himself. The basic German document on crematorium output, prepared by the Central Construction Board in Auschwitz on June 28, 1943, states that the five crematoria in the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps, together, can burn 4,756 corpses in a 24-hour period. This document indicates that the Birkenau crematoria could burn 1.6 million bodies per year.source: Auschwitz Museum, on Denial

…”These figures were then reported by telegram to the official bookkeeper stationed in the Imperial Security Authority (Reichssicherheithauptamt: RSHA) and responsible for recording the mass murder. He logged the total number of deportees, the number of detainees brought to the camp and the number of those gassed.” (RsHa) (ibid)

“In about 900 days more than 600 death trains with over one million Jews and 20,000 Sinti and Roma arrived in Auschwitz. The SS was involved in mass extermination day after day—day and night.” Auschwitz Researcher, Werner Renz (ibid)
Forty years since the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial
Part one—a belated inquiry

By Sybille Fuchs
27 April 2004
The following is the first in a three-part series of articles.

Judge: Did you see anything of the camp?

2nd witness: Nothing
I was just glad to get out of there

Judge: Did you see the chimneys
At the end of the platform
Or the smoke and glare?

2nd witness: Yes
I saw the smoke

Judge: And what did you think?

2nd witness: I thought those must be the bakeries
I had heard
They baked bread in there day and night
After all it was a big camp

(The Investigation by Peter Weiss, Frankfurt 1965)

An exhibition commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Auschwitz trial opened on March 27 in the House of Gallus in Frankfurt-Main. On display is material from the Fritz-Bauer-Institute documenting the “Trial against Mulka and others”. A DVD edition of the trial protocols has also recently been issued.

The Auschwitz hearings marked the first time some of the individuals responsible for the Nazis’ machinery of extermination were brought before courts in the former German Federal Republic. The court case opened on December 23, 1963, in the Römer, Frankfurt’s town hall, nearly 20 years after the end of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials, and ended on August 19, 1965.

As is well known, the response of German courts to the Nazi regime and its monstrous crimes is one of the most disgraceful episodes in West German justice. Opposition to trials of this kind was widespread in the 1950s and 60s within Germany’s legal and political elite.

None of Auschwitz’s three leading concentration camp commanders were still alive at the start of the trial. Rudolf Höss and Arthur Liebehenschel had been tried and executed in Poland in 1947, in accordance with an agreement made between the Allied forces. Others who bore chief responsibility, like the notorious concentration camp Doctor Mengele, were able to flee and remain in hiding in South America. Richard Baer, the last camp commandant of Auschwitz, declined to give any testimony during the preliminary investigations to the Frankfurt proceedings. He died in detention while investigations were pending and all legal action against him was dropped. The Frankfurt trials were therefore only concerned with some lower level assistants to these camp commanders.

But it was perhaps precisely because the trial did not deal only with leading members of the SS, but with their underlings, that the case and the detailed media coverage that accompanied it provided West Germans with their first comprehensive picture of the seemingly banal daily routine of the ghastly extermination machinery at Auschwitz. The trial, thereby, played a significant role in politicizing West German youth.

That West Germans began to closely follow the Auschwitz hearings was largely due to the testimony of 359 witnesses from 19 countries, including 211 camp survivors. The trial, which required witnesses to recall the terrible events with the precision that is required in a criminal prosecution, often put excessive demands on the survivors. The accused, flanked by their defenders on benches normally occupied by the town councilors, were, for the most part, indifferent to the proceedings.

Behind them, in front of high windows, hung two large display boards depicting sketches of Auschwitz I (the main concentration camp) and Auschwitz II (the extermination camp at Birkenau). With the magistrates sat the assize court, at that time three professional judges and six magistrates sworn in as jurors. Judge Hans Hofmeyer chaired the proceedings.

The trial was scheduled to last 20 months and commenced in the Römer hall, at the time the only venue in Frankfurt capable of holding those involved in the proceedings. In the spring of 1964, hearings were moved to the Bürgerhaus Gallus, built especially for that purpose, and where they were continued until the trial’s conclusion. Approximately 20,000 visitors attended the proceedings over the ensuing months.

Six of the accused were given life sentences on charges of murder or for being jointly responsible for murder, and eleven received maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment. Three were acquitted due to insufficient evidence and two of the accused were not put on trial because of illness or death. The challenge facing the judges was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the accused was individually complicit in the crimes. This difficult standard was also the reason for the relatively mild sentences, which were considered inadequate by many of the surviving victims of Nazism.

Of the more than 6,000 (other sources say 8,000) former members of the SS who guarded Auschwitz between 1940 to 1945, only 22 came before the Frankfurt court, among them a former “operative prisoner” or so-called “kapo”. In the 20 months of court proceedings, those accused showed no trace of insight or regret.

The sentences bore no relation to the crimes for which the perpetrators were individually or jointly guilty. At least three million Jews and a similar number of political prisoners, Sinti, gypsies or homosexuals were sent to be gassed in Auschwitz or [other camps and who] died through forced labour, starvation and cold, bestial medical experiments, arbitrary beatings or shootings. The camps were located throughout Germany. Birkenau extermination camp alone could accommodate 100,000 prisoners.

The road to the trial

The fact that the trial even occurred was the outcome of two more or less accidental and not immediately connected events. As Werner Renz of the Fritz-Bauer-Institute explained in a recent essay, if circumstances had been only slightly different, “the Auschwitz trial would not have occurred forty years ago”.[1]

Adolf Roegner, a former Auschwitz inmate and a kapo, was also a Bruchsal prisoner convicted of “perjury and making false statements while not under oath”. In a letter to Stuttgart’s attorney general dated March 1, 1958, he referred to Wilhelm Boger, a former member of the Auschwitz camp Gestapo. In this letter he accused Boger of crimes in Auschwitz, and cited Boger’s home address and workplace.

The authorities hesitated to act, but two months later, after representations from International Auschwitz Committee General Secretary Hermann Langbein, whom Roegner had also contacted, investigations commenced. In his interrogation Roegner named other members of the Auschwitz SS. Finally an arrest warrant was issued against Wilhelm Boger, but it was not until October 8, 1958, seven months later, that he was arrested at his workplace. Those accused by Roegner—Stark, Broad and Dylewski—were taken into investigative custody in April 1959.

Independently, Frankfurter Rundschau reporter Thomas Gnielka sent documents to Hessen Attorney General Fritz Bauer in mid-January, 1959. Gnielka received the material from Frankfurt resident Emil Wulkan, another concentration camp survivor. Wulkan had originally taken possession of the documents from a burning SS court at Breslau in May 1945. He showed them to Gnielka in December 1958, while making a reparation application. The journalist identified them as Auschwitz execution files.

The documents, which were from Auschwitz concentration camp commandants and members of the SS and XV Breslau police courts from 1942, listed prisoners shot during alleged escape attempts. Thirty-seven SS members involved in the shootings, including Stefan Baretzki, were also named. In order to give these killings the appearance of legality, the victims were found guilty according to existing regulations and their SS murderers duly acquitted.

Attorney General Fritz Bauer used the documents to establish Frankfurt-Main county court jurisdiction over the Auschwitz-complex—a move finally accepted by the national court in April 1959. Only then was it possible to systematically initiate preliminary investigations and arrest the Auschwitz criminals.

Bauer, a social democrat who had been forced to flee Germany because of his politics and his Jewish origin, was one of the few jurors of the former Federal Republic who attempted to seriously prosecute those responsible for the Nazi crimes. Having previously encountered a wall of resistance to his endeavours, he now seized the opportunity to get the trial underway.

Bauer wanted to turn the proceedings into an investigation of the “Final solution to the Jewish question” which had been implemented by the Nazis in Auschwitz. He therefore tried to involve experts from the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. For him the main consideration was not the sentencing of individual perpetrators, but providing a historical clarification of what had taken place. The trial definitively revealed the claims by the extreme right that no one was ever gassed in Auschwitz to be the foulest of historical falsifications.

A young Christian Democratic Union state representative from Mainz by the name of Helmut Kohl, who later acknowledged that “thankfully he was born too late,” opposed Bauer, arguing that the fall of the so-called Third Reich was too recent and therefore prevented an historical judgment being made “of National Socialism”. Kohl, the longtime Federal Republic chancellor and immediate predecessor of Gerhard Schröder, articulated a view that was broadly held in political circles within the Federal Republic.

Fascism & the Holocaust:
A critical review of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners
[17 April 1997]

1. 40 Years Auschwitz-Trial: An unwanted proceedings by Werner Renz,

source: World Socialist web site *1( source of footnote)

The Quandts

Silence of the Quandts: The history of a wealthy German family
A documentary film by Eric Friedler and Barbara Siebert
By Emma Bode and Brigitte Fehlau
29 November 2008

A remarkable film, The Silence of the Quandts, which won the Hans Joachim Friedrichs prize for television journalism, deals with the unscrupulous rise of one of Germany’s richest and most influential families. The Quandts own 46.6 percent of the auto manufacturer BMW, have an estimated fortune of €20 billion and are implicated in the crimes of Hitler’s Nazi regime. Today, against the background of a financial and economic crisis that evokes the events of the 1930s, the film is of particular relevance.

[allegedly] The Quandts owe their wealth directly to their support of the Nazi regime and the bloody exploitation in the concentration camps—something the family is unwillingly to discuss. No family member has ever been indicted for the crimes that occurred in their company-owned concentration camps, nor has the family paid any compensation to the victims who survived.

The documentary, directed by Eric Friedler and Barbara Siebert, recounts the history of this family and the origins of their fabulous wealth. The filmmakers undertook extensive research between 2002 to 2007 in various German and foreign archives, uncovering documents that would have provided sufficient grounds for an indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal for crimes against humanity. Benjamin Ferencz, a lawyer and former prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, who was shown all the documents, expresses his conviction that the evidence was sufficient for a prosecution and expresses his regret that the Quandts evaded punishment.

In 1943, and with direct support from the SS, the Quandts were able to establish a company-owned concentration camp directly alongside their battery works in Hanover. KZ (Concentration Camp) Hanover, a satellite of KZ Neuengamme, exploited the labour of both Jews and resistance fighters, as well as forced labour from France and Czechoslovakia. Prisoners from the KZ Neuengamme were selected for hard labour at the Quandt battery works.
More on the trials.

new :
Ernst von Weizsäcker (right) was apparently Hitler’s desire to Weizsäcker on the 24th March 1937 appointed as Secretary. A year later, on 1 April 1938, was Weizsäcker First Secretary of the Foreign Office. At the same time he was the Nazi party with the PG-No. 4814617 joined.

The SS honor leaders were conducted in-service book of the SS (Weizsäcker as SS man No. 293 291), without having to be turned gistered member of the SS.

In March and June 1942, written by von Weizsäcker, Franz Rademacher, head of the “Jewish section” in the Foreign Office, on “Future action against hybrids grade I and II” [6] and the “question of sterilization of the 70 000 half-breeds” [7] informed.

Despite apparently serious differences with his boss, Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, to whom he owed his career so far, Weizsäcker remained until 1943 in this function. Then he resigned. His successor as Secretary of State on 31 March 1943, the previous Assistant Secretary *Gustav Adolf Steengracht of Moyland (d 1969 amnestied). *

Weizsacker was on 24 June 1943 in the face of imminent defeat at his own request (as the first and only German SS officer) to the German ambassador to the * Holy See in Rome appointed. With the liberation of Rome in June 1944, the German embassy was moved to the Vatican, where Weizsaker remained even after the surrender of Germany until August 1946. Even after the war, in September 1945, he argued that Germany had “opened in the east the boundaries too far” in the 1920s. ? had “attracted many Jews inflation” and that they had “developed into a great power.” [8]

To Pope Pius XII. and **Father Robert Leiber (d. 1967, “Ratlines” ), he had claims to an amicable relationship.

Heinrich Ernst von Weizsacker first went voluntarily under the papal protection and commitments made by France as an independent witness to Nuremberg, where he was arrested in July 1947 by the Americans. In Nuremberg – the so-called Wilhelmstrasse process – he was indicted as war criminal.

Weizsacker was defended by Hellmut Becker and Warren Magee. On 6 February 1948 Others questioned the diplomat and jurist Otto groom as a witness. [9] On 14 April 1949 Weizsacker for his active involvement in the deportation of French Jews to Auschwitz, denouncing a crime against humanity due to 5 years in prison. He was on **16 October 1950 from the War Crimes Landsberg prison in the wake of a general amnesty released. [10] the court were on the date of the appeal before but not all known documents. His son, Richard von Weizsacker was in the process find Sigismund von Braun for his help defense and pleaded, as then, all the defenders to the utter ignorance and virtual innocence of his father. He said the sentence later still as “historically and morally unjust.” [11]

**Ernst von Weizsäcker deportation orders had been signed for French Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camp. [12] In court, he defended himself by arguing that eligible Jews were interned and in danger was. We could have very easily come to the conclusion that they would run in the deportation to the East less danger than their present residence; at that time had the name Auschwitz meant for anyone nothing special. The judges, however, doubted this representation.

To maintain its strategy, learn of the death camps after the war and the veiled language of “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” and the “shift in the East” not viewed to have been used by most former employees of the Foreign Office. However, there are indications of the existing knowledge of the criminal actions of the Nazi regime against Jews, for example, the lecture notes of 10 December 1941 the Undersecretary of State Luther, participants of the Wannsee Conference. These he had prepared for action by the task forces for the Foreign Minister.

**Weizsacker has taken note of and provided with his initials. The report of “Judaism” contains the following:

“In the realm Ostland was […] an arrest campaign of all Jews […] started, […] about 2,000 […]. The male Jews over 16 years old, with the exception of the doctors and elders of the Jews executed […]. In Ukraine, as retaliation for the arson in Kiev where even all the Jews were arrested and the end of September this year a total executed more than 33 000 Jews. In Zhitomir more than 3,000 Jews were shot to prevent the incitement of sabotage by her. In the area east of the Dnieper approximately 5,000 Jews were shot. ”

Which the Activity and Management Report No. 6 of the Einsatzgruppen was attached. There you will find the following passage:

“The solution to the Jewish question in particular in the area east of the Dnieper by the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD taken vigorously addressed. The command of the newly occupied areas were made free of Jews. While 4891 Jews were liquidated. ”

In 1950 he published his memoirs written in prison, in which he sought to justify his role during the Nazi era and highlighting his achievements as a “man of resistance. ” [liar]

On 4 August 1951 Weizsäcker died at a hospital in Lindau on Lake Constance a stroke.
of possible interest:

Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of the New World Order.[15]
Malachi Martin, Dr.


Ludwig Kaas
Later that month, from 15 March, he was the main advocate supporting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act in return for certain constitutional and, allegedly [9] ecclesiatic guarantees.Heinrich Brüning, who denounced Kaas in his own memoirs written in exile and not undisputed among historians.[15]Josef Müller d. 1979 Resistance to Hitler, a Bavarian lawyer, would travel to Rome from Berlin with instructions from Hans Oster or Hans von Dohnanyi (also Resistance to Hitler)

Pasqualina Lehnert, helped Jews and refugees. and Augustin Bea,(1968) helped influence Vat II.The Church and the Jewish People (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: