From the series, “Corrections to History of our Time – The Great Wendig”, Volume 3, page 670. Published by Grabert Verlag, D-72066 Tübingen, Postfach 1629, Germany.
Blackmailed Witnesses before the Military Tribunals of the Allies
By Dr. Rolf Kosick.
Translated by Dagmar Brenne
Within the framework of the victors’ Justice System in 1945 other military court processes against German politicians and soldiers took place, apart from Nuremberg. These proceedings, taking place under the lofty claim of dispensing justice and to leverage law, infringed to a great extent commonly held principles of law (1). In particular the prosecutors tried false witnesses statements with spurious accusations to appear truthful and to prevent witnesses from giving their statements. For this purpose, many witnesses were threatened with heavy punishments, such as being extradited to the Soviets or the French, which meant certain death at the time in case they did not reveal, as desired, and often made to give false accusations of the accused, who were then condemned, in spite of their innocence. Prime examples and widely known were the cases of the Ministerial director Dr. Friedrich Gauss(2) and General Field Marshal Erhard Milch(3) at the “main war criminal process” in Nuremberg. But also many other processes were handled in a similar manner by the accusing side.
The
Nuremberg Palace of Justice
Further scandal consists of the fact that these extorted statements, which bear no semblance to the truth, are now, today, assumed by the German post-war public and by historians cited as true, as well as proof, and are used to enlarge German guilt.
The Frenchman Maurice Bardéche dedicated an entire chapter to "Witnesses under duress“ in his book(4). Several examples are briefly quoted here..
Maurice
Bardéche 
Maurise bardéche's
book „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“, Karl Heinz
Priester, Wiesbaden 1957
1 In the shorthand report of the Weizsäcker-Process of 3. März 1948, which describes the interrogation of the witness Eberhard von Thadden by the defense counsel for the accused , Dr. Schmidt-Leichner, we read:
1) Question: Did they tell you at the hearing that it could be possible to hand you over to the French authorities?
Answer: Yes
Question: I beg your pardon?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Would you please give the High Court some explanations?
Answer: I have been made to understand that there remain two possiblities, to either make a confession or to be extradited to the French authorities. Before a French court, I would be sure to receive the death sentence. They gave me respite for twenty four hours in which I had to consider my choice(3)“.
2) In the same process the interrogation of Mr. Haeflinger by the lawyer Dr Siemers on 11th May 1948 resulted in:
Question: Did you yet have a hearing or not?
Answer: I was interviewed by Mr. Sachs after my arrest und he threatened me to hand me over to the Russian authorities, because I was a Swiss national and since I referred to my Swiss nationality, he drew my attention to the fact that there were no diplomatic relations between Russia and Switzerland(6).
3) In a memoir of the defence counsel of Dr. Rudolf Aschenauer from June 1948 of the "Task Force Process“ it says:
"In the process of the “Task Force“, a daily newspaper in Berlin for example published, that all accused of this group that were not sentenced by the Nuremberg Courts were to be handed over to the Russian authorities, which resulted that nobody offered to be a witness. Almost all of the prisoners named as witnesses for the defense were first brought before the judge. They were subject to many threats, especially to be handed over to the Poles (7)“.
The employed „Nuremberg lawyers“ saw themselves hindered in many ways from
their investigative work (from left: Walter Siemens, Otto Kranzbühler und
Alfred Seidl)
4) In the same process the lawyer Dr. Georg Froeschmann made a request that said:
"Often persons, who had come as a witness for the accused were intimidated that they would be handed over to foreign authorities in order to prevent them from witnessing on behalf of the defendant. I am thinking, e.g. of persons such as the accused Berger, the witnesses Dr. Barthens, Bräutigam, Meurer and others. An interrogation of several witnesses would have established the correctness of these affidavits(8).“
Another method adopted was to prevent witnesses from giving their testimony. So associations of former politically interned people and the "Persecuted by the Nazi Regime,“ organized regular campaigns of intimidations in order to prevent exonerating witnesses from deposing. For this too Maurice Bardéche quotes examples:
1) The defence counsel Dr. Alfred Seidl noted in his plea for the engineer Walter Durrfeld before the US-military Court VI that: "The actual difficulties of the defence became evident in particular severeness with the former internees who had worked in the Auschwitz I.G. Farben factory. As far as political internees were concerned the difficulties became insurmountable and statements of witnesses impossible, because the Organisation for the "Persecuted by the Nazi regime“ forbade its members to plead for the accused. It happened too, that members, who witnessed regardless and gave sworn statements, were put under duress to force them to withdraw their statements. It was natural that it was impossible to establish the truth under those circumstances.“
2) Professor Dr. Wahl from the University in Heidelberg confirmed this in a memorandum in regard to the I.G. Farben-Process: 'The defence at times encountered the greatest difficulties. The group of the ''politically abducted'' for instance, who worked in Partnership with the accusers, let the members who formerly worked for I.G. Farben know that they were not allowed to witness in favour of the defendant at the process(9).“
3) Fritz H., political interned until 1945, living at Fellbach near Stuttgart, wrote in a letter on 9. June 1948 to Bishop Wurm of Stuttgart, that he, as a member of an organisation for political prisoners, is notified by the "Union of the Persecuted of the Nazi Regime“ (V.V.N.) that "the counsels for the prosecution in the I.G. Farben-process, Messrs. von Halle and Minskoff, had informed the V.V.N. in Stuttgart, precinct Frankfurt, that I was not likely to having been a political prisoner, interned in a Concentration camp, but rather, I had possibly committed crimes against humanity.... The reason for these maneuvers was clear. After trying to intimidate me with this declaration by the V.V.N. and especially after they made it known to suspect me of having committed crimes against humanity, they assumed I would refrain from testifying. After having organised my affairs in case of an arrest, I went to Nuremberg to make my testimony. The well-known lawyer Dr. Seidl will be able to described the behaviour of Messrs. von Halle and Minskoff during my interrogation.“(10)
Part of the total of 23 accused in the „I.G. Farben–trial“. - Walter
Durrfeld marked x. It is remarkable that none of the employees of I.G.
Farben was sentenced to a high prison term or the death penalty, even though
the company and its sister company Degesch were engaged in Auschwitz.
4) At the interrogation before the US Military Court VI, D. from K., a political prisoner, declared: "I wish to make the point, that there have been attempts made to get me into trouble. When members of the “organization of the racially persecuted” heard that I was to witness, they even tried to arrest me. They had no qualms to inquire of friends that had been my fellow internees if I had hit Jews or others during that time, in order to find a reason to apprehend me and prevent my journey to Nuremberg.“(11)
5) A Waldemar H. stated in his statutory declaration on 17. February 1948 in Landsberg: "One of my witnesses for the defence, Herr Friedrich D. , former internee of the concentration camp Buchenwald, declared in front of witnesses that he had been threatened with heavy acts of revenge in case he would witness in favour of a defendant in the Nuremberg war crime tribunal. In my own process(11) several former internees of the concentration camp Buchenwald, without even being ordered by the defence and of their own accord, travelling by truck from Hamburg to Nuremberg, wanted to witness in favour of me. The Communist Party of Hamburg stopped their truck on the Highway and prevented them from witnessing in my process (statutory declarations can be supplied) (12)“.
6) The defence counsel Dr. Rudolf Aschenauer reported in a memoir of June 1948 in Nuremberg: "The deputy to the High Court judge in Leipzig, Herbert Meyer, demanded a statutory declaration under oath from his stenotypist. Since he did not obtain the declaration according to his wishes, he threatened the young girl that in a few minutes he would return with a Russian officer. She was to think about the matter meanwhile. Through this threat he received the statutory declaration.“
In the same memoir the above named Lawyer documented: "By judges (but also through non-judging persons) at the hearing they are immediately threatened and put under moral duress; with false statutory declarations; with handing over to Russian or other authorities (Lorenz, Hübner); with remarks what this would mean to them and their families (Lorenz, Hoffmann, Schwalse, Sollmann, Brückner, Greinfelt); or with hanging (Schwalm). "We are going to hand you over to the Russsian authorities and you know you will not live another twenty four hours“ (Greifelt). On the other hand they were given hidden assurances, if they would witness correctly, i.e. as requested, they would need not fear any accusation. (Viermietz, Hünet).(13)“
Annotations
1 Contribution “The case Gaus at
the Nuremberg Trial”
2 Contribution Nr. 374, “The case Gaus at the Nuremberg Trial”
3 Contribution Nr, 662, “General Field Marshal Milch was to be blackmailed”
4 Maurice Bardéche „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“(„Nuremberg or the
counterfeiters“), Karl Heinz Priester, Wiesbaden 1957, Pages 86 – 105
5 Ibidem P. 91
5 Ibidem
6 Bardéche Ibidem, P. 92
7 Ibidem
8 Ibidem P 94
9 Bardéche Ibidem P 94 f
10 Ibidem P 95
11 Bardéche Ibidem P 98
12 Ibidem P 100