Leipzig trials

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lieutenant General Karl Stenger (1859–1928), who was accused as a war criminal, left the Leipzig Imperial Court building on July 2, 1921 . His trial took place from June 29 to July 7, 1921 and resulted in an acquittal.

The Leipzig Trials are the criminal proceedings held between 1921 and 1927 before the Reich Court in Leipzig to deal with German war crimes in the First World War .

Starting position

The process of codifying the international law of war led to the Hague Land Warfare Regulations (HLKO), which the German Reich signed in 1907. Although most European states had transposed this into national law by 1911, the old elites resisted anchoring the rules in national military law. In the pre-war period, the German army command made no secret of its contempt for “sentimentality and soft emotional enthusiasm”.

Immediately after the start of the war, after the German Reich invaded neutral Belgium after an ultimatum contrary to international law and, in view of the unexpected resistance there, had acted with extreme severity against the civilian population ( Dinant massacre , destruction of the university city of Leuven ), the Allies raised serious allegations against them the German warfare raised and in the course of the war with the catchphrase " Rape of Belgium " also used effectively for propaganda purposes. As a result of German violence, over 6,000 civilians died in Belgium and northern France between August and October 1914 and numerous towns and cities were completely or partially destroyed. The image of war as a defensive struggle of civilization against the barbarism of the Germans depicted as "Huns" quickly established itself in the western world. Other globally noticed incidents such as the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 and the unrestricted submarine war against civilian merchant and passenger ships led by the German side since 1917 and justified in response to the British “ hunger blockade ” increased the demand for punishment of atrocities ( "horrors of war"), as they called the deeds abroad, participating German commanders and soldiers after the war.

After the Armistice of Compiègne on November 11, 1918, the Allied powers did not grant the German participants the amnesty for attacks committed during the war, which had been customary up to then . Not only the individual acts committed and the overall new character of the war as an "industry of killing" were decisive for this, but the fundamental conviction of the Allies that Germany was solely to blame for the outbreak of war (" war guilt question ") and, as the cause of the im Atrocities committed at war will be held accountable. This one-sidedness, which excluded misconduct on the Allied side and characterized German warfare as a whole as criminal, appeared to German representatives unbearable, so that the plans to prosecute German war criminals in Germany were viewed as unjust provocation on the part of the former enemies and were indignantly rejected by practically all political camps .

Treaty of Versailles

Criminal provisions

Part VII of the peace treaty contained criminal provisions, which provided for the public indictment against the former German emperor before a special Allied court for "the most serious violation of international morality and the sanctity of the treaties". This meant in particular the violation of Belgium's neutrality. The Dutch government was supposed to extradite Wilhelm II from exile for the purpose of his trial.

In the event of a conviction, the court should determine the sentence it deems appropriate to impose (Art. 227). The Tribunal should consist of five judges, each to be appointed by the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, who should “be guided by the highest principles of international politics” in their judgment and be concerned about “respect solemn commitments and international treaties as well as international morality ”.

According to Art. 228, 229, the Allies could also bring other persons to their national military courts for actions “contrary to the laws and customs of war”. All accused persons - including generals and high-ranking politicians as in Art. 230 of the treaty, the German government undertook to provide documents and information to fully assess the question of guilt.

A first draft of the delivery list contained around 3,000 names, but was thinned out significantly in view of the expected reception in Germany. On February 3, 1920, the European Allies submitted a list of 854 people who they wanted extradited. Among them were the former Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg , Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz .

Prosecution before the Reichsgericht

Creation of the sample list

On November 13, 1918, the Council of People's Representatives issued an ordinance examining the treatment of prisoners of war, and in August 1919 an investigative committee was set up to examine whether international law had been violated.

In December 1919 the National Assembly added the “Law for the Prosecution of War Crimes and War Offenses”, added in 1920 and 1921, on the final jurisdiction of the Reich Court for crimes and offenses committed by a German at home or abroad against hostile nationals or hostile property , adopted.

Regardless of the terms of the treaty, the Allied extradition demands met with rejection in large parts of the German population. Reich President Ebert spoke of the "heaviest of all demands" that the government had to fight off. The trials were seen as dishonorable and a national disgrace, as Allied war crimes such as the use of chemical weapons, the British naval blockade or the starvation of German prisoners of war were not discussed. A German "counter-list" to punish French war crimes was created.

The German Foreign Office and the German army refused to participate in the extradition of alleged war criminals, and the German government foresaw conflicts of loyalty among the executive organs. Through German concessions elsewhere and after giving in, in particular by British Prime Minister Lloyd George , the Allies agreed to the Reich government in February 1920 that trial trials against 45 named accused could be carried out.

The Reichsgericht then had to examine whether an act of war was justified by martial law and whether there was a violation of German criminal law. If the accused had acted willfully or negligently, his actions were punishable if Section 47 of the MStGB did not apply in his favor, which regulated the action on command .

Procedures carried out

The indictment before the Reichsgericht was usually represented by senior attorney Ludwig Ebermayer , and there were ten trials in which seventeen officers and one soldier were accused of having committed war crimes. Senate President Heinrich Schmidt opened the first trial on May 23, 1921. The judgments left no doubt that judicial neutrality ended where political interests or national honor were at stake. In the majority of cases, the bias has been hidden behind legal formalities. While the carefully selected four British cases were dealt with in detail, the less well-documented French and Belgian cases met with determined opposition from prosecutors and judges, so that the two observer missions of these states left after the first acquittals. Of the 861 cases that were dealt with by the Reichsgericht up to 1927, only 13 resulted in a conviction.

Lieutenant General Karl Stenger (1859–1928), who had been in command of the 58th Infantry Brigade in Baden in 1914 , was accused of having ordered his troops not to take prisoners. Generals Benno Kruska and Hans v. Schack was accused of failing to prevent the spread of a typhus epidemic among prisoners of war and of being responsible for the deaths of thousands. Lieutenant Adolf Laule, deployed in the Stengers Brigade in 1914, was accused of killing a French prisoner of war. Sergeant Max Ramdohr is said to have held and tortured Belgian children.

The Reichsgericht initially brought proceedings against the three former pioneers Dietrich Lottmann, Paul Niegel and Paul Sangershausen. The defendants were sentenced to several years in prison in January 1921 for looting in Belgium.

In three further proceedings, the subject of which was the mistreatment of English prisoners of war by the camp guards Karl Heynen, Emil Müller and Robert Neumann, the evidence led to the conviction of two times six and once ten months in prison.

The indictment against the former commander of the Prussian Guard Reserve Rifle Battalion , Walter Siegfried Bronsart von Schellendorf , who was accused of being jointly responsible for the Andenne massacre of August 19 and 20, 1914, because he is said to have given the order After the search of the houses of the village, all male residents of military age were easily killed with axes and bayonets, despite incriminating witness statements. He claimed the soldiers misunderstood him.

Llandovery Castle 1914 ( sunk as a hospital ship by U 86 in 1918 )

In the case of the attack on the hospital ship “ Dover Castle ”, the confessed lieutenant Karl Neumann was acquitted because, on the instructions of the German admiralty, the enemy hospital ships in the Mediterranean had been declared warships because of alleged abuse by the Allies and he of the legality of the order and his Execution could run out.

On the other hand, first lieutenants Karl Dithmar and John Boldt, accused of assisting in the bombardment of lifeboats in the sinking of the hospital ship " Llandovery Castle ", were sentenced to four years in prison for assisting in manslaughter in the killing of survivors - instead of the accused, but fleeing commandant Helmut Patzig . As a justification, the Reichsgericht stated that the prohibition on killing defenseless enemies and shipwrecked people was to be regarded as a simple and generally known rule of international law, the applicability of which there could be no factual doubt, so that the accused could not rely on the orders of their superiors. In May 1928, Dithmar and Boldt were acquitted in a retrial before the Reichsgericht; the proceedings against Patzig were dropped in March 1930.

Major Benno Crusius was also convicted - for negligent homicide to two years in prison - who admitted that Stenger's oral brigade order not to take prisoners without having passed it on to the companies under his control without examination.

Process results

Of the approximately 900 German military and civilians whose extradition was originally requested by the Allies, as well as several hundred other accused against whom the German authorities initiated investigations of their own accord in 1920 to demonstrate Germany's goodwill, only ten were in the end Sentenced to terms of between six months and five years in prison and seven acquitted (partly for lack of evidence). All other proceedings ended with a termination decision, the last being issued in 1931. Some convictions were later overturned.

Belgium and France were so angry that, from 1922, they tried and sentenced hundreds of Germans in absentia before their national courts, because the ruling practice of the Reichsgericht was viewed as a farce. The Reich Ministry of Justice issued instructions to the Reich Attorney General that all proceedings initiated in France and Belgium should end in Germany with suspensions. In this way, around 1,700 cases were suspended by the Leipzig Imperial Court by 1927.

The attitude of the German judiciary was expressed by the social democratic legal politician and former Reich Minister of Justice Gustav Radbruch , who was involved in handling the proceedings, in his memoirs:

“The war crimes trials were a heavy burden on the Reichsgericht. During my tenure, they first had to be treated dilatorily. (...) When ... the Supreme Council (of the Allies) clearly indicated its désintéressement from the further course of the war crimes trials, we no longer had any reason for further dilatory treatment. Now the numerous proceedings based on unfounded accusations ... have been discontinued. "

- Gustav Radbruch

reception

Abroad, the trials were received as a "legal farce," and the New York Times noted that some common soldiers and low-ranking officers had been tried as scapegoats by the Court for the Army and Nation. The German press castigated the trials as comedies in which German honor was to be further damaged and which, by keeping alive the memory of the atrocities of war, would have disrupted the peace process.

England credited the judges with having performed their difficult task without fear or favor. The imposed penalties are far too mild, but they have to be measured by their status within Germany ("far too light, but [...] they must be estimated according to their values ​​in Germany"). The Allied process observers, however, left Leipzig.

In research, the Leipzig trials are generally regarded as a failure that hardly deserves any attention or as a mere “Prologue to Nuremberg”. The mild prison sentences combined with early release and pardons would speak for themselves if a certain deterrent effect of criminal trials was applied as a yardstick to the Leipzig trials.

Indeed, the national judiciary was not able to prosecute its own nationals as war criminals. However, terms such as “war crimes” were discussed for the first time by the German judiciary and models of justification such as “war necessity” and “acting on command” were questioned, even if the German warfare was justified overall. The Leipzig trials document the first beginnings of modern international criminal law.

Since the Allies were not satisfied with the results of the trials, they did not want to leave the punishment of the main German war criminals to the Germans themselves after the Second World War, which in 1945 led to the establishment of the International Military Tribunal .

literature

  • Ludwig Ebermayer : Fifty years of service to the law. Memories of a lawyer, Leipzig 1930.
  • Gerd Hankel : The Leipzig trials. German war crimes and their prosecution after the First World War. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg 2003. ISBN 978-3-930908-85-1 ( table of contents ).
  • Carl Haensel: The Nuremberg Trial: Diary of a Defender. Moewig, Munich 1983, ISBN 3-8118-4330-3 .
  • Friedrich K. Kaul: The persecution of German war criminals in the first world war. In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft 14 (1966), pp. 19–32.
  • Arieh J. Kochavi: Prelude to Nuremberg: Allied War Crimes Policy and the Question of Punishment . University of North Carolina 1998, ISBN 0-8078-2433-X .
  • Alan Kramer: German war crimes 1914/1941. Continuity or break? In: Sven Müller, Cornelius Torp (ed.): The German Empire in the Controversy. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, pp. 341–358.
  • Judit Lenkovicz: Implementation of the ICC statute in Germany and Hungary. Legal history lectures, Budapest 2010.
  • Kerstin von Lingen : "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY" A controversial universal in international law of the 20th century. In: Zeithistorische Forschungen 8 (2011), issue 3.
  • Jürgen Matthäus: The Lessons of Leipzig . In: Atrocities on Trial . Ed .: Heberer and Matthäus, University of Nebraska 2008, ISBN 978-0-8032-1084-4 , p. 3 ff.
  • Kai Müller: Imprisoned loser justice after the First World War. In: Archiv des Völkerrechts 39 (2001), pp. 202–222.
  • Kai Müller: The Leipzig war crimes trials after the First World War. In: Bernd-Rüdiger Kern, Adrian Schmidt-Recla (ed.): 125 years of the Reichsgericht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-428-12105-8 , pp. 249-264.
  • Walter Schwengler: International Law, Versailles Treaty and the question of extradition. Prosecution for war crimes as a problem of the 1919/20 peace treaty. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1982.
  • Daniel Marc Segesser: Justice instead of revenge or revenge through justice? The Punishment of War Crimes in the International Scientific Debate 1872–1945. Schöningh, Paderborn 2010 (Habil. Bern 2006), in particular pp. 225-231.
  • Andreas Michael Staufer: Ludwig Ebermayer - life and work of the highest prosecutor of the Weimar Republic with special consideration of his work in medical and criminal law. Leipziger Universitätsverlag , Leipzig 2010, ISBN 3-86583-520-1 .
  • Bruno Thoss, Hans-Erich Volkmann (ed.): First World War - Second World War. A comparison. War, war experience, war experience in Germany. Schöningh, Paderborn 2002.
  • Wolfram Wette , Gerd R. Ueberschär (Ed.): War crimes in the 20th century. Primus Verlag, Darmstadt 2001.
  • Harald Wiggenhorn: Loser justice: The Leipzig war crimes trials after the First World War (studies on the history of international law, volume 10). Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2005, ISBN 978-3-8329-1538-4 ( review by Steffen Bruendel ).

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Kerstin von Lingen: "Crimes Against Humanity" A controversial universal in international law of the 20th century . Contemporary historical research, issue 3/2011, accessed November 3, 2018.
  2. ^ Jakob Zenzmaier: The Leipzig Trials (1921-1927). Between national shame and legal farce . The First World War, accessed November 3, 2018.
  3. ↑ See Alan Kramer: Atrocities , in: International Encyclopedia of the First World War , article version of June 14, 2016, accessed on September 14, 2016.
  4. ↑ New weapons in the First World War. The killing industry. In: FAZ , July 31, 2014; accessed on September 14, 2016.
  5. ↑ Kerstin Wolny: Is the crime of aggression punishable under today's international law? Critical Justice 2003, p. 48 ff., P. 50.
  6. ^ Volkmar Schöneburg: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Notes on legal history UTOPIE Kreativ, H. 94 (August) 1998, pp. 60–70.
  7. ^ Hansjörg Geiger: International Criminal Court and Aspects of a New International Criminal Code, Freundesgabe Büllesbach 2002, pp. 327–346.
  8. ^ A b Herbert R. Reginbogin: Confronting "Crimes Against Humanity", from Leipzig to Nuremberg Trials . In: The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945 / The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945 . Ed .: Reginbogin, Safferling, De Gruyter 2006, ISBN 978-3-11-094484-6 . P. 120 f.
  9. ^ Arieh J. Kochavi: Prelude to Nuremberg: Allied War Crimes Policy and the Question of Punishment . University of North Carolina 1998, ISBN 0-8078-2433-X , p. 2.
  10. ↑ of December 18, 1919 ( RGBl. P. 2125 )
  11. ↑ Law supplementing the law on the prosecution of war crimes and offenses of December 18, 1919 (RGBl. P. 2125) of March 24, 1920.
  12. ^ Act to further supplement the Act on the Prosecution of War Crimes and War Offenses of May 12, 1921.
  13. ↑ Andreas Toppe: Military and international law . Oldenbourg 2008, ISBN 978-3-486-58206-2 , p. 132.
  14. ^ Gerd Hankel: The Leipzig trials. German war crimes and their prosecution after the First World War. Hamburg 2003, p. 45.
  15. ^ Ypres: chlorine gas, mustard gas and the First World War
  16. ↑ Sönke Neitzel : The historic site of the First World War in the history of violence in the 20th century bpb , April 10, 2014.
  17. ^ Claus Heinrich Bill: Franco-German war crimes in the First World War 1914-1918. Directory of 267 victims and perpetrators in war crimes cases adelskartei.de, accessed on March 16, 2016.
  18. ^ Das Kabinett Bauer, extradition question files of the Reich Chancellery in the Federal Archives , accessed on September 13, 2016.
  19. ^ Military Criminal Code for the German Empire of June 20, 1872.
  20. ↑ Andreas Toppe: Military and international law . P. 132.
  21. ^ Jürgen Matthäus: The Lessons of Leipzig . In: Atrocities on Trial . Ed .: Heberer and Matthäus, University of Nebraska 2008, ISBN 978-0-8032-1084-4 , p. 9 f.
  22. ^ Jürgen Matthäus: The Lessons of Leipzig . In: Atrocities on Trial . Ed .: Heberer and Matthäus, University of Nebraska 2008, ISBN 978-0-8032-1084-4 , p. 15 f.
  23. ↑ Acquittal: Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2563
  24. ↑ Acquittal: Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2573
  25. ↑ Acquittal: Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2572
  26. ↑ Acquittal: Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2557
  27. ^ Gerd Hankel: The Leipzig trials. German war crimes and their prosecution after the First World War. Hamburg 2003, p. 71.
  28. ^ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Appendix No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2543 ; English: AJIL 16 (1922) 674
  29. ^ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Appendix No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2547 ; English: AJIL 16 (1922) 684
  30. ^ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Appendix No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2552 ; English: AJIL 16 (1922) 696
  31. ↑ John Horne, Alan Kramer: German war horrors 1914: The controversial truth. Hamburg 2003, pp. 56-59.
  32. ^ Gerd Hankel: The Leipzig trials. German war crimes and their prosecution after the First World War. Hamburg 2003, pp. 212-216.
  33. ^ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2556 ; English: AJIL 16 (1922) 704
  34. ↑ : Yoram Dinstein The Defense of Obedience to Superior Orders in International Law ff, Sijthoff-Leyden, 1965 p. 12
  35. ^ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Annex No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2579 ; English: AJIL 16 (1922) 708
  36. ↑ Gerd Hankel: The prohibition of killing in war: An attempted intervention. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg 2010, p. 4 u. Note 8.
  37. ↑ Gerd Hankel: Patzig, Helmut, Ludwig Dithmar and John Boldt (1921-1931) . In: Groenewold / Ignor / Koch (eds.): Lexicon of Political Criminal Trials (online publication, as of October 2017).
  38. ↑ Negotiations of the Reichstag , Volume 368, Appendix No. 2584 (White Book), p. 2563
  39. ↑ Uwe Wesel : acquittal for the general. How German war crimes were punished after the First World War. In: Die Zeit , July 24, 2003.
  40. ^ Gerd Hankel: The Leipzig trials. German war crimes and their prosecution after the First World War. Hamburg 2003; see. Blurb ( memento from September 16, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.6 MB).
  41. ^ Gordon Wallace Bailey: Dry Run for the Hangman. The Versailles-Leipzig Fiasco, 1919–1921. Feeble Foreshadow of Nuremberg, o.O. 1971.
  42. ^ Jakob Zenzmaier: The Leipzig Trials (1921-1927). Between national shame and legal farce. Retrieved March 8, 2016.
  43. ↑ Quoted from: Horst Meier: Review of Gerd Hankel: The Leipzig Trials - German War Crimes and their Prosecution after the First World War. Deutschlandfunk, June 23, 2003; accessed on September 11, 2016.
  44. ^ Jürgen Matthäus: The Lessons of Leipzig . In: Atrocities on Trial . Ed .: Heberer and Matthäus, University of Nebraska 2008, ISBN 978-0-8032-1084-4 , p. 10 f.
  45. ^ Claud Mullins: The Leipzig Trials. An Account of War Criminals' Trials And a Study of German Mentality, London 1921, p. 44.
  46. ↑ Dirk v. Selle: Prologue to Nuremberg - The Leipzig war crimes trials before the Reichsgericht, in: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 3/4 (1997), pp. 192–209; James F. Willis: Prologue to Nuremberg. The Punishment of War Criminals of the First World War, Westport 1982.
  47. ↑ International Military Tribunal, Volume II, 100 opening statements by Robert H. Jackson, the US chief prosecutor in Nuremberg.
  48. ^ Prehistory to the Nuremberg Trials , website of the Nuremberg City Museums.