Hi Krichter33, I've just received 'Hitler's last General' (Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting) from their telling of this event, it would seem that there was compelling evidence from 8 witnesses to believe that Mohnke had issued the orders but that this was not believed by the Court at the time. It appears that this line of defence may have come too late for the prosecution's liking.krichter33 wrote: Is there any other evidence to back this up about Siebken, or is there any evidence to support his guilty verdict. He seems such a unique aberration from most of the other high ranking officers in the 12th SS, primarily, Mohnke, Kurt Meyer, and Bremer, that he is truly fascinating. If he truly was such a humane officer in such a horrible place, he should be praised. It also makes one wonder if he continued in this vein for the rest of his career. Finally one last question. If the two medical orderlies, Albers, and Bundschuh, were acquitted for following a superior's orders, why weren't Siebken (if he issued the order) and Schnabel acquitted for following Mohnke's orders?
Hubert Meyer was one of the witnesses for the defence and tellingly he maintained 40 years later (knowing Mohnke was still alive and free) that he believed Siebken's version of events and stuck by the evidence he had given in support back at the trial. It also seems that the Defences allegation that the Allies were killing German POWs and that these executions were in reprisal went against the defendants too as it only served to outrage the court. In fact the evidence given of the infamous Luxenburger/Clary incident, cut no ice with the Court either, the prosecutor stating that the story 'reminds you of a cinema more than a law court' (p213). The authors put a footnote in backing up this claim and others to indicate that German POWs were being executed at this time too. It seems strange that Kurt Meyer had his sentence commuted for this very reason yet these men were hanged some five years later.
Regarding Albers and Bundschuh the authors state ' Though they had clearly been the trigger men in the First Aid Post Killing, the court felt that as simple soldiers carrying out compelling orders they could not be held truly culpable of the crime. In the Court's view the same could not be said for Siebken and Schnabel. The Court clearly believed that the former had issued the order and that the latter had carried it out....'
