Here we go again. The so-called “five-minutes trials” occurred in 1949/50, according to Streit – i.e. neither during nor shortly after the war. As Kokampf pointed out, they were motivated by the need to gain additional forced labour. It may be that after the war the Soviets tried to bolster their attempt to blame Katyn on the Germans at Nuremberg by having a German defendant confess to the Katyn killings at one of their own trials, reverting for this purpose to the practice of Stalin’s show trials in the late 1930s. Is this enough to draw the conclusion that they applied similar procedures at other trials that were not guided by either the need to cover up a crime of their own or the need to gain additional forced labour, trials where, according to Streit and other German scholars, a minimum of formal principles was adhered to? Hardly so. Why would the Soviets, contrary to their procedure in other cases, stick to this minimum of formal principles? Because those trials were to a certain extent exposed to world public opinion and/or because the crimes were so real that they could afford to be fair, are the most likely explanations. Another indication that most of the trials conducted during the war or in the immediate post war period came far closer to the standards of a constitutional state (although they didn’t quite live up to them, as Streit points out) than other Soviet trials is the amazingly low number of death sentences – “wohl weit weniger”, i.e. “presumably considerably less” than 1,000, according to Hilbiger as quoted in Streit’s article. Wouldn’t trials where no attention was paid to the defendants’ rights have resulted in a much higher number of death sentences? The “five minutes trials” of 1949/50 dispatched 20,000 prisoners of war to the Gulag, according to Streit.michael mills wrote:There was a trial in Leningrad in January 1946 at which nine German soldiers were found guilty of participation in the killing of Polish POWs at Katyn. Apparently the convicted men were publicly hanged in Leningrad on 30 January.
I do not know whether their trial only concerned Katyn, or whether the charge relating to Katyn was tacked on to other charges. I would imagine that the driving force behind the trial was the desire to make a demonstration to the citizens of Lenoingrad who had suffered through the siege, rather than the Katyn issue itself.
No doubt Roberto will say that this was one of the "five-minute" post-war trials, and quite possibly it was. But on what grounds does Roberto claim that the trial of Alois Heterich was unusually fair, and not one of the post-war "five-minute wonders"?
If Roberto looks at footnote 413 on page 852, he will see references to interrogations of Heterich on 15 and 28 December 1945 and 7 January 1946, ie AFTER the end of the war. That strongly suggests that Heterich's trial was indeed was one of the post-war "five-minute" trials which Roberto has admitted were not in any sense fair.
Do I make all that much out it, Mills? Cut out the crap.michael mills wrote:Roberto makes much of the fact that Heterich got off with a prison sentence, and escaped execution.
Perhaps this, perhaps that. There’s nothing like asking Gerlach himself, which I will do. In the meantime, Mills is invited to tell us more about the “standard 25-year stretch” and the number of German prisoners of war convicted as war criminals to which it was applied (sure you’re not mixing up convictions during the war or in the immediate post-war period with the “five minutes trials” of 1949/50, Mills?). None of the sentences seems to have been executed beyond 1955, anyway.michael mills wrote:But Gerlach does not tell us what the length of sentence was. Perhaps Heterich was sentenced to the standard 25-year stretch which most German "war criminals" received (only a few were executed), and was released by Khrushchev in 1955 along with most of the remaining German prisoners in Soviet hands.
Note the incidental leak on Martin Gilbert, obviously one of Mills' black beasts. Gilbert’s non-reliable book seems to be nevertheless reliable enough when it comes to making a fuss. Very instructive.michael mills wrote:Now to the wartime Soviet warcrimes trials, the first at which Germans were arraigned, which Roberto considers to have been relative models of fairness. Of the Khar'kov Trial, Martin Gilbert writes ("Second World War", page 480):
I have never seen any references in any reliable bookAs the Russian forces moved forward, they uncovered more and more German atrocities, and on December 14, at Kharkov, four SS-men were brought to trial, accused of using gas vans to murder Soviet civilians. One of the accused was a twenty-four year old SS lieutenant, Hans Ritz. On first having heard the words "gas van" mentioned in Kharkov, Ritz told the prosecutor, 'I remebered the vehicle from my stay in Warsaw, when I witnessed the evacuation in it of the unreliable sections of the Warsaw population'. While in Warsaw, Ritz added, "I got to know that part of the Warsaw population were evacuated by railway and another part were loaded into the "gas vans" and exterminated'.
Is that so, Mills? Or is this supposed Soviet "obsession" another of those things that Mills would badly like to believe in? If, as Mills contends, "LC-Koffer" were occasionally mistaken for gas vans, then it is entirely possible (one of Mills’ favourite terms) that Ritz erroneously linked such "LC-Koffer" he had seen at Warsaw to the gas vans he had himself been involved with at Kharkov, even though on the former occasion they had probably been used as a complement to the railway for "evacuation" of the "unreliable segments of the Warsaw population" (e.g. for transporting "unreliable elements" to execution sites like Palmiry) rather than as gassing devices. What special interest should Soviet prosecutors in 1943 have had in what the Germans had done in Warsaw, when they were dealing with German crimes committed on their own territory?michael mills wrote:to the use of gas vans at Warsaw. Obviously, Ritz's claim that part of the Warsaw population was exterminated in gas vans was simply false, and must have been something dictated to him by his Soviet prosecutors rather than something he invented himself.
The false statement by Ritz reflects the Soviet obsession with gas vans, which they viewed as the prime German killing machine, until they discovered Majdanek. The Soviets saw "gas vans" at work everywhere (if vehicles were actually present they may have been the mysterious "LC-Koffer" that I have referred to in other threads), and tended to place them at the site of almost every claimed German atrocity, perhaps sometimes correctly, but most likely more often falsely, as with with Ritz's statement about the "gas van" at Warsaw.
Which - assuming Ritz' statement was influenced, see above - wouldn't necessarily mean they did so, unless you apply the "Revisionist" logic that "they" (Soviet courts were not exactly as homogeneous as Mills would like them to be) applied illegal procedures "here" because "they" also had applied them "there". Gerlach doesn’t say whether the victims of the "alleged" gas van killings were Soviet prisoners of war. It is also entirely possible (Mills' beaten phrase) that the victims were partisans, "partisan suspects" or Jews. The use of gas vans at Warsaw may not be not documented, but the use of such devices in the Minsk region is. It was also the object of trials before West German courts, the English summaries of all but two of which can be viewed undermichael mills wrote:It is noteworthy that, according to Gerlach, the gas van also made its appearance at the alleged massacre of Soviet POWs at Minsk, for which Heterich was charged ("Angeblich fanden in den Folgetagen noch Massentoetungen durch Gaswagen statt"). If Soviet interrogators were able to get Ritz to admit to a non-existent gas wagon at Warsaw, they would no doubt have been able to get Heterich to admit to a possibly non-existent gas wagon at Minsk, and possibly to a non-existent massacre by German troops.
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng298.htm
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng552.htm
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng601.htm
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng658.htm
and
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng662.htm
Thus it is not unlikely that gas vans were used in the days after the massacre and Heterich merely exaggerated the dimensions of these killings (something eyewitnesses often do, even without coercion), to which there was not the corroborating documentary and physical evidence that led Gerlach to challenge Streim’s conclusion about the Urechie massacre.
Comparing their findings to the posterior ones of historians and West German courts actually suggests that they got a lot more right than people like Mills would like to admit. In regard to the Urechie killings of which the 327th German Infantry Division was found guilty, on the other hand, I haven’t so far seen a convincing demonstration that they got it wrong, even though West German criminal justice concluded on this. All we have is Heterich’s retraction that stands a good chance of having been just an understandable manoeuvre to avoid prosecution, coupled with Mills' rather dubious theory that the Soviet court before which Heterich was tried dictated confessions because other Soviet courts had done so as well under entirely different circumstances. Besides, as Kokampf pointed out, the most that can be questioned is the responsibility of that particular unit, the 327th Infantry Division, for the Urechie massacre. That is was a Soviet and not a German massacre, as Mills would like to believe, is beyond probability for the reasons explained in my previous posts.michael mills wrote:Of course, I do not suggest that every accusation in Soviet trials of German prisoners was falsified. Given the scale of the atrocities committed by German forces on occupied Soviet territory, it would be surprising if the Soviets had not got something right.
So would I, which is why I will obtain these authors' studies as soon as possible.michael mills wrote:As for the analysis of the wartime Soviet trials by Ueberschaer and Hilbiger, I would be interested in seeing it, as I am sure would many other members of the forum.