Beheadings in the Third Reich

[Pete26]

The German richtbeil and richtblock as well as the techniques and protocol followed by sharfrichters were more sophisticated than in Tudor England. The sharfrichter's axe was a massive tool, heavier and wider than the English axe. Roland Friesler himself defended its use as manly and the RMJ actually issued a response to criticism in the foreign press that axe beheading was crude (see Evans). Sharfrichters such as Carl Gropler and Reindel, leading executioners in the 1930's, supported the use of the axe, saying it was fast, easily concealed and in the hands of an expert, a device that cleanly did its work with a single blow. The richtblock was more elaborate than the Tudor era block. The richtblock had metal rings through which cords from the victim's hands were passed and then pulled tight to force the victim forward and into the block. From three to as many as five assistants were employed to secure the victim to a horizontal table. (This was not done in England;the victim simply knelt or was dragged to the block and forced into a kneeling position.) One of the Sharfrichter's assistants actually acted much like the French "photographer" and pulled the head forward, stretching the neck across the block. The execution rarely took more than a single fall of the axe and a "draw" of the razor-sharp blade across the block. Individual instances where the execution was botched (see Evans "Rituals" for examples) met with sharp repromands from the Reich Ministry of Justice and even dismissals. The head fell or was placed into a prepared sand "well".

There is no documentation that Hitler was appalled by the beheading of the two women spies (Natzinger and Falkenhayn). His unoffical "p.r. man" Putzi Hanfstangle (an American) however did speak out about the damaging image a top-hatted axe-swinging headsman cutting off womens' heads (the same women) gave to the emerging Nazi state. I have not seen evidence Hitler personally ordered the axe replaced by the fallbeil.

I suppose they did not tie the victim's hands to the execution block rings when the table was used? I believe it was one or the other.

[Piotr1]

youtube- german hanging part 1 and 2
http://www.elholocausto.net/parte04/0403.htm

[fredric]

The German richtbeil and richtblock as well as the techniques and protocol followed by sharfrichters were more sophisticated than in Tudor England. The sharfrichter's axe was a massive tool, heavier and wider than the English axe. Roland Friesler himself defended its use as manly and the RMJ actually issued a response to criticism in the foreign press that axe beheading was crude (see Evans). Sharfrichters such as Carl Gropler and Reindel, leading executioners in the 1930's, supported the use of the axe, saying it was fast, easily concealed and in the hands of an expert, a device that cleanly did its work with a single blow. The richtblock was more elaborate than the Tudor era block. The richtblock had metal rings through which cords from the victim's hands were passed and then pulled tight to force the victim forward and into the block. From three to as many as five assistants were employed to secure the victim to a horizontal table. (This was not done in England;the victim simply knelt or was dragged to the block and forced into a kneeling position.) One of the Sharfrichter's assistants actually acted much like the French "photographer" and pulled the head forward, stretching the neck across the block. The execution rarely took more than a single fall of the axe and a "draw" of the razor-sharp blade across the block. Individual instances where the execution was botched (see Evans "Rituals" for examples) met with sharp repromands from the Reich Ministry of Justice and even dismissals. The head fell or was placed into a prepared sand "well".

There is no documentation that Hitler was appalled by the beheading of the two women spies (Natzinger and Falkenhayn). His unoffical "p.r. man" Putzi Hanfstangle (an American) however did speak out about the damaging image a top-hatted axe-swinging headsman cutting off womens' heads (the same women) gave to the emerging Nazi state. I have not seen evidence Hitler personally ordered the axe replaced by the fallbeil.

I suppose they did not tie the victim's hands to the execution block rings when the table was used? I believe it was one or the other.

I have a photo of a simulated but supposidly accurate axe beheading (stereopticon image from early 1900's) in Germany which shows the victim on a table but the hands are tied to two separate ropes, then threaded through the rings and the ends are held by two assistants. The implication is that the assistants will pull on the ropes pulling the victim tight to the block. I also have seen an authentic photo of an axe execution which shows this action happening as the axe falls.

[newgate]

Here is a link to a photo of the room in Wolfenbuttel in which the guillotine stood...actually, I think you can see a mark on the floor where it used to be:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26um%3D1

[newgate]

This is the the photo of fallbeil USED in Wolfenbuttel. But the machine is old , possible even from XIX century.
Where and when (before or after the IIWW?) the photo was taken we don't know....

The fallbeil is late 19th century, similar to the ones at Plotzensee, Breslau, Stadelheim, etc. It does have a different footboard. The "bascule" must have been removed for the other photo (up to the executioner) but it can be seen in a third photo of the dismantled machine in a storage room which I have seen. It is my understanding the fallbeil is still at Wolfenbuettel but is not displayed in order to not upset relatives of the victims who created the memorial site. The fallbeil was, as Gordon says, in an interior room of the execution building but in the photo, looks to me like it is outside.
I think this is a post-War photo. Frederich Hehr executed war criminals for the Allies with this fallbeil.

Here is a link to a photo of the room where the fallbeil used to be. You can see a mark on the floor that looks like where it was placed:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26um%3D1

[Pete26]

Newgate, welcome to the forum and thanks for the interesting photos. I cannot see the floor drain in the picture where the spotlight hits the floor, which means that it was probably filled with concrete after the fallbeil was removed from the execution room.

[Paul53]

Thanks for the interesting info Piotr.
Our old friend, the eccentric soap manufacturer,is also represented in the film of the Neurenberg trials.
A lot on Reichart.

[Paul53]

Fredric, could you try and post the pictures you described for us?

[Paul53]

In spite of the duty of the inmates to absolute obedience and work ethos,there seems to me to be a limit to this vow in this respect;then without the inner willingness there are to be expected inner reservations that could seriously disrupt the unhindered process of the execution, if not prevent them alltogether.As an example, one has to rely on voluntarely made reports,that seem to justify a former interrogation of inmates considered fit.A certain number of these inmates is likely to be made available by the Director Board of the prison, but this Board has to pay attention to the existence of a certain psychological robustness and brutality.""

( If I am allowed to make a personal remark: a lot of most arrogant bullshit)


But in that case also, as I expect, it is not advisable to reckon with too much willingness.It is to be expected, that apart from reservations on psychological and character grounds,some very sharp defined rejections on the basis of feelings of solidarity from within the criminal cummunity( and criminals we are dealing with here)will come up.As far as can be exepected, it will be the charactological inferior types that will feel attracted to execution of sentences.It cannot be avoided however,that the fact of interrogation, and the subsequent contracting of inmates for execution of the death sentence will be known in the Institution in no time at all,will be spoken of,and I would suppose a threathto the security and regidity and order of the regime to emerge from that.Because it cannot be avoided, that the inmates that are meant t o execute the Death Sentence,who cannot be kept seperated from the other inmates on grounds of Arbeiteinsatz(use of available labour)are in the eyes of the rest of the inmates to be treated with contempt,and are objects of animosity.This will not be avoided, not by the sternest regime""

[Piotr1]

Fredric, could you try and post the pictures you described for us?

http://pallas.cegesoma.be/pls/opac/plsp ... l/opac.htm
the key word is of course guillotine. I have some troubles with direct link to the photo:(
Good luck

[Paul53]

"" The actual procedure of the execution is, as is already mentioned, veiled in secrecy.But this would be immediately come to end when the Scharfrichterkommando spoke with the other inmates in the institution_as it will unboubtedly do_ about its employment and experiences during execution.Not even the harshest commitment to silence and the resulting consequence of braking that could alter this.In that case ,things would not be restricted to an objective depiction of the activities:the need to seem important and interesting,would lead to a phantastical and sensational picture of the procedure, and would by itself be enough to threathen the order in the institution.The inmates of the Correctional Facilities are not in the least representing the lowest human life form without exception.Many of them are, in case one would speak of a lowest form, only to be regarded as such in the context of the warfare;they are not to be paired with antisocials or State enemies and are not to be denied their moral sense and sense of guilt and sin.

In case details of the execution of the most severe punishment would come to their ears however, and in an infactual and exaggerated and elaborated way at that,-and they will likely spread through the institution as fire- then the result would be an increase in the feeling of sorry,which is in any case already abundant among the inmates,regarding the fate of the condemned,and a rejecting attitude to a Stately Measure that was up to that time viewed as necessary and just would be the outcome.Even realistic details about execution could trigger this effect,as for example,as actually happened,a serious Bibelforscher(he means a Script Scolar,i.e a priest or Jehovah Witness)whose State endangering tendencies were known to but a few,went to his death with the words:Into Thy Hands Jehovah I commit My Spirit.

He is regarded in his social circle as a martyr,the punishment executed on him out of completely justified reasons is viewed by the uncritical mob as a brutal act of State violence and the inmate that was up to this time socially and in relation of State matters,complient,is in this manner without doubt led psychologically to a general negative view of the Execution of Punishment,to the executors and the State in general.

But in the public view also, depictions like that would be very disruptive, not only by inmates that were discharged or by the uncontrollable channels,through which time and again report of the Execution Sites are reaching publicity, but also by actions of the inmates contracted for the executions themselves.Because prisoners that were sentenced to die but were pardoned,are becoming increasingly rare in the institutions and are almost without exception, in a bad physical and mental state,that will usually make them useless to cooperate in the process of execution.

Almost without exception. the few death sentences that are not carried out, are instead changed into life sentences or long terms in Correctional Facilities, so that the convicts sooner or later are again to enjoy their freedom,and are not likely to restrict their need for sensational stories to broadcast out in their social circles.

It seems to me, that it is exceptionally dangerous , to let these untrue and uncontrollable images emerge in the public domain,regarding such a serious business as execution, while a receptive mood in this aspect is to be reckoned with.
The supposition,that they(inmates) would react in the same way to the question of Execution and State as the inmates of a closed Institution, is real.""

[Paul53]

This is one of the most arrogant and conceited comments that I have yet translated. But it goes further.Not that he is wrong from his own point of view of course.

Yes I am afraid that this florid languague irritates me.Sorry to bring it up.Some law scolar, having lost the capability to communicate along direct lines,masking his lack of morality in a cloud of blurred phrases and beautifully constructed sentences.

Sorry David,just get it off my chest.There is much more.Anyway, the idea to let inmates take part in executions was not popular, and was not introduced widely in the Third Reich.In some concentration camps however, it was put into practice.It has been reported in one instance from Buchenwald, and from Auschwitz 1.These reports are still considered inconclusive.
There is evidence however, from a hanging in Auschwitz 1,performed by a Dutch Jew, that he deliberately constructed the
noose of the gallows in such way that it would break when the hanging was carried out,thinking the convict would be pardoned.

No such thing,the condemned was strung up on a new noose and the job was done.

[David Thompson]

See also:

Something for the hangman
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=64118

[fredric]

This is one of the most arrogant and conceited comments that I have yet translated. But it goes further.Not that he is wrong from his own point of view of course.

Yes I am afraid that this florid languague irritates me.Sorry to bring it up.Some law scolar, having lost the capability to communicate along direct lines,masking his lack of morality in a cloud of blurred phrases and beautifully constructed sentences.

Sorry David,just get it off my chest.There is much more.Anyway, the idea to let inmates take part in executions was not popular, and was not introduced widely in the Third Reich.In some concentration camps however, it was put into practice.It has been reported in one instance from Buchenwald, and from Auschwitz 1.These reports are still considered inconclusive.
There is evidence however, from a hanging in Auschwitz 1,performed by a Dutch Jew, that he deliberately constructed the
noose of the gallows in such way that it would break when the hanging was carried out,thinking the convict would be pardoned.

No such thing,the condemned was strung up on a new noose and the job was done.

This statement shows the perverted mind of the Nazi Judicial/Penal system. For even more information, I recommend Ingo Muller's book "Hitler's Justice the Courts of the Third Reich" to those interested in Nazi "justice", if you can call it that. The statement also helps explain why there's little first-hand documentation of prison executions other than "form-letter" reports. And using prisoners as executioners...well, the RMJ and prison officials were also was concerned turning sadistic prisoners (and guards) into executioners, especially executioners of women (see Evans).

[Paul53]

I spent 2, 5 hours to translate a three page manuscript and now I am told that it is gone.