NATIONAL ARCHIVES MICROFILM PUBLICATIONS PAMPHLET

NATIONAL ARCHIVES MICROFILM PUBLICATIONS

PAMPHLET DESCRIBING M1093

NATIONAL

ARCHIVES TRUST

FUND

BOARD

NATIONAL

ARCHIVES

AND

RECORDS SERVICE

WASHINGTON:

1981

The

records reproduced

in the

microfilm

publication

are

from

Records

of the

Office

of the

Judge

Advocate

General

(Army)

Record

Group

155

and

Records

of

U.S.

Army

Commands

3

1942-

Record

Group

338

UNITED

STATES

ARMY

INVESTIGATION

AND

TRIAL

RECORDS

OF WAR

CRIMINALS

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA

v.

FRANZ

AVER

ET AL.

NOVEMBER

1943-JULY

1958

On the 13

rolls

of

this

microfilm

publication

are

reproduced

the

records

of

case

000-50-136,

the

Miihldorf

Concentration Camp

war

crimes case

(United

States

of

America

v.

Franz

Auer

et

al.),

which

was

tried

by a

general Military Government

(U.S.

Army)

court

at

Dachau from April

1

through

May 13,

1947.

In

this trial,

14

individuals associated with

the

administration

and

operation

of

five Dachau subcamps, known

as the

Miihldorf

Group, were

prosecuted under

the

general charge

of

having violated

the

laws

and

usages

of war by

having participated

in the

operation

of

the

camps, which operations included

"wrongful

and

unlawful" sub-

jection

of

prisoners

of war to

"killings, beatings, tortures,

starvation,

abuses,

and

indignities."

The

inclusive dates

of

the

records

are

November 1943 through July 1958, with

a few

documents dated

as

early

as

1928.

Included

in

this publication

are

German-

and

English-language

pretrial investigation records; orders

of

appointment

of

tribunal

and

counsel;

a

charge sheet; trial transcripts; prosecution

and

defense exhibits; sentence reviews

and

recommendations; clemency

petitions;

and

prison records that were filmed

to

supplement

the

trial record. Some prison records were

not

filmed because

of

per-

sonal privacy

considerations.

While

the

majority

of

records

are

in

English

or are

accompanied

by

English translations,

a

small

number

of

Polensky

and

Zo'llner

(PZ) construction firm business

records have

not

been translated.

Background

Jurisdictions

and

Cases

In

Europe,

the

United States participated

in war

crimes

trials under three jurisdictions: that

of the

International

Military

Tribunal

(IMT),

that

of the

U.S. military tribunals

at

Nuernberg,

and

that

of

U.S. Army

courts.

General authority

for the

proceedings

of all

three

jurisdictions

derived

from

the

Declaration

of

German Atrocities

(Moscow

Declaration),

released

November

1,

1943, which expressed

Allied

determination

to

arrest

and

bring

to

justice Axis

war

criminals.

International

Military

Tribunal

The IMT

tried

24

major

war

criminals

and a

number

of

organiza-

tions

in

1945

and

1946. Specific authority

for

U.S. participation

in

the IMT is

found

in

Executive Order

9547

of May 2,

1945, which

authorized Supreme Court Justice Robert

H.

Jackson

to

represent

the

United States

in war

crimes matters

and to act as

Chief

of

Counsel;

the

London Agreement

of

August

8,

1945

(as

amended

by

the

Berlin Protocol

of

October

6,

1945),

in

which

the

United States,

France,

the

United Kingdom,

and the

Soviet Union agreed

to

hold

the

IMT;

and the IMT

Charter

(an

annex

to the

London

Agreement),

which

outlined

the

rights

and

obligations

of

defendants, judges,

and

prosecutors.

U.S.

Military

Tribunals

at

Nuernberg

From

1946

to

1949, U.S. military tribunals

at

Nuernberg

tried

185

individuals

in 12

separate proceedings grouped according

to

type

of

crime

or

organization

as

follows:

No.

of

Case

No.

United

States

v.

Popular Name Defendants

I

Karl Brandt

et

al.

Medical Case

23

II

Erhard

Milch Milch Case

1

(Luftwaffe)

III

Josef Altstoetter

et al.

Justice Case

16

IV

Oswald

Pohle

et al.

Pohl

Case (SS)

18

V

Friedrieh

Flick

et al.

Flick Case

6

(Industrialist)

VI

Carl

Krauch

et al. I. G.

Farben Case

24

(Industrialist)

VII

Wilhelm

List

et al.

Hostage Case

12

VIII

Ulrich

Greifelt

et al.

RuSHA Case (SS)

14

IX

Otto

Ohlendorf

et al.

Einsatzgruppen

Case

24

(SS)

X

Alfried

Krupp

et al.

Krupp Case

12

XI

Ernst

von

Weizsaecker

Ministries Case

21

et al.

XII

Wilhelm

von

Leeb

et al.

High Command Case

14

Specific authority

for the

U.S. tribunals, which tried these

12

cases,

is

found

in

Allied Control Council

Law 10 of

December

20,

1945, which outlined trial procedures patterned after those

of

the

IMT; Executive Order

9679

of

January

16,

1946, which

authorized

the

establishment

of

U.S. military tribunals; Office

of

Military Government

for

Germany

(U.S.)

(OMGUS)

Ordinances

7 and 11 of

October

18,

1946,

and

February

17,

1947, respectively,

which

spelled

out

details

of

trial procedures outlined

by

Allied

Control Council

Law 10; and

United States Forces, European

Theater

(USFET),

General Order

301 of

October

24,

1946, which

appointed Brig. Gen. Telford

Taylor

as

Chief

of

Counsel

for War

Crimes

for the 12

U.S. military tribunals

at

Nuernberg.

U.S.

Army

Courts

From 1945

to

1948, U.S. Army

courts

(military

commissions

and

special

or

general Military Government

courts)

tried 1,672

individuals

in 489

proceedings. Specific authority

for

these

proceedings

is

found

in

Joint Chiefs

of

Staff

Directive

1023/10

of

July

8,

1945, which placed responsibility

for

certain

war

crimes trials

in

Germany

on the

Commander, USFET.

The

Commander,

in

turn,

empowered

the

commanding general

of the

Western Military

District

(territory

occupied

by the

U.S.

3d

Army

(Bavaria))

to

appoint

military courts, predominantly

at the

site

of the

former

concentration camp Dachau,

for the

trial

of war

criminals

not

heard

at

Nuernberg. This

was

done

in a

letter

on the

subject

of

"Trial

of War

Crimes

and

of

July

16,

1945.

The

commanding general

of the

Eastern Military District

(territory

occupied

by the

U.S.

7th

Army

(Hesse,

Baden-Wuerttemberg,

and

Bremen))

was

similarly authorized

to

commence

war

crimes trials,

mainly

at

Ludwigsburg.

In

order

to

streamline operations,

the

Commander, USFET, revoked this division

of

authority

in a

letter

of

October

14,

1946,

and

assigned responsibility

to

prosecute

war

criminals

to the

Deputy Judge Advocate

for War

Crimes,

USFET.

Henceforth,

all

cases were tried

at the

site

of the

former con-

centration camp Dachau because centralization

of war

crimes

activities

appeared necessary

in

view

of the

large body

of

cases

and

investigations.

The 489

cases tried

by the

U.S.

Army

in

Germany

can be

divided

roughly into

four

categories: main concentration camp cases,

subordinate concentration camp cases, flier cases,

and

miscellaneous

cases.

The

first category comprises

6

cases with about

200

defendants, mainly staff members

and

guards

of

Dachau,

Buchenwald,

Flossenburg, Mauthausen,

Nordhausen,

and

Muhldorf

concentration

camps.

The

second category includes about

250

proceedings against

approximately

800

guards

and

staff members

of the

outcamps

and

branch camps

of the

major camps.

The

third category encompasses

more

than

200

cases

in

which about

600

persons, largely German

civilians, were prosecuted

for the

killing

of

some 1,200 U.S.

nationals, mostly airmen.

The

fourth category consists

of a

few

cases including

the

Malmedy Massacre Trial,

in

which more

than

70 SS men

were tried

for

murdering large groups

of

surrendered

U.S. prisoners

of

war;

the

Hadamar

murder factory case (see National

Archives

and

Records Service Microfilm Publication

M1078),

in

which

a

number

of

Hadamar Asylum

staff

members stood trial

for

the

killing

of

about

400

Russian

and

Polish nationals;

and the

Skorzeny case,

in

which some members

of the

German Armed Forces

were

charged with wearing U.S. Army

uniforms

while participating

in

the

Ardennes offensive.

On

March

28,

1947,

the

Muhldorf Concentration Camp case

was

referred

for

trial

by the

Deputy Judge Advocate

for War

Crimes

to the

general Military Government court that

had

been

appointed

under

the

authority

of

Special Order

1,

paragraph

11,

dated

March

15,

1947, Headquarters, European Command (EUCOM;

formerly

USFET).

The

Muhldorf Concentration Camp Case

0^

Muhldorf Concentration Camp derived

its

name from

the

nearby

city;

it was

also

known.as

M I

Lager

and as

Mettenheim.

The

Muhldorf Cencentration Camp

was

composed

of

four

sub-camps:

Waldlager

V and

Waldlager

VI

(two camps adjacent

to'each

other

and

counted

as one

camp, also

referred

to as the

Forest

Camp),

Mittergars Lager (also known

as

Cone

Lager),

Thalheim

Lager,

and

Gendorf Lager.

The

inmate population

of

Muhldorf

was

between

2,500

and

3,000--Waldlager

having between 1,500

and

2,000

and

Mittergars between

200 and

300. Thalheim

had

only about

100

civilian

inmates

and a few

prisoners

of

war. Gendorf

also

had

very

few

inmates

and did not

figure prominently

in the

case.

This group

of

camps

was

known

as the

Muhldorf

Ring

or

Muhldorf

Group

or the

Muhldorf Concentration Camp.

Approximately

8,300

inmates were confined

in

these camps

between July 1944, when construction

of an

underground factory

for use in

connection with

the

assembly

or

manufacture

of

air-

planes began,

and

April 1945.

The

inmates were

Hungarian,

Polish,

Greek, Czech, Yugoslav, Lithuanian, Italian, Dutch, French,

and

Russian nationals. Some

of the

Russian, Polish,

and

Italian

inmates were prisoners

of

war.

The

majority were political

prisoners

or

"voluntary"

workers.

The War

Crimes Investigating Team

#6827

reported that

beatings, overwork, unsanitary

living

conditions, exposure

to

the

elements without adequate clothing

and

shelter,

a

starvation

diet,

and a

patent disregard

for

medical needs resulted

in the

death

of

about 1,800 inmates.

The

team pathologist stated that

overwork combined with

a

starvation

diet

was the

chief cause

of

death

at

these camps.

Organization Todt (OT),

a

Nazi government construction

and

engineering agency,

was

assigned general responsibility

for the

construction

project

at

Muhldorf.

OT at all

times remained

a

planning

and

supervisory agency that subcontracted

the

con-

struction work

to

various firms, primarily

the

firm

of

Polensky

and

Zollner

(PZ).

The

Schutzstaffel

(SS),

the

elite

guard

of

the

Nazi Party, managed

the

Muhldorf Concentration Camp

and

the

inmate work crews, which were supplied

by the SS to the OT

and

PZ.

The

following

14

defendants were indicted

and

listed

on

the

formal charge sheet:

Franz Auer,

SS

Technical Sergeant

(SS

Hauptscharfuehrer):

labor commitment official, responsible

for

supplying

required number

of

laborers.

Karl

Bachmann,

Director

of

Munich Office, Polensky

£

Zollner:

responsible

for use and

direction

of

concentration camp

prisoners.

Wilhelm

Bayha,

SS

Staff

Sergeant

(SS

Oberscharfuehrer):

construction

detail

leader, responsible

for

special guard

details.

Heinrich Engelhardt,

SS

Technical

Sergeant

(SS

Haupt-

scharfuehrer):

Acting Adjutant, responsible

for

executive

duties.

Erika Flocken,

Dr.,

OT

civilian

employee:

OT

chief

physician

and

responsible

for all

medical matters.

Karl

Gickeleiter,

PZ

civilian employee: construction engineer

for PZ,

chief

PZ

representative

at

construction site.

Hermann

Giesler,

OT

official: director

in

charge

of all

phases

of OT

activities

at the

level

of OT

Group Number

6.

Daniel

Gottschling,

SS

Corporal

CSS

Unterscharfuehrer):

food

supply official, responsible

for

issuing food.

Wilhelm

Griesinger,

OT

official: construction chief

and

principal technical supervisor

of

construction

at

main

construction site, responsible

for

enforcement

of

contract.

Wilhelm

Jergas,

SS

Technical Sergeant

(SS

Hauptscharfuehrer):

roll

call

leader, Waldlager

V-VI,

responsible

for

getting

out

details

of

laborers

and in

charge

of SS

Guards

at

main

construction site.

Anton

Ostermann,

SS

Captain

(SS

Hauptsturmfuehrer):

in

command

of

guards

at

Waldlager V-VI.

Jakob Schmidberger,

SS

First Sergeant

(SS

Scharfuehrer):

detail

leader, Waldlager V-VI, responsible

for

guard

details.

Herbert Spaeth,

SS

Technical Sergeant

(SS

Hauptscharfuehrer):

guard

and

clerk responsible

for

issuing food

at SS

level.

Otto

Sperling,

PZ

civilian employee: supervisor

of

cement

mixing

at

main construction site.

Eight

officers were appointed

to the

court: Col. Andrew

G.

Garner,

president;

Maj.

Devalson

S.

Purl,

legal

member; Col.

James

G.

Watkins; Col. Clarence

M.

Tomlinson;

Lt.

Col. Jules

V<

Sims;

Lt.

Col. Carlisle

B.

Irwin;

Lt.

Col. Walter

C.

Dickey;

and

Lt.

Col.

Ottmar

W.

Eichmann.

Mr.

Morton Roth served

as

chief prosecutor

and

Capt. Robert

Bachman

as his

associate.

Mr.

Robert Welch served

as

chief defense counsel

and Lt.

Paul

Hughes

as his

associate.

Dr. 0. H.

Leiling

was

special defense

counsel.

All

of the

defendants

pleaded

"not

guilty"

to the

general

charge

and

particulars.

The

first motion made

by the

defense

was

that

the

court

try the

defendants

who

belonged

to the SS,

those

who

belonged

to the OT, and

those

who

belonged

to the

firm

of PZ

separately because

of

prejudices

to the

individual cases

that

would result from trying them simultaneously.

The

court

denied

this motion.

The

defense

argued

that

the

construction

of a

bomb-proof

factory

for

manufacturing pursuit planes

at

Muhldorf

was

requested

by

SS

Reichsleader

Heinrich

Himmler.

Defense agreed that

OT

had

general supervision

of the

construction

and was

responsible

for the

physical care

of OT

personnel working

on the

main con-

struction

site.

They

argued that

the OT met its

responsibilities

by

providing adequate housing

and

that

OT

personnel made reports

at

one or

possibly

two

weekly meetings

of

department heads

to

the

effect that inmates were

not

receiving sufficient food

for

the

type

of

work they were required

to

perform.

However, food

supplies

were scarce

and

remained scarce throughout

the

duration

of

construction.

Defense also argued that

it was not

company

policy

to

overwork workers because labor costs were calculated

according

to an

efficiency

factor based

upon

expected

production

of the

various kinds

of

laborers.

In

view

of the

construction

contract terms,

the

profit

to the

contractor would

not

have been

increased

by a

policy

of

overwork.

To

counter

the

high death

rate

accusation,

the

defense pointed

to the

example

of the

volunteer

Italian workers,

a

group whose death rate

was

particu-

larly

low in

comparison

to

other nationalities represented

at

the

site.

The

defense also argued that

the SS

interfered with

the

medical treatment

of the

inmates

of the

Muhldorf Ring

and

that

OT

made

two

formal complaints concerning

SS

negligence.

Defense pointed

out

that

in the

fall

of

1944

the

chief

of the

medical

department

of OT,

Berlin, ordered that medical supplies

from

the OT

depot

at

Schwindegg

be

sent

to the SS

officials

in

Muhldorf.

As a

result,

a

large supply

of

bandages

and

medicines

was

shipped from

the

depot; however,

the SS

diverted

these

supplies from

the

inmates

to an SS

unit. Concerning

transport

of

seriously

ill

prisoners

to

Dachau, defense argued

that

some food

was

sent along

on the

trains

and

that

an

addi-

tional

supply

was

expected

to be

picked

up en

route.

On

May 13,

1947,

the

court announced

its

findings

and

sentences.

Two of the

defendants, Bachmann

and

Ostermann,

were

acquitted.

Auer,

Flocken,

Jergas,

Spaeth,

and

Sperling

were

found guilty

and

were sentenced

to

death

by

hanging. Engelhardt

and

Giesler received life imprisonment. Gickeleiter, Griesinger,

and

Schmidberger

were sentenced

to 20

years imprisonment,

Gottschling

to 15

years,

and

Bayha

to 10

years. Those sentenced

to

serve time

did so at War

Criminal Prison

No. 1,

Landsberg,

Germany, including

Auer,

who was

executed there

on

November

26,

1948.

The

death sentences

of

defendants Flocken, Jergas, Spaeth,

and

Sperling were commuted

to

life imprisonment when reviewed

in

May

1947. Subsequently, their sentences were reduced

further,

along

with those

of the

remaining defendants.

Bayha

was

released

on

February

24,

1952.

Engelhardt's

life

sentence

was

reduced

to 25

years

on May 6,

1948,

and

further

reduced

to 15

years

on

August

10,

1951.

He was

released

on

parole

on

December

23,

1953,

and

discharged

on

June

16,

1955.

Flocken's sentence

was

further

reduced

to 38

years

on

August

16,

1956.

She was

released

on

parole

on

April

29,

1957,

and

dis-

charged

on

July

13,

1958.

Gickeleiter's

sentence

was

reduced

to

10

years

on

August

10,

1951,

and

further

reduced

to

time served

on

July

19,

1952.

Giesler's

life sentence

was

reduced

to 25

years

on

May 6,

1948,

and

further

reduced

to 12

years

on

July

7,

1951.

He was

discharged

on

October

18,

1952.

Gottschling

1

s

sentence

was

reduced

to 10

years

on

July

18,

1951,

and he was

discharged

on

January

11,

1952.

Griesinger's

sentence

was

reduced

to 10

years

on

July

7,

1951,

and he was

released

on

February

28,

1952.

Jergas'

sentence

was

further

reduced

to 30

years

on

August

10,

1951,

and to 25

years

on

July

19,

1954.

On

April

13,

1955,

Jergas

was

released

on

parole

and

obtained

a

final release

on

April

9,

1958.

Schmidberger's

sentence

was

reduced

to 10

years

on

May 31,

1950,

and he was

discharged

on

December

14,

1951.

On

August

10,

1951,

Spaeth's

sentence

was

further reduced

to 1,5

years.

He was

released

on

parole

on

January

28,

1954,

and was

discharged

on

July

4,

1957.

Sperling's

sentence

was

further

reduced

to 20

years

on

July

7,

1951.

He was

released

on

parole

on

February

5,

1954,

and was

discharged

on

July

20,

1957.

Records

Description

The

Muhldorf Concentration Camp Case

Most

records

of the

Muhldorf case, including prison records,

are

part

of

Records

of

United States Army Commands, 1942-

,

Record Group (RG) 338. These records were created

and

originally

maintained

by the War

Crimes Group, Judge Advocate

General's

Office, European Command. Records

of the

Office

of the

Judge

Advocate

General

(Army),

RG

153, contain

the few

microfilmed

records that were originally maintained

by the War

Crimes Branch,

Judge

Advocate

General's

Office, Washington, D.C.

The

records

are

identified

by

record group number

in the

table

of

contents

and

on

each roll

of

film.

The

Muhldorf trial authorization documents

are

filmed

at

the

beginning

of

roll

1.

Included

are the

principal documents

authorizing

the

U.S. Army courts. Filmed with these documents

is

European Theater Operations United States Army

(ETOUSA;

predecessor

of

USFET)

Organization Order 270, which organized

War

Crimes Investigating Team

#6827

(the team assigned

to the

Muhldorf

case)

on

April

24,

1945.

Two

finding

aids—a

witness

testimony

index

(an

alphabetical

list

of

defense

and

rebuttal witnesses that also provides

an

index

to

their testimony)

and a

trial record table

of

contents

(a

chronological

or

daily

list

of

trial exhibits

and

witness

testimony)--are

filmed after

the

authorization documents.

Records

of the

Muhldorf

Concentration Camp trial comprise

three groups filmed

in the

following order: pretrial records,

trial

transcripts

and

trial exhibits,

and

posttrial documents.

Within

these groups,

the

records

are

arranged

and

filmed chrono-

logically,

except

for

certain numbered pretrial exhibits

and

posttrial clemency records that

are

arranged

and

filmed alpha-

betically

by

defendant

and

either numerically

or

chronologically

thereunder.

File

folder covers

are

filmed preceding

the

records

in

the

folders

in all

instances

where they provide identifying

information. Target sheets have been prepared

and are

filmed

in

place

of

folder covers

in all

instances where

the

covers

provide

no

information.

The

English-language

version precedes

the

German-language

version

in

cases where both were available,

unless they were reversed

as

part

of a

numerical sequence,

in

which case

the

numerical sequence

is

maintained. Duplicate

copies

of

records were omitted before filming began.

Records making

up the

pretrial documents include eight volumes

of

witness interrogation reports, lists

of

suspects, investigation

reports, pretrial exhibits, camp maps, photographs

of

witnesses,

prisoner

transfer

requests

and

authorizations, preliminary

prosecution briefs, internal routing slips,

and

German-language

business records

of the PZ

construction firm.

The

business

records document

the use of

inmate laborers

by the

firm,

as

well

as

personnel,

procurement,

billing, administrative,

and

construc-

tion

activities.

Court

and

attorney appointment documents

and

a

charge sheet make

up the

remainder

of the

pretrial

documents.

The

trial transcripts

are in

English

and are

arranged

chronologically

in 23

volumes. Each volume covers

a day of the

trial

and is

preceded

by

transcript covers

and

cover sheets

that

contain

the

names

of the

chief prosecutor

and

defense

counsel, interpreters,

and

court reporters, together with

a

daily

listing

of

testimony, witness statements,

and

exhibits.

The

text

of the

transcript

is

numbered sequentially from page

1

through 1596.

It

contains

the

arraignment

and

plea

of

each

defendant, opening

and

closing statements

of

defense

and

prosecution,

the

judgment,

and

sentences. Following page 1596

of

the

final volume, individual defendant's commitment forms

are

arranged alphabetically

by

defendant surname.

Prosecution exhibits

are

numbered sequentially,

1

through

87, and are

contained

in six

volumes, each with

a

table

of

contents.

Other than

affidavits,

the

exhibits consist

of

charts,

diagrams, atrocity photographs, prisoner transport lists,

and

hospital death records.

Not all

prosecution exhibits were

accepted

as

evidence

by the

court.

The

following exhibits

or

parts

of

exhibits

are

missing from

the

records: Photographs

11

and

17 in

exhibit

13;

photographs

9, 10, and 23 in

exhibit

40;

exhibit

43, PZ

records

in a

hard cover binder; exhibits 53-55,

medical

requisitions; exhibit

42, PZ

records; exhibit

45,

Death

Book

of the

Forest Camp

(V-VI);

exhibits

78 and 79,

hospital

death books, exhibit

80, a

folder

of

transport lists,

and

exhibit

81,

transfer

lists (the originals were withdrawn; however, samples

of

each were retained

as

part

of the

file

and are

filmed

in

numerical

sequence);

exhibit

83, a

letter

from

the SS

camp

surgeon

at

Dachau;

and

exhibit

86, a

request

for

travel funds

for

Giesler.

Defense exhibits consist

of one

volume containing

a

table

of

contents that gives document number

and

description.

The

exhibits

are

numbered sequentially,

1

through

44, and

include

affidavits,

a

pamphlet

on

conditions

of

work under

OT,

newspaper

clippings,

and

photographs

of the

construction project.

The

posttrial material includes three categories

of

records:

sentence reviews

and