In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

OBNOXIOUS MATERIAL 169 CHAPTER 14 Obnoxious Material Presidential confirmation of the “Beyer Five” death sentences caused a diplomatic crisis that lasted until V-e Day. According to Geneva Article 66, the Detaining Power had to give the Protecting Power, as soon as possible, “details of the prisoner’s offense and the decisive reasons for the verdict against him.” The War Department issued tardy, extremely brief notices.1 in January 1944, five weeks after Johannes Kunze died in a riot at Camp Tonkawa, oklahoma, the War Department told the swiss Legation that his company leader had called a meeting to compare his handwriting with that on an “alleged traitorous note” (omitting all details, such as Kunze’s description of the camouflage protecting the main railroad station in Hamburg, and his suggestion that military hospitals might be likely bomb targets). “Belabored with blows,” Kunze had been chased down and killed. “Certain of the PoW company will be court-martialed for riot and murder.”2 in late January, another terse note informed the legation of the five death sentences against Kunze’s killers. The German government inevitably protested, citing its own scrupulous observance of Geneva Article 66. When Germany tried American war prisoners , it furnished the Protecting Power “with copies of the opinion of the court, giving the facts upon which the verdict was based and the evidence produced, as well as details concerning the laws under which the prisoner was sentenced.” The American notices contained none of this information. Berlin wanted the “particulars as to the manner in which testimony was taken,” and as to how the judges had considered both the testimony and “the statements of the accused.” exactly what facts had caused the judges to pronounce death sentences? unless Washington sent the “written opinion of the court,” Berlin 169 170 MURDER AND MARTIAL JUSTICE might begin withholding information about the trials of American prisoners .3 When the swiss Legation handed this message to the state Department on september 13, the PoW murder trials ceased to be the Pentagon’s private domain. The state Department expected no difficulty, for the German requests seemed reasonable. When its special War Problems Division asked the War Department to provide “an appropriate reply,” it pointed out that the Geneva Convention allowed any PoW to request “a full transcript” of his trial.4 Why not his government? onoctober3,Asst.ProvostmarshallGeneralBryansentthestateDepartment a reply for the legation: American trial records contained transcripts of all testimony and copies of all exhibits, but did not include information about how the court reached either verdict or sentence. However, the Protecting Power could observe any trial and make whatever report it wished. if a secret trial should occur, as Geneva Article 62 allowed, “the Protecting Power will be informed” beforehand. As of that date, no swiss representative had been excluded from any trial [sic]. Therefore, “the request of the German Government for a written opinion of the court, including a resume of the evidence and applicable law, cannot be granted.”5 This reply did not even satisfy the state Department, which asked for more information.6 By the time it sent this reply, the War Department had already given notice of the death sentences handed down in the other PoW murder trials, against erich Gauss and rudolf straub on July 13, against edgar menschner on August 12, and against Drechsler’s seven killers on september 29. Now there were fifteen Germans liable to hang,7 if the president confirmed their sentences. on october 9, the War Department gave notice that roosevelt had confirmed the five sentences in the Beyer case. According to the Geneva Convention, they would be eligible for hanging on January 9, 1945.8 (No prisoner could be executed until three months after the Protecting Power had been informed that his death sentence had been confirmed.) on october 24, the legation delivered the predictable second German demand for a “detailed written opinion” of the court’s reasoning in the Beyer case, and “the consideration given to the testimony in determining a judgment ,” so that “German authorities could . . . form an opinion of the process.” since apparently “the recording of sentences is not customary in the united states,” Berlin would “appreciate” seeing the entire verbatim court records of every serious case and, furthermore, “a report of the plea of the defense counsel”! otherwise, the note warned, “the German Government very soon will have to adopt the procedure of the American Authorities” when it re- [3.146.221.204] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share