Langbein Hermann. People in Auschwitz

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

physician Horst Fischer felt so safe in the German Democratic Republic that

he started a medical practice under his own name in a small town, where he

was able to practice undisturbed for two decades. Dr. Horst Schumann,whose

name had become public knowledge in the Nuremberg medical trial in con-

nection with his sterilization experiments, had so much conﬁdence in the au-

thorities of the German Federal Republic that he lived there with his family

without any attempt at camouﬂage and practiced medicine. He feltso safe that

he applied for a hunting license in 1951, therebychallenging the authorities to

concern themselves with him routinely. When the required certiﬁcate of good

conduct was requested from Schumann’s birthplace, the oﬃcials uncovered

his past. But even then nothing was done to him because before any oﬃcial

action was taken Schumann was tipped oﬀ and bolted. Hans Anhalt, a former

ss man who had been attached to the Canada Detail, relied on the fact that

the authorities in the gdr did not conduct any systematic searches for Ausch-

witz guards. He kept taking to the pawnshop items that he had ‘‘organized’’

in Canada and sent home. Since the items were very valuable, this eventually

aroused suspicion.When a search of his house turned up further property that

demonstrably was from Auschwitz, he was ﬁnally taken to court in 1964.

Bernhard Walter of the Identiﬁcation Service in Auschwitz had to take pic-

tures of selections at the ramp even though a prohibition of photography was

in force in the camp. He was so careless that he took along an album of his

photographs at the evacuation of Auschwitz and did not destroy them when

Germany capitulated. He does not seem to have realized the probative value

of this series of photos.

n When Allied troops saw at the liberation what crimes had been committed

in the camps, they ﬁrst arrested those whom they found there.

The most lasting shock among the general public was caused by the moun-

tains of corpsesof inmates who had starved to death,which the Allies encoun-

tered at the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. The ﬁrst proceedings were brought

in Lüneburg against guards of that camp.The Polish trial of guards in Majda-

nek, which had taken place before the end of the war and thus had attracted

less attention, had been completed a long time before. At the head of the de-

fendants before a British military court in Lüneburg was Josef Kramer, the

last commandant of Bergen-Belsen and previously the commandant of Birke-

nau. Right after his arrest in April 1945, Kramer denied that there were gas

chambers in Birkenau. Later, when he had to admit that there were, he was

asked about the reason for his initial denial. Kramer replied that he had still

felt bound by his oath to treat the extermination machinery as a secret and no

longer felt bound by it onlyafter learning of the deaths of Hitler and Himmler.

Kramer’s attitude toward the prisoners was revealed when he was asked

504 n Afterward

why, in his opinion,old and weak Jews were admitted to the camp even though

they could no longer be forced to do work useful to the Reich. This was Kra-

mer’s answer: ‘‘The reasons why these peoplewere sent to my campwere none

of my business. My task was to accept them. Whether it was a political oppo-

nent or a Jew or a career criminal did not concern me. I accepted the bodies,

and that was all.’’

After the glamour of the uniforms and insignia had faded, the ss men who

had once brimmed with self-conﬁdence presented a sorry picture. When they

were confronted with crimes committed within theircommand, high-ranking

oﬃcers of yesteryear claimed to have been double-crossed by their subordi-

nates, and those accused of committing atrocities pointed to orders that they

had to carry out if they did not want to risk their own lives. Hannah Arendt

has summed up the behavior of the bigwigs of the machinery of extermina-

tion in these words: ‘‘In the completely changed atmosphere after the end of

the war, not one of them had the guts to defend the Nazi Weltanschauung,

though almost every one of them must have realized that there was no longer

any hope for them.’’

When Maximilian Grabner was ferreted out in Austria, arrested, and con-

fronted with me, I almost did not recognize him, though I remembered him

all too well from Auschwitz. He was a yammering, groveling coward and kept

asserting with a guileless look in his eyes that he had wanted only the best

for the inmates. No one who heard his whimpering and begging could have

imagined how much that man had enjoyed the terror that he spread as head

of the camp Gestapo. After he had been extradited to Poland, he did so much

moaning in a Cracow courtroom as he tried to deny any guilt that it became

too much even for his codefendant, the former ss camp leader Aumeier.When

the defendants were once again led out of the courtroom at the conclusion of

a session, Aumeier gave Grabner, who was walking ahead of him, a kick as

a sign of his contempt. Aumeier was the only one of the forty defendants at

this Auschwitz trial in Cracow who did not try to minimize his responsibility

for the crimes. Grabner attempted to make his judges believe that he partici-

pated because he could not change anything. He said that he was active in the

machinery of extermination only out of consideration for his family and later

was under irresistible compulsion and orders.

In late July 1945 Dr. Friedrich Entress testiﬁed as follows: ‘‘From the very

ﬁrst day, my service in the kl was spoiled for me by my obligation to attend all

executions and the many minor incidents in the camp, including those among

inmates, against which I was powerless. The greatest nervous strain began

with the so-called Jewish transports.’’ Entress had the following explanation

for his killing of inmates by means of injections, allegedlyonly on orders: ‘‘No

matter how great my guilt may now be because I executed these orders and

ssMembers after the War n 505

how heavy the burden of my fate was during my service in the kl,Icanonly

explain it all to myself today by pointing out that in the face of those mass

deaths and masses of people we came to the bitter but true realization that

under the necessarily prevailing circumstances these tormented people ought

to be helped rather than harmed.’’ Entress evidently realized that his argu-

ments were not persuasive, and therefore he added: ‘‘The methods employed

by the ss in the concentration camps had a completely deadening eﬀect and

caused us to have no scruples about our conduct anymore.’’

Anyone who was able to observe in Auschwitz the initiative displayed by

Grabner and Entress, as holders of key positions in the machinery of destruc-

tion, and anyonewho experienced howavidly these twotracked downany little

attempt to lessen the omnipotence of the machinery of murder and how rig-

orously they hindered any mitigation of it will be shown by such statements

to what degree a person can lie to himself. I state this because I do not believe

that these men said these things only to put themselves in a better light before

their judges. After feeling the revulsion aroused by their actions, they had a

need to make excuses to themselves.

Along with Grabner and Aumeier, the ss camp leader Maria Mandel was

sentenced to death in Cracow. Just before her execution she met in the bath-

room of theprison a Polish woman whom she had known in Auschwitz,where

that political prisoner had been an inmate functionary. Her nationalistic ori-

entation after the liberation aroused the suspicion of the Russians, and thus

she was imprisoned again in 1947. When the two were in the shower, Man-

del approached the woman and asked her to forgive her, which would make

her dying easier. The Pole said she forgave her, whereupon Mandel kissed her

hand.

After the death sentence had been pronounced on Höß, he felt a need to

justify himself to his family because he had to assume that they had learned

about the monstrous deeds that had been the subject of detailed reports in

the international press. Thus he wrote to his family: ‘‘As the commandant of

the Auschwitz extermination camp, I was fully responsible foreverything that

happened there, whether or not I knew about it. I did not learn about most of

the terrible and horrendous things that happened there until the examination

and the trial itself. How people double-crossed me and twisted my orders, all

the things they did, supposedly on orders from me—all this is indescribable.

I hope that the guilty people will not escape judgment.’’

Oswald Kaduk, the ss roll call leader, took a more primitive path to self-

justiﬁcation. In thesameyear in which Höß wrote his letter, he defendedhim-

self before a Soviet military court with this argument: ‘‘I was a soldier and

carried out all orders. More I was not able to do.’’

Pery Broad was shrewd enough to evade his judges, at least in the earli-

506 n Afterward

est and most critical period. He approached the administration of the British

prisoner-of-warcamp in which hewas interned and on his own initiative gave

a report about events in Auschwitz.Whenhewas requested to do so, he put his

report in writing and did not whitewash anything but said nothing whatever

about his own role in the Political Department. ‘‘It was a kind of confession

for him,’’ said a Dutchman formerly employed in the interrogation section of

that camp years later. Broad was given preferential treatment and was called

in for the interrogation of other inmates—‘‘in order to indicate to us which

of them seemed suspect to him,’’ as the Dutchman put it later. Finally, Broad,

who had brought his knowledge of languages to the Political Department,was

used as an interpreter in the Nuremberg trials.

n Whom the Allies arrested shortly after the liberation of the camps and who

remained undisturbed was decided in large part by chance, since documents

had just begun to be utilized and the German population frequently behaved

the way Boger later described it: ‘‘In Ludwigsburg I stayed for about three

weeks in 1945 without registering with the police, but then I was betrayed by

a former inmate of Auschwitz and arrested by the Americans.’’ It is revealing

that Boger uses ‘‘betrayed’’ for the action of a former prisoner. At that time

Boger managed to escape from American captivity. He later testiﬁed about

what happened afterward: ‘‘Afterescaping from captivity I was in hiding at the

homes of relatives and friends in Württemberg without registering with the

police. At that time it was still apparent that Germans stuck together because

they all knew me and no one reported me.’’

Professor Friedrich Hacker has been trying to determine why the Germans

behaved in this way, or in similar ways, at that time and why those who had to

execute the crimes of Nazism go on living without pangs of conscience. He

writes: ‘‘The Germans did not repress their bad conscience. Manyof them have

none. The projection of an enemy symbol spared them a repression. By now

there are a suﬃcient number of investigations that prove that the Germans

feel no more guilty than the American soldiers do in Vietnam. They simply

regard their adversaries as lice or lemurs or subhumans, just as the Germans

regarded Jews. Thus the whole brutal enterprise can operate under the desig-

nation ‘extermination of vermin.’ For this reason there is no point in digging

out guilt feelings alleged to be buried. They do not even exist.’’

In the course of time this has become more and more clearly apparent, par-

ticularly after the Allied courts had long since suspended their activities and

German courts began to conduct theirown investigations aftera longinterval.

With few exceptions the defendants regarded themselves as whipping boys,

and in this they were conﬁrmed by part of German society, which called the

trials of Nazis a national humiliation.

ssMembers after the War n 507

The development of public opinion is clearly reﬂected in Boger’s behavior.

On July 5, 1945, when everyone was still under the spell of the crimes com-

mitted in the camps, crimes that had only recently become public knowledge,

he testiﬁed as follows in American captivity: ‘‘Auschwitz! Unimaginable capi-

tal crime unique in the history of mankind! A big scientiﬁc investigation of

this course of events by scholars from all over the world will ﬁnd those who

are truly guilty and absolve the German people in its totality as well as the

mass of ss men, those pitiful slaves of the greatest sadist of all time, rfss

Himmler.’’ Nineteen years later, when Boger was called to account by a Ger-

man court in Frankfurt, his testimony was quite diﬀerent. After a witness had

described how during an ‘‘intensiﬁed interrogation’’ Boger crushed the tes-

ticles of a fellow prisoner, the defendant was told, ‘‘Surely you know that a

prisoner who is so mistreated that blood ﬂows from his trousers is eventually

prepared to give any testimony. As an expert you ought to know that such a

testimony is valueless.’’ Boger responded self-conﬁdently, ‘‘I am of a diﬀerent

opinion, and with speciﬁc reference to Auschwitz. It is also my view that in

many cases corporal punishment would be appropriate even today—for ex-

ample, in the current criminal law relating to juveniles.’’ When this caused an

audible disturbance in the balcony, Boger angrily yelled, ‘‘It’s easy for you up

there to laugh. You weren’t there, were you?’’

TheAuschwitz trial in Frankfurt oﬀered ample opportunities to observe the

defendants. As in other trials of Nazis, they trulyoﬀered no picture of an elite,

not even in the negative sense. Like most criminals, they worked at making

excuses and did not spurn even the lamest ones. When they could no longer

come up with excuses, one heard this hackneyed protestation: ‘‘Your Honor,

try as I may, I cannot remember this after so many years!’’

Willi Schatz, born in 1905, who had a doctorate in dentistry, stubbornly

denied that he made any selections. When he was asked what he had done in

Auschwitz, he responded, ‘‘I did my duty as a soldier.’’

When Johann Schobert, a low-ranking ss man in the Political Department,

was asked whether the many dead bodies, which no one in Auschwitz could

have overlooked, had not attracted his attention, he could only answer: ‘‘We

didn’t worry about them.’’

Heinrich Bischoﬀ, a former block leader, was charged with several mur-

ders, and he also denied everything. When a ﬂat denial seemed too implau-

sible because too many witnesses had observed his shootings, he asserted that

he was not a monster, that he had only administered coups de grâce. He was

angry that he had been accused at all: ‘‘I’ve had heart disease for four years

now. Up to now I’ve always led an honest life. But now such dirty tricks are

meant to louse up the last days of my life.’’

Detlef Nebbe, the ﬁrst sergeant in the commandant’s oﬃce,was sentenced

508 n Afterward

to a life term in Cracow and pardoned after nine years. When he was a wit-

ness in Frankfurt, he emphasized with obvious pride that he had served in the

Waﬀen-ss in Auschwitz. Like virtually all the ss men in the camp, he did not

spend a single day at the front. He gave the court a very detailed description of

an episode in which an ss man helped an inmate escape. When he was asked

why he recalled this particular occurrence so clearly, he replied: ‘‘The reason

I can’t forget this is that I knew what a soldier’s duty was.’’ Even during long

years of captivity in Poland, that man did not reﬂect on human duties in an

extermination camp.

Boger’s life term had long since become ﬁnal and he had already spent

twelve years in prison when he was summoned to serve as a witness at an-

other Auschwitz trial. ‘‘We were soldiers,’’ he said, and by ‘‘we’’ he meant the

guards in Auschwitz. In his case, too, his punishment had eﬀected no remorse

whatever.

Hans Stark was nineteen when he participated in the ﬁrst gassings in

Auschwitz. When a judge asked him about the feelings that motivated him

then, he replied that he regarded the use of gas as unmanlyand cowardly.That

was evidently his only objection to the mass murder.

Here is Pery Broad’s reply to the question of whether he regarded what hap-

pened in Auschwitz as appropriate: ‘‘You have to distinguish between what

happened in the main camp and in the extermination camp. The idea of the

main camp wasn’t bad because there it was possible to make the inmates

work. But then it was linked to the machinery of extermination.’’

As an ss major and the head of the Auschwitz administration, Wilhelm

Burger also ‘‘administered’’ the poison gas. In Poland he was sentenced to

prison, and after his discharge hewas called to account in Germany. He hardly

had to worry about the second trial, since the time served in Poland would

be deducted from any new sentence. Still, the sexagenarian burst out in tears

with or without a cause and made this lachrymose complaint: ‘‘This Ausch-

witz has been hanging on me for twenty years.’’ In Dachau, where he lives, he

had masses celebrated for a favorable outcome of his trial. From the records

Burger knew that I had aided the prosecution by proposing witnesses and pro-

viding documents. From my own testimony he must have known my attitude

toward the organizers of the mass murders in Auschwitz. On one occasion,

when I was getting my overcoat after a session, he came running obsequi-

ously to help me into it. He obviously did not consider how embarrassing this

gesture was bound to be for me.

n As soon as there was documentation of their crimes, former members of

the ss pretended that as soldiers they had no alternative but to obey orders.

Klaus Dylewski declared before his judges, ‘‘Refusing to carry out a command

ssMembers after the War n 509

never crossed my mind. That wasn’t in me.’’ Mulka made this assertion: ‘‘I

took care not to prepare my own death sentence by asking my superiors about

the legality of the murders of prisoners that I had heard about. I bore a re-

sponsibility to my family and to myself.’’

The law expects no one to risk his own life to prevent a crime. If a soldier

acts under Befehlsnotstand—the term used by jurists for a person who carried

out a criminal command because he would otherwise have endangered his life

—the law exempts him from punishment. Because defendants in Nazi trials

repeatedly invoked Befehlsnotstand, experts have been asked to clarify this con-

cept. Dr. Hans-Günther Seraphim has summed up this problem as follows:

A refusalto obeyan order to exterminate inmates is not regarded by Himm-

ler as disloyalty in the context of the ss Weltanschauung and therefore is

not deemed to be a capital crime. Rather, such a refusal ranked as ‘‘charac-

ter weakness.’’ This explains why it was not followed by any punishment.

Himmler’s statements also indicate that the extermination, the physical

eradication, of the opponents of Nazism was regarded as a sign of a par-

ticular strength of character and a mind-set that was in keeping with the

ideal image of the ss. To genuine ss men the orders to exterminate pris-

oners had to appear objectively justiﬁed, though there might be an inner

struggle against them. In addition, campaigns of this kind had to be re-

garded by those who carried them out as special achievements and proofs

of one’s mettle that were appropriate for an elite.

Notall defendants inFrankfurtassumedfromthe beginningthestancethat

madeone doubt during the trial that these people realized what they had done.

After his surprising arrest in April 1959, Pery Broad in his ﬁrst hearing ad-

mitted many things that he later stubbornly denied. For this reason the senior

detective who had interrogated him was summoned to Frankfurt as a witness.

‘‘At his hearing Broad was perceptive,’’ he testiﬁed. ‘‘We had a lengthy conver-

sation. Afterward Broad was rather pleased that he had unburdened himself.

He was relaxed and seemed liberated.’’

The same detective also examined Hans Stark shortly after his unexpected

arrest, and the policeman made the following statement about him: ‘‘Stark

was very forthcoming. He talked about some things that we did not know at

the time.’’ Stark’s testimony in court years later was anything but forthcom-

ing. In his closing speech he summed up his responsibility in these words: ‘‘I

participated in the killing of many people. After the war I have often asked

myself whether I became a criminal. I have not been able to ﬁnd an answer to

this question.’’

Only one of the least sophisticated men among the Frankfurt defendants,

510 n Afterward

Stefan Baretzki, found an answer to this question. When I visited him in the

penitentiary after his sentence, a life term, had become ﬁnal, he declared that

he had been willing to accept this sentence right after it was pronounced.

‘‘After all, that’s the only thing I could still do for the people,’’ he said. How-

ever, his defense attorney and ‘‘the others,’’ evidently his fellow defendants,

obliged him to appeal the verdict, as the others did. Since he was in any case

frequently snubbed by theothersand was dependenton the support of wealthy

fellow defendants and their contacts, he did not have the strength to insist on

getting his way. This account by Baretzki indicates the possible origin of the

uniformity of the defendants’ defense that was evident in most of the Nazi

trials.

A number of defendants told the court that they vainly attempted to get

away from Auschwitz. The reasons they gave for these attempts are revealing.

Robert Mulka, the commandant’s adjutant, claimed that the Auschwitz at-

mosphere disgusted him. ‘‘The things that transpired there shocked me from

the beginning.’’ When he was asked what transpired there, he replied, ‘‘Well,

the people with the striped clothes.’’ ‘‘Just the clothes?’’ asked the presiding

judge, forcing Mulka to specify what had shocked him. ‘‘No, that wasn’t all.

I mean the whole tone. Just one example: I received my commission as a ﬁrst

lieutenant in 1922. If I had shown a young lieutenant this white sheet of paper

in those years and had said, ‘Isn’t this a nice red sheet?’ he would have re-

sponded, ‘Yes, it’s really a beautiful red. If you hadn’t told me, I might have

believed it was white.’ If I had said something like that in the ss in Auschwitz,

the reaction would have been ‘What nonsense! That paper is white.’ No, those

men simply had no style.’’

Oswald Kaduk had other reasons for leaving Auschwitz. According to him,

he was afraid of being done away with as a bearer of secrets. Josef Klehr was

transferredfrom the inﬁrmary in which he had administered injectionsof poi-

son every day to the disinfection section, where he had no opportunities to

kill inmates capriciously. In the courtroom therewas a reading of a letter from

him in which he regretted this transfer.When the prosecutorasked him about

the reason for his dissatisfaction with this new assignment, Klehr replied:

‘‘Serving in the hkb was nothing special. But the work after that was much

worse. As a disinfector I had to go into the contaminated barracks and was

constantly at risk.’’

Several witnesses conﬁrmed that, by contrast, his colleagues Herbert

Scherpe and Emil Hantl killed enfeebled inmates with injections of poison

only on orders and with obvious distaste. On one occasion Scherpe even re-

fused to kill children. He was evidently embarrassed that this episode was

discussed in front of his fellow defendants and former comrades. In the pre-

ssMembers after the War n 511

liminary examination he had testiﬁed that he could not bear the injections

‘‘emotionally and morally any longer’’ and that his ‘‘nerves were completely

shot’’; but after witnesses had testiﬁed that he had broken down when he was

supposed to kill children, he reacted by saying, ‘‘That’s an exaggeration.That

isn’t true.’’ It evidently was more important to him not to be considered schlapp

(soft) by his erstwhile comrades than to gather extenuating circumstances for

his sentence. All he said by way of a closing speech was ‘‘I am not aware of

any personal guilt.’’

Hantl’s situation before the court was even more favorable, for more wit-

nesses testiﬁed in his favor than had supported Scherpe. He was charged with

participating in selections made in the inﬁrmary. ‘‘I only accompanied the ss

physician,’’ he said in his defense. ‘‘That was my duty, and I would do the same

thing today.’’ He indignantly rejected the assertion that he had administered

injections of poison with his own hands. ‘‘I didn’t do that.Was I supposed to

let the infected patients breathe on me?’’ Even the man whom many witnesses

credited with humane feelings could not give any other motives for restraint

at the killings.

During the entire trial Bruno Schlage, the block leader of the bunker, de-

nied everything with a pinched face, even when he must have noticed that

no one could believe him any more. He read his well-prepared closing speech

from a piece of paper. All he had to say about Auschwitz was this: ‘‘I had to

do my duty the way it was demanded of me. We could not refuse to obey any

orders while our fatherland was ﬁghting a total war. I felt bound by my oath

of loyalty to the commander in chief. We had no time to examine the orders

because they had to be carried out immediately.’’

In the twenty months of the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, there were two

occasions on which defendants’ nerves gave out and they burst into tears.

Kaduk and Bednarek wept when their own fate was discussed. ‘‘If an object

of pity appears anywhere, it is usually one’s own self.’’ This observation by

Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich has been conﬁrmed by the Auschwitz

trial.

n The German writer Martin Walser, who followed the trial with understand-

ing and empathy, has this to say about the phenomenon of the memory of

Auschwitz being a far greater burden for the victims than for the victimizers:

‘‘What Auschwitz was is known only by the ‘inmates’ and by no one else.When

a former ‘inmate’is unable to go on speaking in the courtroom; when it is hard

for him to so much as look at his former tormentors to identify one of them;

when he keeps repeating compulsively phrases of his torturers, twenty-year-

old sentences, including things said by the tortured; when for a few minutes

512 n Afterward

memory yields its dreadful substance in a simple and unprocessed form, a bit

of Auschwitz becomes real.’’

On the other hand:

It is not the fault of the ss men but that of our human memory that they do

not have to cry when they see the inmates again. To be sure, our memory

continues to work in mysterious fashion on our experiences, which it ab-

sorbs, but when we recall a situation our memory ﬁrst supplies an image

of our role in that situation. Then, after newer insights, we can manipulate

our role; we can regret it, deny it, disavow it. However, these commentaries

that we now add to the memory material cannot attain real power over us.

Thus one should not be too surprised that the accused frequently smile or

give answers that almost seem ironic.That is not cynicism. Even today they

cannot comprehend the Auschwitz reality of the inmates—because their

memory has preserved an entirely diﬀerent Auschwitz, their Auschwitz,

that of the ss men.

That is why, when they returned from Auschwitz to their accustomed

milieu, they did not seem to those around them to be criminals.

Hasheider, the Protestant parson of Uerdingen, certiﬁed after Klaus Dylew-

ski’s arrest that he had participated in the religious life of the congregation

and was known to him from numerous pastoral conversations. ‘‘I believe I can

vouch for Herr Dylewski,’’ wrote this clergyman, ‘‘and aﬃrm that he is today

a person molded and bound by the Christian faith.’’

From 1950 to his arrest in October 1958, Wilhelm Boger was employed by

the Heinkel Works in Stuttgart-Zuﬀenhausen. This ﬁrm gave him the follow-

ing reference in 1959: ‘‘On the basis of his good performance, his ambition,

his diligence, and his readiness for duty, he was promoted on March 1, 1956,

to the position of senior stock clerk. Herr Boger has always performed the

duties assigned to him to our complete satisfaction. His great interest in his

work and his diligence have made him a very valuable memberof our staﬀ. His

personal conduct toward his superiors and fellow workers has always been

unobjectionable.’’

After he was pardoned in the gdr, Oswald Kaduk went to West Berlin and

found a position as an assistant nurse in theTegel-Nord Hospital. He became

so popular with the patients that they called him ‘‘Papi’’ (Pop).

The lack of guilt feelings coupled with the publicity they received in the

course of the trial caused many a former ssman to behave like a star. As a pris-

oner awaiting trial, Boger wrote his wife that he was sorry he had neglected

to write his memoirs. When he had been sentenced and was supposed to tes-

tify in another trial, he stipulated that the interrogation had to take place in

ssMembers after the War n 513