There was one. Its author was eight years dead. It might originated by man who never graduated from Law school although he had attended Albany Law School for two or three semesters and his early law career resembles that of Abraham Lincoln. Later their law life differed. Lincoln was elected President of the United States while he became last associate justice of the United States Supreme Court who did not graduate from law school. He was for some time Attorney General of the United States and after the war Chief U.S. prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal. Here Robert H. Jackson faced general Rudenko's request that Katyn strictly off record. It was and remained there more than fifty years and polite people avoid mentioning it still. Rudenko's effort to suppress introducing Katyn massacres is understandable. Russians maintained that the victims had been killed by Germans: then why to protect Germany by not bringing it up? Such poisonous questions were also off the docket. Had the defense proved Soviet guilt the argument based on dying Caesar's lament, "tu quoque, Brute, fili mi" would have weakened the prosecution considerably. In Dachau tribunal the principle "tu quoque", "you too" was accepted as valid defense by colonel Otto Skorzeny when he proved special American details wore German uniforms, and to some extent admiral Doenitz raised the problem in IMT proceedings. Skorzeny was referring to the Operation Greif/griffin/ when during the Battle of Bulge Germans with fluent command of English attempted unsuccessfully disrupt enemy communication, disorient operations, assassinate commanders etc., but were arrested and shot without trial. On smaller scale Greif had been attempted in against Soviets with the same disastrous results. Despite the tribunal's warning issued at the opening of the trial, Admiral Doenitz attempted the tu quoqe defense, but the court categorically stressed it would not tolerate future trespassing upon its ruling. Since that time no one of the defendants would misuse the ruling. Had such defense been accepted, the prosecution might collapse: there would have been less death sentenced and more of the defendants would have gone free. Indiscriminate carpet bombing of residential areas served the purpose of break the will of civilians with Dresden and Hamburg coming to mind, especially the former which was pulverized few weeks before the end of the war. Prosecution would have hard time to explain the raids. Otherwise, there were few instances when Americans and British violated the rules of war; tu quoqe was institutes virtually to protect Soviets. There were numerous cases of killing of prisoners of war; from a hundred thousand Germans who surrendered in Stalingrad ten thousand survived. The incontrovertible evidence of rapine and shooting of civilians encouraged by officers and reminding of ancient custom to leave for few days the victorious army to rob, rape and kill the inhabitants of the conquered city would have implicated Soviets in the public and endangered their domination of Eastern Europe. The defense raised also question of legality of the tribunal. London Charter of the International Military Tribunal on August 8, 1945 stipulated that German and Italian Crimes can be tried. It was necessary for there was no precedent for crimes against peace or for preparation of aggressive war. The defense maintained that some of the countries represented at the trial were not members of international organizations and therefore should not be allowed to participate in the proceedings. Article 6/b/ of the Charter addressed this issue:"If enough countries have signed a treaty and such treaty was in effect for sufficiently long period of time, it can be interpreted as binding to all, not only to the signatories. Not exactly in the spirit of Roman Law, the article is subject to doubts for sixty-six years. Robert Jackson brilliantly analyzed the lack of precedent, nonetheless. He presented a picture of an prehistorical society consisting of bestial, savage individual, ignorant of any rules but rules of muscles, rocks, and clubs, the Hobbes's Leviathan dreadful, wicked unimaginable creature having more animal than human properties: " Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes" was the general rule. Whoever was able to raise the heaviest stone and throw it farthest had the best chance of survival long before Darwin formulated his views. Then one of the smarter men realized that whoever stole his goat or slayed his uncle should be punished not only by him, who had suffered the damage, but the whole community should condemn the perpetrator and help to punish him. Jackson reasoned that one day this rule had to be established. Had the ancient lawmaker consciously considered precedent the violence would have continued ad infinitum, yet once he had had enough and acted, he created precedent. The International Military Tribunal represents the nations that had enough, and cannot wait for any precedent. After Jackson's expose IMT accepted his argument and the defendants were doomed. There were no others procedural doubts raised. Some crimes were so heinous that they cannot be judged by accepted laws. An inadequate comparison would be Jean Jacques Rousseau's -for Marx true, for others silly- postulate:"Le premier, qui ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: "ceci est a moi," et trouva des gens assez simple pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la society civil." "The first person who having fenced a piece of land and said: “this is mine," and found men naive enough to believe him, was the actual founder of civil society. He formed the economical precedent like the ancient established judicial precedent. The Israeli court reasoned that there existed criminals to whom the norms of justice cannot be applied and if the only way to bring them to trial requires violation of law, even International law, so be it: Grotius did not face man like Eichmann. It would be interesting to know whether Israelis were aware of Jackson's analysis or the critical deduction was their own, but both have changed the law like few other jurists did. Among the victims of revolution the majority are innocent men and women, political bystanders; it is safe to estimate that in some larger rebellions ninety per cent of the slain were not guilty of any capital crime, but of any trespass. It does not matter whether sentenced by the Cheka Troikas, the Soviet revolutionary tribunal consisting of three persons, one of them the Cheka member or revolutionary active judge with law degree from Sorbonne. M.J.A. Herman and Fouquier-Tinville have less right to be called judges than Marat to be called martyr. In Germany Roland Freisler and his successor after his death during an air raid, Harry Haffner, the presiding judges of the Volksgerichtshof belong to the same category. The presiding judge of the trial of the King Charles I John Bradshaw must have realized how unpopular the trial and ergo he must have been. Originally, there were 135 people appointed as judges; 68 did not showed up and from the 46 members of the Cromwell's "Rump Parliament" only 26 voted to try the King. Many members of the such spurious trial are lay person who have no comprehension of justice and are unable to try a chicken thief; but are not jury members lay persons also and in some cases do they not decide on the death penalty? It is true, but they are under supervision on the judge, counsels, and the prosecutor: at the conclusion of the trial the judge gives them detailed instruction and explains them what they can and what they cannot consider. They are not independent, or better, independent only to a certain degree determined by the law. One week after the fall of Bastille Duke Louis-Antoine-Henry de Bourbon together with his father and grandfather left France and settled in Ettenheim in neutral Grand Duchy of Baden, close by Rhine. He was descendant of the Bourbon-Conde family. He had not any children and after his death, neither his father nor grandfather had any either. By his violent death in the age of 31 the Conde family disappeared from the aristocratic mosaic. Duc de Enghien was relative of Bourbon Kings, descendant of Louis XIV and cousin of future Louis Philippe I. He was married to Charlotte de Rohan, niece of the cardinal Rohan. He conspired with England against the revolution and later against Napoleon who hated ci-devants no less than Maximillien Robespierre and received reports that dEnghien was heavily involved in a plot to depose him. He felt that "Air is full of daggers"; At another occasion he referred directly to himself:"Am I a dog to be chased in street...while my killers are to be regarded sacrosanct?" On May 11, Talleyrand confidentially warned Baron von Edesheim, the Baden-Baden ambassador to Paris that in few days French forces would invade the German territory, seize and assassinate Duc d'Enghien. The First Consul obtained concrete evidence that Duc had received financial support from England to support the conspiracy of Comte d'Artois, future king Charles, who had completed the plot to murder Napoleon. From the Powers England was most active in actions to remove him; more than Austria whose princess was killed by his predecessors. Prime minister Pitt commented:"What importance can be attached to government that depends on pistol shot?" Chouan refugees in Britain under leader George Cadoudal landed in France in August 1803 followed four months later by General Charles Pichegru group. Napoleon had enough. Here is the short dialog between him and Duke of Parma Marshall Cambareces: "What are you going to do?" asked the Marshall. ”We shall kidnap the Duc d'Enghien and be done with it. He commanded General Ordener commander of the Imperial guard to bring the Duc d'Enghien to France at all costs. In a simultaneous operation under command of general Caulaincourt the numerous émigrés were expelled from Offenburg. Ordener was joined by general Fririon and general Charlot commanding gendarmerie. They were led by local guide Pfersdorf. D'Enghien was arrested at 5 AM March 14 1804. Three hundred dragons and seven hundred other armed French troops crossed on boats Rhine, entered Ettenheim on the East bank of the river and captured their prey. D'Enghien spent the night of March, 16 in Strasbourg and in the afternoon under name of Plessis with his escort reached the gates of De La Vilette. He was driven in a coach to Vincennes where the commander was General Anne Jean Savary, a fanatical ally of the First Consul.
He was investigated by major Dautancourt from the gendarmerie. He declared he had no connection neither with D'Artois not Cadoudal. After the interrogation was over he was brought to one of the largest rooms in Vincennes for the trial. The presiding judge was general Pierre-Augustin Hulin, highly overrated conqueror of the poorly defended Bastille. He was assisted by five colonels as judges: Guiton, Dautancourt, Ravier, Bazancourt, and Rabbe. The Court received instructions from Napoleon what questions to put to the defendant. Again he denied participation in any plot. He explained: "My birth and my opinion will always make me the enemy of your government." He only confessed he had asked a commission in the British Army.
This was sufficient for having been found guilty. With trial by jury suspended the law of 25 Brumaire, an III, tit. 5, sect. 1, art. 7, provided that "émigrés who have born arms against France shall be arrested, whether in France or in any hostile or conquered country, and judged within twenty-four hours..." His sentence copied the law of 25 Brumaire: he was... "The ci-devant duc d'Enghien, accused of being a party to conspiracies directed against the internal and external security of the republic, will be brought before a military commission composed of seven members, appointed by the governor-general of Paris, Murat, which will meet in Vincennes."
Originally, all judges agreed on imprisonment, but after few hours of deliberation all voted for death penalty. Josephine, the first French empress and her friend Madame Remusat asked Napoleon for mercy, but it was refused. There is some indication a meeting between d 'Enghien and the emperor were suggested, but Savary in order to prevent possible clemency rushed the execution. He told the court: "Messieurs, your job is over, mine begins." At 3 a.m. on 21 March Duc Louis-Antoine-Henry D'Enghien was taken to the Vincennes' moat and shot. The last of the family Conde was gone. In 1816 his body was transferred to the family crypt.
Napoleon apologists blame for the death of the young aristocrat Savary whose guilt is without doubt while Talleyrand did not press First Consul sufficiently to commute the sentence.
Napoleon could not avoid the accusations of his full responsibility; he could not pretend he had no knowledge of a kidnapping that resulted in death: it would have been as ridiculous as Brigham Young's denial of knowledge of the Mountain Meadow Massacre. When general Pichegru was found strangled in his cell the First Consul was suspected. Napoleon denied any involvement; it might have been a suicide although it must be hard ted of the murder for the general recently returned from emigration and was preparing for a person strangle himself.
Nonetheless, there is a well documented suicide by strangulation on record. Dr. Robert Ley, beside other functions was head of the Todt organization charged with providing labor forces for industry and before the war he had built Autobahn. He was incarcerated in Nuremburg with von Ribbentrop, Marshall Goering, Marshall Keitel, and other defendants and charged with war crimes. On October 24 he was found dead in his cell. He had torn a towel in thin stripes, tied them to the toilet pipe and strangulated himself. He followed his wife, the ballerina Inge who had shot herself on December 1942 after a previous unsuccessful jump from window. She was depressed after giving birth to their third child and sought relieve in drugs and alcohol.
The court had not right to judge a person kidnapped from a sovereign country. The moment the victim had crossed the border to Baden the French jurisdiction over the victim than Napoleon over Saint Peter. Had D'Enghien returned voluntarily he could have been arrested for he had kept his French citizenship, but had he plead allegiance to Baden and gave up French citizenship the question of the legality of the court was doubtful. He was brought to France against will and no matter what law the country passed against the émigrés abroad, they were no valid outside France; how would Paris feel if a foreign country kidnapped their citizen and shot him? That he was present in his country does not change the injustice for he had been brought to France against his will. Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe (deputy from Meurthein the Corps Legislatif) or Fouche are reported to have said: "C'est pire q'un crime, c'est une faute," "It was worse than crime; it was a blunder" in English. Oui, oui.
The émigrés were as much furious as when King and later Queen were executed. Their anger was increased for here was violated the sovereignty of legal state and thus the international law. After Russian revolution there occurred several kidnapping of émigrés from France, and few murders committed against them; for short time public was excited, the émigrés for longer, but they cannot ask the proper course: to attack Soviet Union. The wars because of an individual victim are not worth it and no one suggested France invades Moscow. War for some general killed in Paris? No? In WWI millions lost life in war that started after two people had died on the Sarajevo street. It did not resurrected the man and his wife, but it was not its goal; its goal was to prevent in future the constellation that cause the killing of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, which it did not. It appears that the more people die for someone idea the less sense the war makes. After the war, not only President Wilson believed there will not be any world war again, but even Germany suffered enough to agree. Yet WWII caused his truism "War to end wars" to be radically modified to more probable but no more precise "War to postpone wars."
Between the two wars there occurred numerous international kidnappings and assassinations, mostly unpunished since they occurred in foreign territory. Notable exception was Nadezhda Plevitskaya, wife of general Skoblin, the Soviet mole in Russian emigrees’ circles in France. She was agent of NKVD. Her husband who under pretext of meeting two members of German Abwehr delivered on September 22, 1937 Russian émigré general Miller into the hands of Soviet agents. Miller was smuggled aboard Le Havre, a ship under Soviet flag.
The emigrees entertained some suspicion about Skoblin; Miller left a brief letter suggesting that if he would not return from the conference Skoblin might be responsible. Some sources exhorted Skoblin guilt by pointing that he would become a Soviet informer only after Miller disappearance. Any doubts about his betrayal were nullified after he fled to Stalin's embassy in Warsaw and from there to Spain, where he ended up in Barcelona at that time in hands of reds who refused French request for extradition.
With enough of evidence against Skoblin's wife, she was sentenced in France to twenty years in prison.
General Miller was brought to Moscow and tortured. On May 25, 1939 he was executed in prison. Copies of letters he was permitted to write while in prison are in the Volkogonov papers at the library of Congress.
General Kutepov, another émigré, was kidnapped in Paris on January 26,1930. He was brought to Russia, brutally interrogated and summary shot. No other information is available. Some sources maintain he died on route and lack of any trace about him supports another rumor that he died during transfer to Moscow. Trip in car trunk was not unknown means of transporting the victims or their body whether American gangsters or same professional from NKVD. General Kutepov might have suffocated or might have been suffocated by the agents during torturous interrogation en route. It is long way from Paris to Moscow and not all NKVD are patient.
It would be cruel irony to say the generals had better luck than Simon Petliura, head of Ukrainian Government between 1918-1920 and prominent politician before the war. He descended from religious family whose two sisters were nuns; after the civil war Petliura emigrated to France. He was active in emigree's organizations; Sholom Schwarzbart, a Jewish anarchist shot him to death in Paris on May 25, 1926. At least he is buried next to his wife and daughter in the Cimitiere du Montparnasse. Russia, France, and later Spain were home to most anarchists. In France was for short time popular Ravachole, sung to tune of Carmagnole. It celebrated the best known anarchist of nineteen century Francois Claudius Koenigstein known as Ravachol who was guillotined for murder on October 14, 1859.
We can contribute to their ranks with Haymarket anarchists, Leon Czolgosz who killed President McKinley and was nearly killed by soldiers, Secret Service agents send when being transferred to Auburn prison by hundreds of people chanting:"Give him to us!" and Emma Goldman who praised his deed. He was the fiftieth person executed in electrical chair.
Although not a kidnapping, his murder completes the picture of dangers the emigrees were exposed to in the relative safety of France which seems to be the favorite country to settle old political accounts; it was in Marseilles that on October 9, 1934 King Alexander I and French Foreign minister Louis Barthou were killed by émigré from Yugoslavia Vlado Chernozemski who was immediately shot to death by police officers and torn to pieces by the crowd. He was member of Croatian underground society. Thirty-seven years later appeared theory that Barthou was shot by police.
Chernozemski's weapon was 7.65 mm caliber as was the bullet recovered from the king's body while bullet that had killed Barthou was 8 mm caliber which was official weapon of police. At that time forensic ballistic was sufficiently accurate and it must have been due to a gross negligence that the difference between the bullets was not noticed. Micrometer measurement should show thirty-five differences, but bullets, are invariably measured also by by microscope, and France, country of Bertillon figured for long time on the top of criminalist. It is not only the caliber that is telling. Although comparative microscope would come later, simple microscope must have pointed to lack of any similar surface marks like scratches caused be riffling, hammer, and other parts of the gun. Several policemen were firing simultaneously and it is quite possible that in the confusion one of the security hit Louis Barthou; from thousand officers in the course of his career one fires his gun. The question is why the difference between the bullets was not noticed at the first analysis only when the case became cold and maybe thanks to some detective's curiosity rather than reexamination of evidence a crucial fact entered the case. Unless one of the bullets was misplaced in the laboratory or archives the affair hurts criminalities considerably; if a mistake occurs in a celebrity case what about the fate of Francois the thief?
Another blunder appeared in the form of medical failure to close Barthou's severed humerous artery quickly, before he bled to death, a routine procedure which might have saved foreign minister life. The other bulled was not dangerous , but blood from damaged artery can cause death in minutes depending on the extent of the injury. Providing the help is available the closure of the leak is possible and it is is reasonable to assume that medical assistance was not far. The minister might have die despite the best care, yet medical ethics calls for all possible means to use to prevent death. 1912 Nobel Prize for medicine laureate Dr. Alexis Carrel in his book " L'Homme, Cet Inconnu"- "Man The Unknown" wrote: "Hopeless situations and incurrable disease do not exist." It is not a convincing statement although it has been written by a person who was member of scientific societies in ten countries including Vatican: he was granted honorary doctorate from six universities: Dr. Carrel received decorations from six governments including the Holy See and was Commander in the Legion d'Honneur of France. Nonetheless, his words are applicable to the handling of Louis Barthou.
Under similar circumstances and also with two bullets another politician and one time like Barthou, minister, but minister of Forest and Agriculture was killed in Austrian Chancellery. The building is located in Vienna in Ballhausplatz
. Dr. Engelbert Dollfuss had studied theology, economy, and law. His most memorable political success would have been the union of Austria and Switzerland for which he strived, but prosperous and selfish Swiss categorically rejected his proposal; "selfish" is "patriotic" in political vernacular.
At the time of his death he held the office of the Chancellor. After having survived an assassination attempt by Rudolf Dertill on October 3, 1933 who was then sentenced to five years of prison, Dr. Engelbert Dollfuss was assassinated on July 25, 1934 in Chancellery building in Ballhausplatz in Vienna by Otto Planeta, police officer accompanied by three other policemen and three soldiers of the Austrian army 89th regiment. Seven assassins would be later executed and the rest sentenced to prison from five years to life in prison, Otto Planeta, the killer and the action organizer, Franz Holzweber were sentenced to death by judge Johann Lange and on July 31 several hours after the verdict hanged; their relatives request for the bodies was denied and all seven corpses were cremated in Feuer Halle in Simmering
The Bundeskanzler was shot yet probably not fatally; the shots hit Dr. Dollfuss in the throat, chest and touched the spine; it seems the vital parts of the spine were not affected since otherwise he would have been dead or at least unconscious; the danger consisted in bleeding and he asked for doctor and priest, but his request was brutally denied for several hours until he lost crucial amount of blood: their assassins did not care, the only assistance they offered him was some water. Most likely because they became aware of the failure of the coup d'etat that supposed to start with the murder and noticing the masses or army surrounding the chancellery they bandaged the wounds; for Engelbert Dollfuss it was too late. It is impossible to imagine that observing the bleeding the killers did not know he would die without qualified medical help. It was as if they slayed the Kanzler Dollfuss twice.
His wife Alwina Glienke Dollfuss was in Italy at this time and Benito Mussolini placed at her disposal his personal plane. The head of the Italian government, Benito Mussolini, upon having received the crushing news openly cried as did Dollfuss's deputy and one time minister of interior Ernst Rudiger Camillo von Stahremberg, collateral descendant of Ernst Rudiger von Stahmberg who had fought in the battle of Vienna in 1683.
The subsequent charges did not fail to notice the abominable afternoon in the chancellery and the bestial attitude of the murderers and had moral courage to sentence seven defendants to death and the rest to terms of five to life in prison; under the Germans threat the verdict required moral courage and the court it had; moral courage is no lesser courage then to be the last man to fall. One was hanged thirteen days after the murder, six on August thirteen 1934. Altogether thirteen persons were charged in the principal trial and numerous in later trials. Within less than four years there will be in Austria quite a few Planetastrassen and Planetagassen which lasted less than seven long years, years longer than centuries
Half a million people attended Dolfuss funeral, the largest assembly of individuals until Pope John Paul II death and funeral. It represented more than eight per cent of Austrian population.
A curiosity: Holy Roman emperor Joseph II ordered or imperially suggested that the dead have to be buried in body bag instead of caskets. The reason was never satisfactorily explained as was the rescinding of the order.
Catholic, exemplary true Catholic Austria was furious ; people were aware of his other inexplicable mischief; how in such a religious country would any ruler attack monasteries. To his credit, some of his reforms led Austria to prosperity and progress.
Realizing that some dead are not more dead than others and that there is no imperfect death the Tzar's incomprehensible manifest was rescinded after short time without explanation.
Engelbert Dollfuss rests in a small Friedhof Hietzing cemetery in thirteenth district in Vienna between his wife Alwine/Malvine/, born Glienke and two daughters, Eva and Hannerl. From many consulted sources one noted that Hannerl /probably from Hannelore/,was born after the funeral of her father. No any other written material mentions this note, but it does not meant it might not be true. Yet it is not. Several authors observe that shortly after Bundeskanzler death on invitation of Rachel Mussolini Dollfulss's children visited her family. It is obviously an error, repeated by other reporters; a photo dated August 2, 1934, shows Ewi and Rudi Dollfuss but not Hannerl playing on beach in Riccione with Romano and Anna Maria Mussolini. The text says that at that time the kids were not told about their father's murder. The correct interpretation would be that after the assassination the kids really were in Italy, but had travelled there before their father was cut down and not after. It supports the opinion that Hannerl was born after his demise, but there is no proof that she or her brother and sister visited Mussolini's family shortly after July 25. The newborn was too little to travel and after giving birth Frau Malvine was too weak to take trips; moreover, she had just returned for the funeral to Vienna. Summarizing, Hannerl was born posthumously, but did not visit Italy.The two other children went to Italy but before the slaying and on July 25 were still there.
On a picture of their grave the date of Hannerl's birth and death is indecipherable to the extent that from criminalities point it can not be considered more than a guess. At least one of the numbers indicating date of birth should be three/1934 or 1934/; from the study of the picture cannot be determined neither date of birth nor death of either of the children.
Benito Mussolini unlike most other heads of government he was multilingual, a fact well known; he did not have difficulty to converse fluently with both, Dr. Engelbert Dollfuss and his spouse.
He had faculty for languages; When in Switzerland he was working very hard and for most of the time manually, but in his free time he studied German and learned French so he could communicate with Frau Dollfuss and the children without embarrassing presence of an interpreter, no matter how reliable; some of them cannot resist to share confidential knowledge with others.
Paul Schmidt who wrote "An extra on diplomatic stage" and spoke eight languages was a doyen of them; never revealed what he learned during his twenty-one year long career interrupted only be the end of war. Most probably he remained discreet in his book, too. He was interpreting at the Locarno Treaty negotiation, at the Munich the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia he was translating Eduard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain's fruitless pleading with Adolf Hitler and all German Fuhrer's international conferences; naturally, he mentions both events, yet if he tells everything is a legitimate question.
Another German, general Krebs delivered after Hitler's suicide kind of offer to Soviet marshal Chuikov and talked to him in Russian he had learned during his three years as attaché at the German Embassy in Soviet Union. How impressed Chuikov was can be judged from his effort to meet after few days Krebs again; during his stay in Moscow as military attaché he came in the contact with many Soviet officers who would show him some respect after German surrender, nevertheless, certainly it was his surprising knowledge of the enemy's language that might have arouse sympathy of the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment