were six donations of 100,000 Reichsmarks each and the total sum raised annually was over a million Reichsmarks. Flick and Steinbrinck each was responsible for 100,000 Reichsmarks. Apparently Flick's was paid by Mittelstahl, one of his companies, and Steinbrinck's came from Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G., a State-owned corporation with which he was connected when the contributions began. Other officials of that corporation approved the payment. The giving began long before the war at a time when the criminal activities of the SS, if they had begun, were not generally known. The same amount was raised annually until 1944. The money went into a special fund in the Stein Bank at Cologne controlled by von Schroeder and thence, as it accumulated, into an account in the Dresdner Bank upon which Karl Wolff, Himmler's personal adjutant, drew checks. Both banks were represented in the Circle; Stein Bank, by von Schroeder who was a Brigadefuehrer SS; and the Dresdner Bank, by Dr. Meyer and Dr. Rasche. It is not shown that the defendants knew of the second account, much less, of the specific purpose of the several checks drawn thereon. Nor did the prosecution show that any part of the money was directly used for the criminal activities of the SS. It is reasonably clear that some of the funds were used purely for cultural purposes. But during the war and particularly after the beginning of the Russian campaign we cannot believe that there was much cultural activity in Germany. A hundred thousand Reichsmarks even to a wealthy man was not then a trifling but a substantial contribution. Ten times that sum annually was placed in the hands of Himmler, the Reich Leader SS, for his personal use and was continued year after year without a thought on their part, according to their testimony, that any portion of it might be used by him to maintain the organization of which he was the head. It is a strain upon credulity to believe that he needed or spent annually a million Reichsmarks solely for cultural purposes or that the members of the Circle could reasonably believe that he did.

In the beginning contributions must have been made with some thought of currying favor with a powerful State official with whom from time to time these industrialists might have to deal. Then the criminal character of the SS was not generally known. But later, after it must have been known, the contributions continued and the members regularly accepted invitations to the meetings of the Circle. It is true that a few withdrew and some of them are still living. These, however, did not enjoy the prominence of Flick and Steinbrinck. We can only guess what effect the withdrawal by prominent members of their presence and contributions would have had upon the attitude

of Himmler. When a man who for several years has contributed the same large amount to a benevolent cause withdraws or decreases his gift, such action can hardly go unnoticed. Of this, defendants were probably aware. Flick suggested in his testimony that he regarded membership in the Circle as in the nature of insurance. Steinbrinck may have had the same feeling. A hundred thousand Reichsmarks per year to a wealthy man or to one who pays from State funds is perhaps not too high a premium to insure personal safety in the fearful days of the Third Reich. This may be considered in mitigation but we are convinced that there was not any such compulsion upon their membership or contributions as we have discussed in the case of use of conscripted labor. Defendants in this count do not put their defense on the ground of fear but rather on lack of knowledge. It remains clear from the evidence that each of them gave to Himmler, the Reich Leader SS, a blank check. His criminal organization was maintained and we have no doubt that some of this money went to its maintenance. It seems to be immaterial whether it was spent on salaries or for lethal gas. So we are compelled to find from the evidence that both defendants are guilty on count four.

There is considerable to be said in mitigation. Their fear of reprisals has already been mentioned. In that respect Flick was the more vulnerable. He had backed Hindenburg with large sums when in 1932 he defeated Hitler for election to the Reich presidency. This doubtless was not forgotten. To Flick's knowledge his telephone conversations were subjected to wire tapping. He had other reasons to believe his position with Party leaders, and particularly Himmler, was none too secure. Steinbrinck, however, as an outstanding naval officer of the First World War, respected and admired by the public, had a more favorable position. This very respectability was responsible for his membership in the SS. He did not seek admission. His membership was honorary. But the honor was accorded to the SS rather than to Steinbrinck. During the entire period of his membership he had but two official tasks. The first was to attend, and perhaps stimulate the attendance of the generals, at a meeting in Godesberg in 1933 when they were convened with heads of the Party, the SA, and the SS to be addressed by Hitler. The second was to escort the family of Hindenburg at his funeral. The SS uniform, doubtless worn on these occasions, was also helpful to Steinbrinck in obtaining from the Wehrmacht compliance with his directives as Bekowest. He received two promotions in rank, the second to Brigadefuehrer (brigadier general), on his fiftieth birthday in 1938. Otherwise he had no duties, no pay, and only casual connection with SS leaders. These activities

do not connect him with the criminal program of the SS. But he may be justly reproached for voluntarily lending his good reputation to an organization whose reputation was bad.

Both defendants joined the Nazi Party, Steinbrinck earlier than Flick, but after the seizure of power. Membership in it also was to them a sort of insurance. They participated in no Party activities and did not believe in its ideologies. They were not pronouncedly anti-Jewish. Each of them helped a number of Jewish friends to obtain funds with which to emigrate. They did not give up their church affiliations. Steinbrinck was in Pastor Niemoeller's congregation and interceded twice to prevent his internment. He succeeded first through Goering. When Niemoeller was again arrested Steinbrinck had an interview with Himmler, described at length in his testimony, and persuaded Himmler to ask for Niemoeller's release which was refused by Hitler.

Defendants did not approve nor do they now condone the atrocities of the SS. It is unthinkable that Steinbrinck, a U-boat commander who risked his life and those of his crew to save survivors of a ship which he had sunk, would willingly be a party to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless persons. Flick knew in advance of the plot on Hitler's life in July 1944, and sheltered one of the conspirators. These and numerous other incidents in the lives of these defendants, some of which involve strange contradictions, we must consider in fixing their punishment. They played but a small part in the criminal program of the SS, but under the evidence and in the light of the mandate of Ordinance No. 7, giving effect to the judgment of IMT, there is in our minds no doubt of guilt.

The defendants in this case have been imprisoned for various periods. Flick was arrested 13 June 1945; Steinbrinck, 30 August 1945; Kaletsch, 8 December 1945; Terberger, 3 February 1947, and each has continuously been imprisoned since the date of his arrest. Burkart was arrested 5 December 1945, released 7 September 1946, rearrested 15 March 1947, and has since been in continuous confinement. Weiss was imprisoned from 1 February until 30 September 1946, was rearrested 5 February 1947, and has since been in prison. The indictment was not served upon any of them until 10 February 1947. Prior to that time some, if not all, were held without notification of the charges for which they were detained. The Tribunal has ruled that this fact is not ground for dismissal of the case, but previous confinement may and should be taken into consideration in determining the punishment now to be inflicted upon those found guilty. Flick is 64 years old; Steinbrinck, 59; Weiss, 42.

To resume, the Tribunal finds defendant Flick guilty on counts

one, two, and four; defendant Steinbrinck guilty on counts four and five; and defendant Weiss guilty on count one. Each of the other defendants is acquitted on the counts in which they are charged, except count three which is dismissed.

(Recess)

SENTENCES

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

PRESIDING JUDGE SEARS: The Tribunal will now impose sentence upon those defendants who have been adjudged guilty in these proceedings.

The Marshal will produce defendant Flick before the Tribunal. FRIEDRICH FLICK, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for seven (7) years. The period already spent by you in confinement before and during the trial is to be credited on the term already stated and to this end the term of your imprisonment, as now adjudged, shall be deemed to begin on the 13th day of June 1945.

The Marshal will remove defendant Flick.

The Marshal will produce before the Tribunal defendant Steinbrinck.

OTTO STEINBRINCK, on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for five (5) years. The period already spent by you in confinement before and during the trial is to be credited on the term already stated, and to this end the term of your imprisonment, as now adjudged, shall be deemed to begin on the 30th day of August 1945.

The Marshal will remove defendant Steinbrinck.

The Marshal will produce before the Tribunal defendant Weiss. BERNHARD WEISS, on the count of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for two and one-half (21⁄2) years. The periods already spent by you in confinement before and during the trial are to be credited on the term already stated and to this end the term of your imprisonment, as now adjudged, shall be deemed to begin on the 8th day of June 1946.

The Marshal will remove the defendant Weiss.

The defendants ODILO BURKART, KONRAD KALETSCH, and HERMANN TERBERGER, and each of them, having been acquitted, shall be discharged from custody by the Marshal when the Tribunal presently adjourns.

The Tribunal is about to adjourn.

The Tribunal now adjourns without date.

XII. CONFIRMATION OF SENTENCES BY THE MILITARY

GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED STATES ZONE

OF OCCUPATION

A. Introduction

Under Article XV of Ordinance No. 7, the sentences imposed by the Tribunal were subject to review. Article XVII paragraph (a) provides that "the record of each case shall be forwarded to the Military Governor who shall have the power to mitigate, reduce, or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the tribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof."

Petitions to modify the sentence imposed on each of the convicted defendants, Flick, Steinbrinck, and Weiss, were filed by defense counsel with the Military Governor. On 30 June 1948 the Military Governor, General Lucius D. Clay, confirmed each of these sentences by separate written orders.

The order confirming the sentence imposed upon defendant Flick is reproduced below in section B. The orders confirming the sentences imposed upon defendants Steinbrinck and Weiss read the same as the order concerning defendant Flick except for the necessary variations in the references to the names of the defendants and their counsel and to the terms of the sentences.