See Appendix 1 p. 647.
See The Trial of Major War Criminals held at Nuremberg, published by H.M. Stationary Office.
For comparative ranks in the Wehrmacht, S.S., and the British Army, see page xlviii.
The derivation of this word is disputed. It is possibly an abbreviated for of "Kamp Polizei".
See Glossary, page xlvi.
Paragraph 443 Chapter XIV Manual of Military Law.

"It is important, however, to note that members of the armed forces who commit such violations of the recognised rules of warfare as are ordered by their Governments, or by their Commander, are not war criminals and cannot therefore be punished by the enemy. He may punish the officials or commanders responsible for such orders if they fall into his hands, but otherwise he may only resort to the other means of obtaining redress which are dealt with in this chapter."

Amendment, April, 1944.

" The fact that a rule of warfare has been violated in pursuance of an order of the belligerent Government or of an individual belligerent commander does not deprive the act in question of its character as a war crime ; neither does it, in principle, confer upon the perpetrator immunity from punishment by the injured belligerent. Undoubtedly, a Court confronted with the plea of superior orders adduced in justification of a war crime is bound to take into consideration the fact that obedience to military orders, not obviously unlawful, is the duty of every member of the armed forces and that the latter cannot, in conditions of war discipline, be expected to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the order received. The question, however, is governed by the major principle that members of the armed forces are bound to obey lawful orders only and that they cannot therefore escape liability if, in obedience to a command they commit acts which both violate unchallenged rules of warfare and outrage the general sentiment of humanity.' [7]


"See section 253 Page 453, Vol. II, Oppenheim's International Law, 6th Edition, 1940 Ed. by Lauterpacht. The statement which appeared prior to this amendment was based on the 5th Edition of Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. II at Page 454, which was, however, inconsistent with the view of most writers upon the subject, and also with the decision of the German Supreme Court in the case of The Llandovery Castle (Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1923-24, Cast No. 235: (1921) Cmd. Page 45)."

[A discussion of the plea of " superior orders " by Prof. Alexander N. Slack will found in 60 Law Quarterly Review (1944) page 63.]

See Appendix I, p. 649.
The plan is reproduced with permission from Captain Sington's book, Belsen Uncovered, Duckworth, 1946.
In the Trial the following accused have been otherwise named (a) No. 16. Flrazich = Francioh, (b) No 22. Pinchen = Ansgar Pichen, (c) No. 27. Dor = Dorr, (d) No. 40. Gertrude Fiest = Gertrud Fiest, (e) No. 41. Gertrude Sauer = Gertrud Sauer, (f) No. 48. Starostka=Starostka.
For list of Exhibits, See Appendix II
Where witnesses recognise but cannot give their names, the respective name has placed in parenthesis.
For affidavits and statements read out in Court and relied upon by the Prosecution, see Appendix No. III.
Numbers given to each affidavit correspond to the numbers in the file presented by Prosecution. For affidavits see Appendix No. III.
For the list of affidavits, see Appendix No. III
Major Cranfield said that the case of Klippel was different from the others of his accused. He was only arraigned on the Belsen charge. His defence was that he had not arrived at Belsen until 11th April; that he then went to No. 2 Camp, and was never in No. 1 Camp at the material time. In short, his defence was an alibi.