dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): REINECKE: Yes, I can give you information on that subject. This testimony is... THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Pelckmann, the document is not yet in evidence, unless you offer it. Now, if you offer it, it is different. But you are carefully trying to contradict it. What is the good of contradicting a document which is not in evidence? We have never seen it. HERR PELCKMANN: If Your Lordship would hear the witness, then you would discover that I am not trying to contradict the document. THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to offer the document in evidence then? HERR PELCKMANN: First of all, I should like to put it to the witness and then if I get your permission I should very much like to offer it in evidence. THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you offer it in evidence and you are relying upon the document, are you? Are you relying upon it or are you not? HERR PELCKMANN: As far as I can quote from Page 46, yes. TBE PRESIDENT: If you want to put it in for the purpose of relying on Page 46, you can do that. HERR PELCKMANN: And the following pages, the entire testimony signed "E. H." THE PRESIDENT: Go on. HERR PELCKMANN: Witness, you understood my question? REINECKE: Yes. HERR PELCKMANN: Please will you answer it. REINECKE: This testimony by "E.H." is the testimony of a female detainee, Eleanora Hodis from Auschwitz, and was made in the late autumn of 1944, under oath, before an SS judge. An investigating commission of the Main Office SS Courts had instituted proceedings against Grabner, Chief of the Police at Auschwitz, and various other participants, for the murder of detainees, and these people were indicted for murder in 2,000 cases. As was always the case, considerable difficulties were met with in the attempt to clear up the facts. The female detainee, Eleanora 475 7 Aug. 46 Hodis, declared herself willing to assist the investigating commission of the SS court by giving evidence, provided the judges would guarantee her life. That guarantee was given, and it was possible to get Hodis out of Auschwitz and transfer her to Munich.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): In Munich, at the date indicated, she gave her testimony, with those gruesome details which were to form the basis of proceedings to be instituted against Hoess and many other people. However, due to the collapse of Germany the proceedings could not be carried through. HERR PELCKMANN: Is it correct, therefore, Witness, that the conditions which are described here existed in the Dachau Concentration Camp, as it would appear ... REINECKE: No. HERR PELCKMANN: ... by being included in this book, because after all, this book deals with the Concentration Camp Dachau? REINECKE: No, that is not correct. The testimony given by the witness Hodis refers exclusively to the atrocious and gruesome conditions at Auschwitz, and has nothing whatever to do with Dachau Camp. HERR PELCKMANN: Finally, Your Lordship, I merely beg to be allowed to refer to Document D-959 which has been submitted by the British Delegation. When discussing the question ... THE PRESIDENT: Give that document you just put in some number. HERR PELCKMANN: The document "SS-Dachau"... THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number afterward. Do not delay now. HERR PELCKMANN: I will merely look up the number of documents I have submitted up to now and then I will give them numbers. When the Prosecution defined their attitude regarding the admissibility of that document, they said that it was regretted that the document could be submitted only so very late. In other words, as we all know, it ought to have been submitted during the presentation of evidence. At this stage, with reference to the hundreds of statements regarding the activity of the Waffen-SS in Czechoslovakia, I cannot now define my attitude and I, too, regret that the document arrived so very late. However, as it has now been admitted and as the Tribunal is taking judicial notice of it, I think I ought to have the possibility, therefore, of referring to the details which are brought up in support of the case for the Prosecution-its value cannot be assessed otherwise-so as to have the opportunity to define my attitude.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): For that purpose I beg to be granted a respite. 476 7 Aug. 46 THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, the Tribunal thinks that you must go on with your case and that you cannot be given further time. The Tribunal has said that they are bound to take judicial notice of the document under Article. 21 and this witness has told us he had never heard of the incidents-two incidents I think-to which counsel drew his attention. HERR PELCKMANN: I am afraid I did not understand the translation of the last part of what you said, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: I said that you must go on with your case and that the Tribunal had admitted that document under Article 21, and that with reference to the two incidents to which counsel for the Prosecution referred, this witness has said that he has never heard of them. HERR PELCKMANN: I have no further questions to this witness. DR. GAWLIK: With reference to the Document D-960, submitted during cross-examination, I have a few questions to put to the witness. THE PRESIDENT: Which document? Which document? DR. GAWLIK: D-960, Exhibit Number GB-569. [Turning to the witness.] Witness, I shall once again have the document shown to you. [The witness was handed the document.] Was the SD responsible for dealing with this letter? REINECKE: That question must be answered with "no." It becomes evident from its heading that the letter is addressed to the Security Police and SD at Strasbourg. The application of the term SD in this case is misleading; it was simply used by way of habit and had nothing to do with the organization of the SD.. It results from the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office calling himself "Chief of Security Police and the SD." DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Witness, I want to ask you a few questions about the investigation of the camps. You said your investigation began in 1943. What time in the year 1943 did your investigation begin of the concentration camps? REINECKE: Your Lordship, that was during the second half of 1943, as far as I can recollect, either in June or July. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): Biddle): It lasted for a little under two years until the end of the war, I suppose. REINECKE: Yes. 477 7 Aug. 46 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many camps did you investigate? REINECKE: It began in Buchenwald Camp, and thereafter investigating commissions were sent to every 'camp which had attracted suspicion. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Witness, listen very carefully and answer the questions. All I asked you was how many camps did you investigate? REINECKE: In all, investigations were made in 7 to 10 camps, but I cannot give you the exact figure at the moment. It varied from time to time. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean 7 to 10 in, all, altogether 7 to 10? REINECKE: Yes, that is what I meant. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did that include labor training camps also? REINECKE: By the 7 to 10 camps I mean the "Stammlager" (parent camps), that is the concentration camps themselves, and from there the investigation spread from the parent camp where the commission was stationed to the labor camps. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And that included Auschwitz and Dachau? REINECKE: In both these concentration camps there were investigation commissions. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And Treblinka? REINECKE: Not in Treblinka, Your Lordship. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you investigate any camps outside of Germany? REINECKE: Yes, for instance we had a commission in the Concentration Camp Hertogenbosch in Holland, and there proceedings were instituted against a camp commander, which ended in long terms of imprisonment. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many investigators were you using at any one time? REII,CKE: The total of investigating officials may have varied from 30 o 50 people, the majority of whom were not taken from the legal authorities but were experts from the Reich Security Main Office and from the Criminal Police. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, I do not want-now, how many cases did you recommend for court action? 478 7 Aug. 46 REINECKE: Proceedings which ended with a sentence amounted to 200 up to the end of the war; that is to say, 200 sentences were passed which were actually carried out.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Again I did not ask you that, Witness; I said, how many cases did you recommend for action. You made recommendations, did you not? REINECKE: Altogether 800 cases, 800 proceedings were instituted in the course of the investigations. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Where did you send your reports? Did you send them directly to the courts? REINECKE: When the investigation was completed and when the case was ready for prosecution, the reports from the investigating commissions went, together with the judge's order to prosecute, to the court itself, which would then hold the actual trial and pronounce sentence. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And where did copies of the reports go? Did a copy go to the Minister of the Interior? REINECKE: No, that I consider out of the question. THE TRIBUNAL(Mr. Biddle): You mean the Minister of the' Interior was not concerned with any of this? REINECKE: We are here concerned with criminal proceedings against members of the SS which, therefore, came under the penal jurisdiction of the SS and, as far as that is concerned, the Ministry of the Interior was not involved. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean you were only investigating cases that involved the SS? REINECKE: All cases were investigated which originated in the camps, and these cases referred to SS members and also to Police members, that is to say, members of the Security Police who were brought to trial before the courts. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well now, you have not told us what conditions you found in the camps. You said they were very bad. What were they; what was going on in the camps? REINECKE: We discovered through our investigations that in the camps there was to some extent a regular system of killing which was in use. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And as a result of discovering that there was a regular system of killing you thought there must be an order to that effect, although you never found it, is that right? REINECKE: Yes, Your Lordship. The fact that an order from above was in existence became known to us at the end of 1944. 479 7 Aug.,46 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): Biddle): Now, why did you think that there was a regular system of killing? Was it because there were so many killings? REINECKE: For the reason that there were so many cases, and also because a system of co-operation between the concentration camp commanders with the criminal detainees could be established. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. And how many of those 7 to 10 camps, how many commandants, were involved in these killings? REINECKE: In practice the situation was such that practically every commander was brought under investigation and criminal proceedings were taken against five commanders in all. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Five, five out of how many? REINECKE: Altogether there were 12 commanders of concentration camps, because there were 12 large concentration camps, the so-called "Stamm" (parent) concentration camps. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So out of 12 investigated you started proceedings against 5, is that right? REINECKE: Yes, that is so. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you said you thought that the killings must be on a large scale. Did you find any evidence of any of the gas chambers which added to your belief that it might be a large-scale operation? You found some evidence of gas chambers? REINECKE: The first case in which a gas chamber appeared was the case of Auschwitz. That is the case, Your Lordship, that I have just mentioned here, with reference to the detainee Eleanora Hodis. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When was it that you got a report that a gas chamber was being used in Auschwitz? When? REINECKE: That was at the end of October or the beginning of November 1944. THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you get figures of the numbers of persons who had died in these 10 concentration camps? Did you find out how many persons had died in the different camps? Did you get statistics? REINECKE: No, Your Lordship, about that we received no information. We had to collect and look for all the material ourselves, but we had no survey. TBE PRESIDENT: Can you remember the names of the five whom you prosecuted, the five commandants? 480 7 Aug.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): 46 REINECKE: They were the Commander of Buchenwald, Koch; the Commander at Lublin, whose name I cannot remember at the moment; and the Commander of the Hertogenbosch Camp, whose name I just remember, a certain Grunwald. Further investigations were carried out against the Commander of Oranienburg, Loritz, and also against Kaindel, the later commander. The proceedings against him were discontinued, however, because proof was furnished that at the time when Kaindel was camp commander, no killings had occurred. THE PRESIDENT: Did you prosecute Hoess? H-o-e-s-s? REINECKE: At the end of 1944 we started proceedings against Hoess, based on the testimony of the detainee in protective custody who has just been mentioned. THE PRESIDENT: What crime did you charge Hoess with? REINECKE: May I please make this matter clear. Proceedings against Hoess had not advanced sufficiently to serve an indictment against him. It was still in the process of preliminary investigation. Material had to be collected first. THE PRESIDENT: Well, you must have arrived at some decision about Hoess, surely. You must have known what crimes you were investigating. What were the crimes you were investigating against Hoess? REINECKE: In the case of Hoess the crime of murder of unknown persons and unknown numbers of persons detained in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz was investigated. THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that you never heard of the facts which were stated in Document EC-168, the document in which Himmler said that the number of deaths in the concentration camps must be reduced? REINECKE: I had never seen that document before. The first time that I saw it was when it was submitted by defendants counsel here, but in the course of investigations, my judges had confirmed to me that instructions of that type were circulated in the camps and were actually observed. THE PRESIDENT: The document, you remember, said that out of 136,000 persons in concentration camps, 70,000 had died. REINECKE: I do not know at the moment which document you are referring to.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): THE PRESIDENT: EC-168 is the document, and I wanted to know whether in the course of your investigations you found, you ascertained, those facts, namely, that 70,000 out of 136,000 had died? REINECKE: No, such facts were not ascertained. 481 7 Aug. 46 HERR PELCKMANN: I have no questions, Your Lordship, but I should like to be permitted to make a suggestion. This witness until the end of the war was only the deputy chief of the Main Office SS Courts. The chief was a certain Herr Breithaupt, who has since died. In the first place the heads of the commissions reported to this departmental chief, and the SS judges who carried out the investigations in the camps are still alive, and the answer to all these questions which Your Lordship and Mr. Biddle have put, can be given in detail by the witness Morgen. If I may be permitted another suggestion ... THE PRESIDENT: But you have got some more witnesses to call, have you not? You have some more witnesses to call, have you not? HERR PELCKMANN: During the entire Trial I have attempted to do without the witness Hinderfeld if possible. I have succeeded in putting the questions intended for witness Hinderfeld to the other witnesses I have called. If the Tribunal... THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Pelckmann. I do not understand what the object of this speech is. The witness has been examined, cross-examined, and re-examined, and examined by the Tribunal. Now he can retire and you can go on with your case. HERR PELCKMANN: He can retire? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the witness. can retire and the Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.] THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, I am told that I may have misunderstood what you were saying to me just before the Tribunal adjourned and that you were asking whether you might be allowed to call some other witness in place of one of the witnesses you had already applied for. Is that so? HERR PELCKMANN: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Well, who is ' it you want to call?
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): HERR PELCKMANN: Since I know the wish of the Court to shorten the proceedings, I had endeavored to ask the other witnesses the questions which I had intended for the fifth witness. I believe I succeeded in this, but from the interest that the Tribunal took in the question of the investigation of concentration camps, I thought that it might be very expedient, and I must say that it would be in the interest of the Defense, if the judge, Dr. Morgen, mentioned by the witness Reinecke, might be examined briefly on these matters. I would be in a position to examine this witness 482 7 Aug. 46 immediately, and would no longer require the witness Hinderfeld, who was to be examined. THE PRESIDENT: You want to examine Dr. Morgen and to give up one of the other witnesses, is that right? HERR PELCKMANN: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, the Tribunal-he has been called before the Commission, I suppose, has he not? HERR PELCKMANN: No, Your Lordship. There are affidavits from him. May I explain briefly why I could not examine him before the Commission? On 1 July the witness arrived here in Nuremberg after I had searched for him for a long time. Up to that time the witness was in Dachau without my being able to find out about it. On I July I was very busy with the last examinations before the Commission; for example, the witness Eberstein and the witness Reinecke I examined only on 5 and 6 July before the Commission, so that I could not prepare the testimony of this witness. As a result, I was able only after the end of the activity of the Commission to prepare affidavits with him. These are, I believe, Affidavits 65 and 67, but these affidavits do not show matters as clearly as if I were to examine him now, Your Lordship, and I respectfully submit that perhaps not I but the Tribunal might examine him if the rules allow this. THE PRESIDENT: Who is the witness you are intending to dispense with? HERR PELCKKANN: Hinderfeld. THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, what view do the Prosecution take to this application?
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): MAJOR JONES: I suggest, My Lord, that it is-that it might be possible for a fuller affidavit to be taken by this witness and that might possibly meet the case. But in view of the fact that the Defense are abandoning one witness, I would not press that view, but I do respectfully suggest that, in view of the time that has been taken on this organization, that an affidavit might be appropriate, particularly as Dr. Pelckmann is dealing with matters-dealing with that part of the case in which the Tribunal is especially interested. THE PRESIDENT: What do you say to that, Dr. Pelckmann? Could you not put the same questions to this witness, and could he not incorporate into his affidavit the point you want him to? He has already had three affidavits. HERR PELCKMANN: Certainly, Your Lordship. I have in mind the following. The Prosecution called a witness, Sievers, in order further to support their position and I think that if I want to support the testimony of the witness Reinecke by calling another witness here that might be more or less on the same basis, and by the 483 7 Aug. 46 testimony of a witness the matters of the concentration camps, the secret sphere of the concentration camp organization and the penetration of the legal authorities into it, might be cleared up more thoroughly for the Court than by an affidavit. THE PRESIDENT: This witness of yours, is he here? HERR PELCKMANN: He is in the witness building. THE PRESIDENT: Were you proposing to call him next? HERR PELCKMANN: I could do so. If the Prosecution wish to call their two witnesses first, I could interrupt, Your Lordship. THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, have you any idea as to how long you will be with this witness if you do' call him? HERR PELCKMANN: Forty-five minutes to an hour. THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if you wish it, and you dispense with calling the witness Dr. Hindenberg, or whatever his name is, you may call Dr. Morgen. HERR PELCKMANN: Thank you, Your Lordship. I call the witness Dr. Morgen.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): MAJOR JONES: If Your Lordship pleases, the witness is, of course, in the prison at the moment, and it might therefore be convenient to call the witness for whom Dr. Pelckmann has asked for cross-examination, who is available immediately, and no doubt the Marshal can make the necessary arrangements for the other one. THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sievers, is it not? MAJOR JONES: No, My Lord, there is a short one first, the witness Izrael Eizenberg, whose affidavit is Document Number D-939, GB-563. THE PRESIDENT: Eisberg? MAJOR JONES: Your Lordship, Eizenberg, it is. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Marshal, will you bring in Eizenberg and send for Morgen. [The witness Eizenberg took the stand.] THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please. IZRAEL EIZENBERG (Witness): Izrael Eizenberg. THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.] THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. MAJOR JONES: Witness-I just want to put the statement to the witness, My Lord-Witness, are you Izrael Eizenberg, of 203, Reinsburgstrasse, Stuttgart? 484 7 Aug. 46 EIZENBERG: Yes. MAJOR JONES: Will you look at the affidavit D-939, Exhibit GB-563. Just look at it. Is that your statement? EIZENBERG: Yes, I signed it. MAJOR JONES: And is it true? EIZENBERG: Yes, it is. MAJOR JONES: Witness, I notice you have a scar on your face. Will you tell the Tribunal how it was caused? EIZENBERG: Yes, I can tell the Tribunal. In October 1942-at the end of October 1942-I was shot at in Maidanek Camp together with many other Jews. The bullet hit my left cheek and I lay there from 9:30 in the evening until 4:30 in the morning. When people were removing the corpses, I was taken away with another man whose name was Stagel; we were the only survivors. MAJOR JONES: And how many were killed on that occasion? EIZENBERG: At 9:30 in the evening groups composed of about 1,000 or more people were conducted to a field. I was among them. Then they fired at us and I remained, lying on the field until 4:30 in the morning.