dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR PELCKMANN: 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. 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but ... Well, what is the book? I do not know what it is. What is it? Where does it come from? HERR PELCKMANN: I beg to be permitted to ask the witness just one question with reference to this. THE PRESIDENT: No, no, you may not do that until you have told me where the book comes from. Where does the book come from? HERR PELCKMANN: It comes from the library here. I just got it from the library. It is an official publication ... THE PRESIDENT: I see. HERR PELCKMANN: ... by a Colonel Quinn. On Page 46 there is the testimony of this detainee, and the impression given is that 474 7 Aug. 46 that testimony had been given before interrogating authorities of the American Army. [Turning to the witness.] Can you say anything with reference to that testimony, which describes atrocious conditions and crimes? 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.
THE PRESIDENT: 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. 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.
THE PRESIDENT: 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. 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?
THE PRESIDENT: 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. 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.
THE PRESIDENT: 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. 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?
HERR PELCKMANN: I beg to be permitted to ask the witness just one question with reference to this. THE PRESIDENT: No, no, you may not do that until you have told me where the book comes from. Where does the book come from? HERR PELCKMANN: It comes from the library here. I just got it from the library. It is an official publication ... THE PRESIDENT: I see. HERR PELCKMANN: ... by a Colonel Quinn. On Page 46 there is the testimony of this detainee, and the impression given is that 474 7 Aug. 46 that testimony had been given before interrogating authorities of the American Army. [Turning to the witness.] Can you say anything with reference to that testimony, which describes atrocious conditions and crimes? 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.
HERR PELCKMANN: 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. 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.
HERR PELCKMANN: 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. 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 PRESIDENT: No, no, you may not do that until you have told me where the book comes from. Where does the book come from? HERR PELCKMANN: It comes from the library here. I just got it from the library. It is an official publication ... THE PRESIDENT: I see. HERR PELCKMANN: ... by a Colonel Quinn. On Page 46 there is the testimony of this detainee, and the impression given is that 474 7 Aug. 46 that testimony had been given before interrogating authorities of the American Army. [Turning to the witness.] Can you say anything with reference to that testimony, which describes atrocious conditions and crimes? 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.
THE PRESIDENT: 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. 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.