Q. Please would you look at the figure of 987 of the SS attached to the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Nationalism, German National Central Department. That is merely an example, but were these 987 men the only employees of that leading department ?
A. I know from my own experience as SS judge that the department called Reich Commission for the Strengthening of German Nationalism had at its disposal thousands of people who, as I said yesterday, were civil servants and were in no way connected with the SS. That figure of 987 members of the SS can be explained just as all the other figures can. They became members of the SS for the same reason, that of being medically unfit for active service, and had to be accommodation in an armed competent unit in order not too be called up. No organic ties of those persons with the organization of the SS existed in any case, but there are merely technical reasons which I have described which led to their being taken over by the SS.
Q. Well then, these statistics which are before us contain approximately 900,000 members of the SS. Is it correct, Mr Witness, that the statistics s whos that the system of concentration camps employed only about 25,000 members of the SS by comparison ?
A. For the time of June 1944, which is the date of this document, that is the correct proportion of concentration camp men in comparison to the total strength of the SS which is clearly evident from this document.
DR. PELCKMAMM: May I now submit to year Lordship the report, the document which I unfortunately did not have at my disposal this morning. BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q. Mr. Witness, I will show it to you. Would you mind having a look You know this document ?
A. Yes, that document became known to me during the last 12 months.
Q. On page 46 of that document there appears testimony of a detainee whose initials are "E.H." , or who is referred to by those initials. It gives the impression as if that testimony, given before American interrogating authorities, was given -THE PRESIDENT (Interposing) Is this document in evidence ?
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, it isn't in my document book. I am merely putting it to the witness, but if your Lordship desires to see the book, I am submitting it to the Tribunal now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what is the book ? I don't know what it is. What is it. Where does it come from ?
DR. PELCKMANN: Well, 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 ?
DR. PELCKMANN: It comes from the library here. I just got it from the library. It is an official publication -
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. PELCKMANN: -- of a Colonel Quinn. On page 46 there is the testimony of this detainee, and it would give the impression that that testimony had been given before interrogating authorities of the American army. BY DR, PELCKMANN:
Q. Can you say anything with reference to that testimony which describes atrocious conditions and crimes ?
A. Yes, I can give you information on that subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, the document isn't yet in evidence, and you are trying to contradict it. what is the good of contradicting a document which isn't in evidence ? We have never seen it.
DR. 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 ?
DR. PELCKMANN: First of all, I should like to put it to the witness and then if I get your permission I should like very much to offer it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: You offer it in evidence and you are relying upon the document, are you ? Are you relying upon it or are you not ?
DR. PELCKMANN: As far as I can quote from page 46, yes
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to put it in for the purpose of relying on page 46, you can do that.
DR. PELCKMANN: And the supplemental testimony, the entire testimony signed "E.H.".
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q. Mr Witness, you understood my question ?
A. Yes.
Q. Please will you answer it.
A. This testimony "E.H." is the testimony of a female detainee, Eleanora Hodis from Auschwitz and was made late in Autumn 1944 under oath before an investigating commission of the Chief Department SS court. It was the institution of proceedings against Graber, head of the Political Department at Auschwitz, and various other participants, proceedings instituted for murder of detainees, and these people were indicted for murder in 2,000 cases up the situation. The female detainee, Eleanor a Hodis, declared herself willing to assist the investigating commission of the SS court with her testimony, provided the court would guarantee her life. That guarantee was given, and it was possible to get her out of Auschwitz and transferred to Munich. In Munich, at the date given , she submitted the testimony, giving these gruesome details which formed the basis of proceeding's instituted against Hoess and many other collaborators. However, because of the collapse the proceedings could not be brought to an end.
Q. Is it correct, therefore Mr. "Witness, that the conditions which are described here existed in the concentration camp of Dachau which give the impression that they had to be included on this book, because after all, this book deals with the concentration camp of Dachau.
A. No, that is not correct. The testimony given by the witness Hodis refers entirely to the atrocious and gruesome conditions at Auschwitz, and has nothing whatever to do with the camp of Dachau.
DR. PELCKMANN: Finally, Your Lordship, I merely beg to be all wed to refer to Document D-959 which has been submitted by the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the other document ?
DR. PELCKMANN: The document SS-Dachau -
THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number afterwards. Don't delay now.
DR. PELCKMANN: I will merely look up the number of documents I have submitted up to now and then I will give you the number. of that document, they said that it was regretted that the document could be submitted only so very late. In other word's, it ought to have been submitted during the submission-of evidence. We are all conscious of that fact. At this stage, with reference to the numerous 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, I believe that it has now been admitted and that the Tribunal is cognizant of it, and 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 Prosecute because after all I should be given the opportunity to define my attitude and for that purpose I should like to have a certain amount of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, the Tribunal thinks that you must go on with your case and that you can't 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 two incident. I think, to which counsel drew his attention.
DR. PELCKMANN: I am afraid I didn't 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 has referred, this witness has said that he has never heard of them.
DR. PELCKMANN: Then I have no further questions to this witness.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the SD): "With reference to the document 960, sub ted during cross-examination, I have a few questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Which document?
DR. GAWLIK: D-960, Exhibit 569. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Mr. Witness, I shall once again have the document shown to you.
(witness handed document)
Was the SD responsible for dealing with this letter?
A That question must be answered with no. It becomes apparent from the heading of the letter that the letter is addressed to the Security Police and SD at Strassburg. As to the SD, that is a misleading description, as it is merely a usage of language, whereas there is no connection with the organization of the SD and it is for that reason that the chief of the Security Police and the
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): camps. You said your investigation began in 1943."What time in the year 1943 did your investigation begin of the concentration camps? recollect, either in June or July.
Q How many camps did you investigate? were traces of suspicion investigating commissions were employed.
Q Witness, listen very carefully and answer the questions. All I asked you was how many camps have you investigated? cannot at this instant give you the exact figure. It was different at various times.
Q You mean seven to ten in all, altogether seven to ten?
Q Did that include labor training camps also?
(mother camps) and from there the investigation spread, from the mother camp where the commission was stationed to the Working camp.
Q That included Auschwitz and Dachau? sitting.
Q And Treblinka?
Q Did you investigate any camps outside of Germany? genbosch in Holland and there proceedings were carried on against a camp commandant which ended in very severe penalties.
Q How many investigators were you using at any one time? In that connection, the majority of these people were not taken from the legal system but were experts from the RSHA, from the Criminal Police Department.
Q Now, how many cases did you recommend for court action? end of the war, that is to say, two hundred sentences were passed which were actually carried out. recommend for action. You made recommendations, did you not? about through the investigations.
Q Where did you send your reports? Did you send them directly to the courts was completed and when the case was ready for prosecution, together with the order to prosecute, to the court itself, which would then run the actual trial and pronounce sentence.
Q and where did copies of the reports go? Did a copy go to the Minister of the Interior?
Q You mean the minister of the Interior was not concerned with any of this?
which, therefore, came under the legal and penal system of the SS and, as far as that is concerned, the Ministry of the Interior was not included.
Q You mean you were only investigating cases that involved the SS? ferred to SS members and also police members, that is to say, members of the Security Police and they, for the purpose of being sentenced, were brought before the courts. You said they were very bad. What were they; what was going on in the camps? regular system of killing which was in use. you thought there must be an order to that effect, although you never found it, is that right?
A Yes, Your Lordship. That fact, the fact that an order from above had to be in existence became obvious and became known to us at the end of 1944.
Q Now, why did you think that there was a regular system of killing? was it because there were so many killings? possible through the cooperation of the concentration camp commandant with the criminal detainees. volved in these killings? investigated by me and criminal proceedings were started against a total of five commandants.
Q Five out of how many? there were twelve large concentration camps in all, the so-called mother camps.
is that right? 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? Auschwitz, that is the case, your Lordship, that I mentioned before, with reference to Eleanora Hodis. used in Auschwitz? these ten concentration camps? Did you find out how many persons had died in the different camps? Did you get statistics? had to work for and lock for all the material ourselves but we had no survey. BY THE PRESIDENT: the five commandants?
A It was the commandant of Buchenwald, Koch; the commandant at Lublin, whose name I cannot at the moment remember and the commandant of the camp Herzogenbosch, whose name I just remember now, a certain Gruenwald. Further investigations were carried out against the commandant of Oranienburg, Loritz and furthermore, against Keindel the later commandant. These proceedings were discontinued, however, because proof was furnished that at the time when Keindel was camp commandant no killings had occurred.
Q Did you prosecute Hoess? the testimony of the protective custody detainee who had just been mentioned.
Q What crime did you charge Hoess with?
A 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. You must have known what crimes you were investigating. What were the crimes you were investigating against Hoess? and unknown numbers of persons detained in the concentration camp of Auschwitz. stated in document EC-168, the document in which Himmler said that the number of deaths in the concentration camps must be reduced?
A I had never seen that document before. It was the first time that I saw it when it was submitted by the defendant's counsel here but in the course of investigations my judges had confirmed to me that instruction of that type had passed through the camps and were actually observed. concentration camps 70,000 had died. investigations whether you found, you ascertained those facts, namely that 70,000 out of 136,000 had died?
DR. PELCKMANN: I have no questions, your Lordship, but I should like to be permitted to make a suggestion. the chief department of the legal SS system. They had a certain Mr. Breithaupt who in the meantime had died. In the first place the Commission. have referred to this head of the department. are still alive and the man who can answer all these questions which your Lordship and Mr. Biddle have put is the witness Morgen, who can answer them in detail and if I may permit -
THE PRESIDENT: You have got some more witnesses to call, have you not?
DR. PELCKMANN: During the entire trial I have attempted to make the witness Hinderfeld as superflous as possible. I have succeeded in putting the questions intended for witness Hinderfeld to the other witnesses I have called. If the High Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand what the object of this speech is. and examined by the Tribanal. Now he can retire and you can go on with your case.
DR. PELCKMANN: He can retire?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken).
7 Aug A LJG 17-1
THE PRESIDENT: 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?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, whom is it you went to call?
DR. 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 saw 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 immediately and the witness Hinderfeld, who was to be examined, I would not need.
THE PRESIDENT: To examine Dr. Morgen and to give up one of the other witnesses, is that right?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal -- he has been called before the Commission I suppose, hasn't he?
DR. PELCKMANN: No, Your Lordship. There are affidavits from him. May I explain briefly why I could not examine him before the Commission? On the first of July the witness arrived here in Nurnberg 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 the first of July I was so busy with the last examinations before the Commission; for example, the witness Eberstein, and the witness Reinecke I examined only on the 5th and 6th of July before the Commission, so that I could not prepare the testimony of this witness. As a result, I was only able, after the end of the activity of the Commission, to prepare affidavits with him. These are, I believe, 65 and 67, 7 Aug A LJG 17-2 but these affidavits do not show matters as clearly as if I were to examine him now, Your Lordship, and I suggest that the Tribunal might examine him as briefly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the witness you were intending to dispense with?
DR. PELCKMANN: Hinderfeld.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, what view do the prosecution take of this application?
MR. ELWYN JONES: I suggest, My Lord, 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 wouldn't press that view, but I do respectfully suggest that, in view of the time that has been taken on this organization, an affidavit might be appropriate, particularly as Dr. Pelckmann has evidence on 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? Couldn't you put the same questions to this witness, and couldn't he incorporate into his affidavit the point you want him to? He already had three affidavits.
DR. PELCKMANN: Certainly, your Lordship. I will only state the following. The Prosecution called a witness, Sievers, in order 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 testimony of the witness, the matters of the concentration camps, the secret sphere of the concentration camps, and the introduction of the court into it might be cleared up much better for the court here than by an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this witness of yours, is he here?
DR. PELCKMANN: He is in the witness building.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you proposing to call him next?
DR. PELCKMANN: I would do it. If the Prosecution wishes 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?
DR. PELCKMANN: Forty-five minutes to an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if you wish it, and then you dispense with calling the witness Dr. Hindenberg or whatever his name is. You may call Dr. Morgen.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you, your Lordship. I call the witness Dr. Morgen.
MR. ELWYN JONES: The witness is, of course, in the prison building at the moment. Perhaps it would be more convenient to call the next witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sievers, isn't it?
MR. ELWYN JONES: No, the witness Izrael Eisenberg, whose affidavit is document number D-939, GB-563.
THE PRESIDENT: Eisenberg.
MR. ELWYN JONES: Yes, your Lordship, Eisenberg.
THE PRESIDENTS: Marshal, will you bring in Eisenberg and send for Morgen.
THE WITNESS: Israel Eisenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me? the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY MR. ELWYN JONES: Lord -- witness, you are Israel Eisenberg of 203 Reinsburg Stratsse, Stuttgar
Q Will you look at the affidavit D-939, exhibit GB-563. Just look at it. Is that year statement?
Q And is it true?
Q Witness, I notice you have a scar on your face. Will you tell the Tribunal how it was caused?
A Yes, I can tell the Tribunal. In 1942, at the end of October 1942 I was shot together with many thousands of Jews. The bullets hit my left cheek and I was lying there from 9:30 until 4:30 in the morning. At 4:30 in the morning, when people were cleaning the corpses, I was taken with another man whose name was Stagel. Only the two of us survived.
Q And how many were killed on that occasion?
A It was 9:30 in the evening and there were groups composed of 1,000 and mere people who were conducted to a field and I was among them. They shot at us and I was lying on the field until 4:30 in the morning.
Q Now, just after this last question, who were the killers?
MR. ELWYN JONES: I have no further questions, my Lord.
BY DR. PELCKMANN: see from it, you were in Lublin, at first in Lublin. Were there other SS men there, too, whom you know?
A Yes, I know many of them. I was working in the SS staff as a fitter-electrician and I came there very frequently in order to make electrical installations there.
Q. In your affidavit you have given some names --- Riedel Mohrwinkel and Schrammek.
Q They were on this staff? on Warschau Street 21. in your affidavit as belonging to these persons?
Q What, for example, was Riedel?
Q And Mohrwinkel? this action he was promoted to Unterscharfuehrer. In your affidavit you said he was an Oberscharfuehrer.
Q Now, I show you a picture. Please tell me whether that is Riedel or Mohrwinkel and what is the rank of this SS man
Q And what is his rank? there is nothing on his epaulettes and only a patch on his sleeve
Q Thank you. Now, I shall show you another picture. If I remember the other picture correctly, this would also have to be a rottenfuehrer? his epaulettes a white thread all round and here I see a double thread in this photo.
DR PELCKMANN: I have no more questions, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. PELCKMANN: For the information of the high Tribunal. I should like to say that these photographs came from the book on the Warsaw atrocities, submitted by the prosecution yesterday, which was in Polish and the photographs are not men of the Waffen SS at all but policemen. The witness did not notice that.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness said he had never seen them before. The witness said he had never seen the man before. We don't need to argue about it. Now, who is your next witness?
DR. PELCKMANN: May I submit these pictures to the Tribunal? They are in the Polish book, in Polish, on pages Roman numberal one and eleven.
THE PRESIDENT: You can certainly put them in if you think it worthwhile; but, now, will you get on with your case. Is there another witness that you are going to call before Dr. Morgen?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes; the witness Sievers was called by the prosecution, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is he here?
THE MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, call him then.
THE MARSHALL: Both witnesses are here now, your Honor, both Sievers and Morgan.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go on with Sievers now.
MR. ELWYN JONES: Wou did indicate, my Lord, it might be more convenient for Dr. Pelckmann to finish with his witness before Dr. Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you mind. Call Dr. Morgan then. and testifies as followe : BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name please?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and are nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. PELCKMANN: I will first ask you in detail about your person. Were you an SS Sturmfuehrer of the Reserve? question. What training did you have?
--Rome, Berlin; at the academy at the Hague and the Institute for World Economy and sea traffic in Kiel. I passed the first examination. Before the war I was a judge at the Landgericht in Stettin. code? during the war, I had to deal with criminal matters and had special achievement a in that field.
Q How did you come to the SS? In 1933, I belonged to the group for youth physical training which was taken over as a body. I was drafted at the beginning of the war.
Q What rank did you have? fuehrer. In the Waffen SS I was Sturmfuehrer of the Reserve. you were joining a conspiracy when you joined the SS--- very briefly, please. prevention of war. This book, at the time of a threat of war, showed ways and means to prevent war. The book was examined by the Party and published. I could not assume that the SS or the policy of the Reich government were directed towards war. tration camp.
special abilities in the criminal field, I was appointed to the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin. Shortly after I arrived there, I was given an assignment to investigate the case of corruption in Weimar. The accused was a member of the concentration camp of Weimar-- Buchenwald. The investigation soon led to the person of the former Commandant Koch, through many of his subordinates and in addition, they affected a number of the other concentration camps. As these investigations became more extensive, I received powers from the Reichsfuehrer SS to be generally active in such investigations in concentration camps. fuehrer necessary? Police Courts were competent; that is, the courts in whose district the concentration camp was located. For that reason, because of its limited jurisdiction, the Court was not able to have any effect beyond its district, and on these investigations it was important to be able to work in many districts; in addition, it was necessary to use specialists in the criminal field; that is, the criminal police but the criminal police could not carry on any investigation directly among the troops and only through the combination of juridical and criminal police activity was it possible to clear this up and for this purpose, I was given this special authorization from the Reichsfuehrer.
Q Now, how extensive did this investigation become?
7 Aug A LJG 20-1 Cumoletti You can be brief because the witness Reinecke answered this point in part. Oranienburg, Herzogenbosch, Krakow, Plaschow, Warsaw, and the concentration camp Dachau. After others.
Q How many cases did you investigate? How many death sentences were passed? documents, and one document affected several cases. About 200 were tried during my activity. Five Commandants of concentration camps were arrested by me personally. Two were shot after being tried.
Q Were shot?
A Yes. Aside from the Commandants, there were other different sentences against Fuehrers and Unterfuehrers.
Q. Did you yourself have an opportunity of visiting inside and seeing the conditions of the concentration camps? camps myself. Only a very few persons had this permission. Before the beginning of the investigations, I examined the concentration camps in question in all its details, and especially the important arrangements. I visited them repeatedly. I paid surprise visits. I was in Buchenwald for 8 months. I lived there. I was in Dachau for one or two months. were deceived. Do you consider it possible that you too were a victim of such deceit?
A I was not a visitor to a concentration camp. I had settled down there for a permanent residence. During such a long time it is impossible to be deceived. In addition, the Commissioners from the Reichcommissar office worked under my instructions. I placed them directly in the Concentration Camps. In addition, I went to say that in spite of these very intensive efforts, I was not able to learn of all crimes.