What did the Volksdeutsche receive, for example, in children's garments? 15,000 children's overcoats, 11,000 short coats for children, 3,000 children's trousers, 99,000 men's coats, overcoats; 155,000 ladies' coats, 125,000 women's blouses, 111,000 women's shoes - a total load of clothing in 211 freight cars.

The German youth - there are details here of what it received. This included 20,000 women's sweaters. The concentration camp personnel received 28,000 men's coats; 100,000 pairs of men's shoes; a total load of 825 freight cars of clothing.

[This document was marked T/1386.]

The Court will find here Himmler's instructions on arranging matters of property, after his visit to Warsaw.

Our document No. 1533 is a report of 13 May 1943 on the robbery and plunder. This concerns other plundered articles - 94,000 men's watches, for example, divided among the various fighting units; so many watches were received by fighting units at the front; 3,000 watches were received by crews of German submarines. Each of the concentration camp units received 200 watches.

Even fountain pens were distributed amongst the fighting units. And the question now arose: What to do with the women's watches? "I request a decision," writes Globocnik, "as to what is to be done with 33,000 women's watches"; four large crates of stamp collections were sent. Gold: he asks for an instruction what to do with the collections of coins in his possession.

Presiding Judge: How do we know that this is Globocnik? According to rank - is that right?

Attorney General: Yes. We are able to identify this document according to the N.O. This we can identify. Another report by Globocnik is our document No. 117, that is 4024 P.S. He gives a partial estimation at nominal prices, so he says, of the robbery of property at one hundred million Reichsmarks and more. He himself says that the prices are nominal. And he refers only to money, foreign currency, gold, valuables. He has a further thousand freight cars of Spinnstoffe (textiles).

Presiding Judge: Document No. 1533 is our T/1387, and the document which you have now submitted is T/1388.

Attorney General: Our document No. 1250 - Globocnik reports to the Reichsfuehrer on the completion of the Reinhardt Operation; and there is a summing up of the operation in its two parts. He says that he has transferred the labour camps to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl; and now he comes to the economic aspect of the Reinhardt Operation. "The deportation," he begins, "has been accomplished and has ended; in all, the undertaking has gone well. Greater damage was caused only in Warsaw, where the operation was completed by an erroneous method, due to misjudgment of the state of affairs." We know already what Globocnik describes as the "erroneous method": they did not succeed in enticing the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto to go to their deportation, and the revolt followed.

He refers, later on, to the utilization of the Jewish labour force, to the setting up of residential camps, to the transfer of the camps to the Concentration Camps Administration of the Economi-Administrative Head Office of the SS, of the economic enterprises of the OSTI - that is in paragraph 7 - of the exploitation of the Jewish labour force; and later on, in section D, of the income from certain valuables, the seizure of all Jewish property, which included the confiscation of Jewish assets within the country and abroad, for all the prisoners in the camps were obliged to hand over their claims to OSTI, which acted in this matter as a sort of collecting agency.

Thereafter, he refers to the forced-labour camps. There is a detailed specification of fine metals, foreign currency, jewellery and valuables. There is a list of the foreign currency according to country: Fabrics, textiles - these are all to be found here. The Court should please note that the date of the document is 4 November 1943, and we already know from testimonies heard here that, on 2 and 3 November 1943, the camps in the Lublin area were liquidated; the Jews were transferred to Majdanek and shot there on the day they arrived. On this point, evidence was given here by Dr. Wodowinski - on the last 18,000 prisoners.

Judge Halevi: Where is the date?

Attorney General: At the top of the document, Trieste, 4 November 1943.

Presiding Judge: The date here is 18 January 1944.

Attorney General: This document has been bound in your copies as the last one - the letter from Globocnik to Himmler from Trieste, dated 4 November 1943.

Presiding Judge: How does it happen that there are these two different dates? Here he submits a final report in November 1943, and, after that, there again comes a final report in January 1944?

Attorney General: The Court should please note what he requests. On 4 November 1943, he asks that the SS forces which operated should receive suitable decorations, such as those received by the forces which operated in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Presiding Judge: The Iron Cross?

Attorney General: Yes. And after that comes the final report of the total liquidation of property.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1389.

Attorney General: The last document, which perhaps does not belong to the series, is our No. 1443. This is a letter from Rauff to the department which dealt with the supply of gas trucks to the Einsatzgruppen. It says here that, since the month of December, 1941, 97,000 were processed* {* In German: verarbeitet} by means of the three trucks that were in service, without any defect being discovered in the vehicles. The notorious explosion at Kulmhof should be regarded as an isolated incident. After that, it speaks of how to avoid accidents, how to introduce improved facilities in the extermination vehicles, of installing accessories inside, a description of the truck, simplifying the off- loading of the bodies. And with this the document ends.

We know that in Kulmhof extermination was carried out by trucks. We also know that the Einsatzgruppen, particularly Einsatzgruppe D, used gas trucks for purposes of extermination. On 5 June 1942, the three trucks reaped a death harvest of 97,000 suffocated persons. And the German term for this was "verarbeitet".

[This document was marked T/1390.]

Judge Halevi: Who sends this to whom? This is a single copy.

Attorney General: This is the only copy. It is still a secret Reich matter. It is sent from Department IID3, and it is signed by Rauff, a member of the RSHA, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff.

Presiding Judge: No. It is addressed to him. It is signed by someone called Just.

Attorney General: Quite right, I beg your pardon. This was submitted to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff and signed by Just.

Presiding Judge: What was Department IID3?

Attorney General: As far as I remember, that was the department which supplied the gas trucks. That is the Head Office for Reich Security.

With this, we have reached the conclusion of this chapter, and I would request the Court to kindly direct us how to continue.

Presiding Judge: We shall now adjourn for ten minutes.

[Recess ]

Presiding Judge: With regard to the document which the Attorney General calls the "Sassen Document," we have not yet reached a decision. We shall give our decision during the course of the day. We shall see when. Now, with regard to that testimony which you have mentioned, we are prepared to hear it, but we would ask you, really, to see to it that it be kept, as far as possible, within its proper limits.

Attorney General: Perhaps, in the meantime, my colleague, Mr. Bach, with the Court's permission, can finish the matters that are still to be dealt with by him.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, the Court will certainly recall that a few days ago, I tried to submit - and I asked the Court to admit - the declaration of Dr. Imre Reiner, who made an affidavit before our consul in Canada. I then submitted two medical certificates confirming that the witness, Dr. Reiner, had suffered a heart attack, that he was suffering from a coronary thrombosis, and also from a heart disease, and two doctors certified that he was unable to fly to Israel in order to testify here.

Presiding Judge: Did we mark these certificates?

State Attorney Bach: They were marked T/1224. In the meantime, I have supplied the Court, and also Defence Counsel, with copies of that affidavit. The Court then asked me to clarify whether there was, nevertheless, a possibility that this witness could be examined in Canada. The reply to that has been negative, in two respects.

Firstly, I asked that the witness be examined once again as to the state of his health, in order to ascertain whether he was fit to be examined. I received a medical certificate from the same doctor who examined him in hospital, and he says that in his opinion this witness cannot at the present time be submitted to cross-examination, and that this would be likely to endanger his health. He writes: "I feel that Mr. Reiner is not in a position to be cross-examined at present, as this would jeopardize his health."

Presiding Judge: Who gave this certificate?

State Attorney Bach: The same Dr. Mendelson M.D. who had also supplied the previous certificate. The certificate reached me only yesterday and, therefore, I have not been able to prepare photocopies, but I have printed copies. I have also given one copy to Defence Counsel.

I have also found out that in fact there is no agreement between Israel and Canada on mutual legal aid, and that from this point of view also, we would not have been able to lodge this application - at any rate not with any certainty that we would, in fact, receive a response to our application.

I would say, therefore, Your Honours, that from the point of view of the Court's decisions, from the point of view of the legal position, there is no difference, in fact, between this witness and other affidavits which we have submitted to the Court and which the Court admitted, where in the circumstances of the case, it was impossible to examine these witnesses, on account of their death, or for other reasons. "They are not available," as was already decided at the time in Nuremberg and as, in fact, also follows from the decisions of this Court. There is no essential difference between the case of a witness who, because of his death, cannot appear before the Court, and the case of a witness who, because of his absence and the state of his health, cannot be questioned.

Presiding Judge: Do you recall at what Session this matter was previously discussed?

State Attorney Bach: I do not remember exactly, but perhaps we can ascertain that according to the number of the exhibit.

Presiding Judge: At Session No. 61.

State Attorney Bach: In fact, these cases are always regarded as being parallel. For instance, in Section 36 of the Trial upon Information Ordinance, it says: "If the witness, who has given evidence at a preliminary examination on oath, cannot be produced at the trial because of his death, infirmity or sickness, or absence from Palestine, his deposition may be read." I am only quoting this section as a basis for my argument that there is no difference in principle between the case of a witness who has died and cannot testify, and the case of a person who, owing to illness, such as this grave illness, a heart affliction, cannot be questioned now.

Presiding Judge: When was this affidavit made, Mr. Bach?

State Attorney Bach: This affidavit was made on 5 October 1960, and I should like to stress that in my opinion, this fact adds both probative value and weight to that affidavit. When Dr. Reiner made this declaration, he not only indicated his readiness to appear here, but he actually made his declaration in the knowledge and belief that he would be examined on that declaration in Court.

There is no doubt that this declaration is relevant on several important points that have arisen in this trial, and the Court will also have ample opportunity to judge the quality of the memory of the witness and his reliability, especially where this evidence relates to documents submitted by us, and to other evidence and other testimonies which we have brought before the Court. I want to give only one example of that.

Presiding Judge: Let us deal with your argument as such, without your going into the contents of the document.

State Attorney Bach: I only wanted to say that it is possible to divide the affidavit into several parts: There are matters on which he testifies, and we know of these facts only from him, and there are other testimonies which are able to assist the Court to assess the nature of the evidence and its weight.

I merely wanted to add one further argument: The Court will recollect that Defence Counsel questioned one of the witnesses who appeared here and gave his evidence. In cross- examination, he quoted sections of that same affidavit of Dr. Reiner - in fact, he read into the record portions of that affidavit. It seems to me that from this point of view also, it would be right for the Court to admit the affidavit, to see in what context these words were uttered, and this will enable the Court to weigh both the testimony of the witness who testified, and also the significance of the affidavit I wish to submit.

I previously indicated the examples from Nuremberg. In fact, that was also the procedure there: When the prosecution tried to submit a particular declaration, and there was an objection on the part of the defence, the court decided to admit these declarations and added in its decision that it would be possible to demand the examination of the witness "if he is available," and if it transpired afterwards that the man was no longer alive or could not appear on the grounds of illness, then they would not insist on this need for cross-examination. I would, therefore, ask the Court to use its authority under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, and admit the evidence.

Presiding Judge: I have marked the additional medical certificate T/1391. Dr. Servatius, do you have anything to say on this question?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, the second certificate which has been submitted here is defective. The doctor writes here that he has a "feeling": "I feel that Mr. Reiner is not in a position..."

Presiding Judge: This "Gefuehl" in English is not the German Gefuehl, Dr. Servatius.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor