Bergen-Belsen

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Bergen-Belsen

#1

Post by Roberto » 31 Mar 2003, 17:41

michael mills wrote:One wonders what would have happened if the German defendants before the International Military Tribunal had been defended by lawyers from the Allied nations, rather than or in addition to the German lawyers who were in a very vulnerable position and unwilling to tackle the Prosecution.
I hope Mills can show us some evidence that the German lawyers at Nuremberg had anything to fear from the Allies, or thought they had anything to fear, and that the conduction of their defence was in any way influenced by such concerns.
michael mills wrote:A comparison may be made with the Belsen Trial, at which Kramer and the other defendants were represented by British officers. Those officers defended their clients very vigorously, and had no qualms about accusing Belsen survivors appearing as witnesses for the Prosecution of colluding with each other to falsify and manufacture evidence.
Any specifics about such accusations that Mills can show us? I would also be interested in the outcome of such defence strategies.
michael mills wrote:Nevertheless, the result of the Belsen Trial was not in doubt. British public opinion demanded the hanging of Kramer the "beast" and Irma Grese the "bitch". It is noteworthy that the Court did not give any reasons for its verdicts, not even whether those verdicts related to the first charge (warcrimes at Belsen) or the second charge (warcrimes at Auschwitz) or both.
Why, Mills is making it look as if poor Kramer was the victim or perjuring, colluding witnesses and the demands of “British public opinion”, and as if the court’s decision had been a foregone conclusion.

I wonder what he has to show in support of this contention.

As to the alleged failure to link verdicts to charges, let’s have a look at the verdicts, which are transcribed online:
[…]
L. THE VERDICT

The Court found the following guilty on both charges[my emphasis] : Kramer, Fritz Klein, Weingartner, Volkenrath, Grese and Lobauer.

The following were found guilty on the Auschwitz charge only[my emphasis] : Hoessler, Borman, Schreirer and Starotska.

The following were found guilty on the Belsen charge only[my emphasis] : Ehlert, Francioh, Calesson, Burgraf, Pichen, Stofel, Dorr, Zoddel, Ostrowski, Aurdzieg, Ilse Forster, Bothe, Walter, Haschke, Fiest, Sauer, Lisiewitz, Roth, Hempel and Kopper.

Kraft, Lothe, Klippel, Schmitz, Mathes, Egersdorf, Otto, Barsch, Schlomowitz, Ida Forster, Opitz, Charlotte Klein, Hahnel and Polanski were found not guilty[my emphasis]
[…]
Source of quote:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/Belsen11.htm

As to the alleged absence of reasons for the verdicts, I would like to know what exactly Mills means by this. The online records of the Belsen trials, to be found starting under the link

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/belsenfwd.htm

may help him explain the contents of this contention.
Last edited by Roberto on 31 Mar 2003, 21:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

Some pictures

#2

Post by chalutzim » 31 Mar 2003, 19:13

Last edited by chalutzim on 31 Mar 2003, 19:18, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#3

Post by Marcus » 31 Mar 2003, 19:15

Robertos post was moved from the "Japanese War Crimes Trials" thread.

/Marcus

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#4

Post by michael mills » 01 Apr 2003, 08:33

Chalutzim,

Thanks for providing the links to pages on the Belsen Trial.

If your intention was to demonstrate the "bestiality" of the SS staff, I think you may have shot yourself in the foot. Try following the links from those pages to other pages devoted to belsen, and you will understand why.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#5

Post by chalutzim » 01 Apr 2003, 14:20

michael mills wrote:Chalutzim,

Thanks for providing the links to pages on the Belsen Trial.

If your intention was to demonstrate the "bestiality" of the SS staff, I think you may have shot yourself in the foot. Try following the links from those pages to other pages devoted to belsen, and you will understand why.
Yes, Mr. Mills, indeed. The "shot" is still hurting... :oops:

I forgot Belsen was one of your many german paradises.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bergen-Belsen

#6

Post by Scott Smith » 01 Apr 2003, 14:36

Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:One wonders what would have happened if the German defendants before the International Military Tribunal had been defended by lawyers from the Allied nations, rather than or in addition to the German lawyers who were in a very vulnerable position and unwilling to tackle the Prosecution.
I hope Mills can show us some evidence that the German lawyers at Nuremberg had anything to fear from the Allies, or thought they had anything to fear, and that the conduction of their defence was in any way influenced by such concerns.
A rather assinine comment considering that Germany was a rump, occupied country under martial law by four powers, including one that regularly shipped people off to Siberia. It was enough to threaten people and their friends and relatives with bureacratic problems related to ration cards and housing allocation, or threaten to deport someone to their native eastern Germany, which just happened to be in the Soviet sector. And the French and Russians were fond of using slave labor besides, which would be called Reparations. But then this mental duality is typical of lawyers anyway; they are not shy to giving a "reasonable defense" for people they "know" are guilty, are they? And once you denazify and put people into power who were kept out of power by the previous regime, they are going to have some axes to grind, even if not towards their particular client. No, no German lawyer is going to buck the system. It is simply ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:A comparison may be made with the Belsen Trial, at which Kramer and the other defendants were represented by British officers. Those officers defended their clients very vigorously, and had no qualms about accusing Belsen survivors appearing as witnesses for the Prosecution of colluding with each other to falsify and manufacture evidence.
Any specifics about such accusations that Mills can show us? I would also be interested in the outcome of such defence strategies.
I recall that this point was made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe himself but that would require a trip to the library, wouldn't it?
Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:Nevertheless, the result of the Belsen Trial was not in doubt. British public opinion demanded the hanging of Kramer the "beast" and Irma Grese the "bitch". It is noteworthy that the Court did not give any reasons for its verdicts, not even whether those verdicts related to the first charge (warcrimes at Belsen) or the second charge (warcrimes at Auschwitz) or both.
Why, Mills is making it look as if poor Kramer was the victim or perjuring, colluding witnesses and the demands of “British public opinion”, and as if the court’s decision had been a foregone conclusion.
Does it? Even a cursory investigation of the situation would expose such an Allied public relations spectacle.
Roberto wrote:I wonder what he has to show in support of this contention.
Public libraries are a pretty good resource. It takes some digging but you can find more than pat cliches from Holocaust sites.
:)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

#7

Post by witness » 01 Apr 2003, 15:13

It was enough to threaten people and their friends and relatives with bureacratic problems related to ration cards and housing allocation, or threaten to deport someone to their native eastern Germany, which just happened to be in the Soviet sector.
And where is the evidence that the German lawyers were intimidated by such threats ?
Can you bring up a single testimony of a single German lawyer
showing that the German lawyers were under influence of such threats and therefore coerced into a position which prevented them '' to tackle the Prosecution " ?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Bergen-Belsen

#8

Post by Roberto » 01 Apr 2003, 15:34

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:One wonders what would have happened if the German defendants before the International Military Tribunal had been defended by lawyers from the Allied nations, rather than or in addition to the German lawyers who were in a very vulnerable position and unwilling to tackle the Prosecution.
I hope Mills can show us some evidence that the German lawyers at Nuremberg had anything to fear from the Allies, or thought they had anything to fear, and that the conduction of their defence was in any way influenced by such concerns.
A rather assinine comment considering that ... [blah, blah, blah]
Unlike Smith, who rarely produces anything else, I make no "assinine comments".

And neither am I interested in a bitching, resentful true believer's considerations about what things were like in Germany under Allied occupation, let alone his equally uninformed and irrelevant views on German lawyers in particular and the legal profession in general.

What I asked for was evidence that any of the Nuremberg defense attorneys was in risk of suffering any disadvantage on account of a spirited defense of his client. Such evidence should at the very least consist in a precedent of a lawyer who was in any way shitcanned for putting up too good a fight or a threat actually uttered against a lawyer because he did his job too well. I know of no such case, but I know of defense attorney Rudolf Aschenauer at the so-called Dachau Trials, whose below-the-waist tactics of claiming that the defendants had been tortured don't seem to have got him into any trouble.

Poor Smith knows he can offer no such evidence, of course. Hence his verbose bullshit. The fact there were evils that defense attorneys could have been threatened with (there always are) doesn't necessarily mean that they were threatened, does it?
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:A comparison may be made with the Belsen Trial, at which Kramer and the other defendants were represented by British officers. Those officers defended their clients very vigorously, and had no qualms about accusing Belsen survivors appearing as witnesses for the Prosecution of colluding with each other to falsify and manufacture evidence.
Any specifics about such accusations that Mills can show us? I would also be interested in the outcome of such defence strategies.
I recall that this point was made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe himself but that would require a trip to the library, wouldn't it?
If a trip to the library is too much of an effort for Smith, he can try browsing through the links to the records of the Belsen trial that I provided.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:Nevertheless, the result of the Belsen Trial was not in doubt. British public opinion demanded the hanging of Kramer the "beast" and Irma Grese the "bitch". It is noteworthy that the Court did not give any reasons for its verdicts, not even whether those verdicts related to the first charge (warcrimes at Belsen) or the second charge (warcrimes at Auschwitz) or both.
Why, Mills is making it look as if poor Kramer was the victim or perjuring, colluding witnesses and the demands of “British public opinion”, and as if the court’s decision had been a foregone conclusion.
Does it? Even a cursory investigation of the situation would expose such an Allied public relations spectacle.
Why, then let's see such a "cursory investigation" by Smith. He keeps opening up whenever a war crimes trial of his heroes comes under discussion, but has never provided any substance to sustain his glib assertions.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:I wonder what he has to show in support of this contention.
Public libraries are a pretty good resource. It takes some digging but you can find more than pat cliches from Holocaust sites.
:)
Well, Smith, as you are blessed with the good fortune of having a well-stocked public library somewhere near you, which I am not (every book I have referred to or quoted from on this forum is my own), how about doing a little digging, see if you can find something to support your pal's contention?

If that's too much for you, as I said, try the records of the Belsen trial transcribed on the "Holocaust site" I used for this occasion.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#9

Post by David Thompson » 01 Apr 2003, 16:57

On the ancestor thread to this one, at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=18895

Michael Mills said: "It is noteworthy that the Court did not give any reasons for its verdicts, not even whether those verdicts related to the first charge (warcrimes at Belsen) or the second charge (warcrimes at Auschwitz) or both."

Michael, I don't think that statement is accurate. At the link provided by Roberto, at:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/Belsen11.htm

is the following passage:

"4. The Responsibility of Each Accused

(i) Kramer. The Prosecutor pointed out that this accused had worked in concentration camps since 1934, and from 1942 onwards had been the Kommandant of a concentration camp. He served his apprenticeship in the gassing of innocent people, as he had explained himself, at Natzweiller, where he constructed the gas chamber, took the people in and gassed them himself. The Prosecution asked the Court to accept that he came to Auschwitz to manage the gassings of new transports in May, 1944. It had been said that he had written orders saying that the gas chamber was not his concern. He was the only person to say so. There were a number of witnesses who said that he took an active part in the selection parades, in that for instance he loaded people into the trucks and beat them when they would not get into the trucks. He admitted that he saw the selections but claimed to have taken no part in them.

So far as his general conduct in Belsen and Birkenau was concerned, everything depended on the general picture which the Court formed of these camps. Kramer had himself said that he was regularly in the camp and that he was always in the camp until the roll-call was finished.

Could there be any doubt that Kramer was implicated absolutely in the events in Belsen, in view of the evidence, for instance, of Brigadier Glyn Hughes, Colonel Johnstone, Sunschein and Sompolinski ? (Footnote 2: See pp. 9, 10, 16 and 21)

(ii) Dr. Fritz Klein. This accused had made no secret whatsoever of the fact that he attended selections and selected people, and that he knew that it was wrong and that it was murder. He agreed that those who were not fit to work were simply destroyed. The only time when he ever did anything to improve conditions in Belsen was when he knew that the British were

p.113

coming. The evidence plainly showed that he was content to neglect the camp completely.

(iii) Peter Weingartner. The principal witness against Weingartner was Glinowieski, whose brother was said to have been beaten to death by the accused. Sunschein’s evidence was also referred to by Counsel. (Footnote 1: See p. 16) Weingartner had agreed that there were dogs with his party when they came to the hill on the way to work. Had the Court any doubt that the women in the " Vistula" Kommando were chased up the hill with dogs behind them ?

No witness had suggested that Weingartner ever attended or took part in a selection. Nevertheless, he was Block Leader at the gate of Lager A where the transports arrived. Was it credible that he never even saw a selection and knew nothing about them ? There was evidence that he had beaten Sunschein with a rubber hose at Belsen. Counsel asked the Court to regard the accused as being obviously involved in the state of affairs existing in both camps.

(iv) Kraft. Counsel referred to the evidence of Sompolinski, (Footnote 2: See p. 21) who had recognised this accused in person. Kraft denied ever being in the actual concentration camp. Counsel submitted that the explanation of his being in the concentration camp was that soldiers would be sent in from the Wehrmacht camp to clean up the concentration camp before the British arrived.

(v) Hoessler. This accused like Kramer, was " one of the old guard ". In view of his own admissions and of the evidence of Dr. Bimko and various other witnesses, (Footnote 3: See pp. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 27) Counsel was confident that Hoessler would be found guilty.
(vi) Borman. There were a number of allegations that Borman set her dog on people. She was also seen several times on selection parades. Jonas had said she was not content merely to stand there when she was the Overseer on duty but pointed out to the doctors : " This one looks quite weakly, she can be taken away as well ". There was also evidence of her beating people.

(vii) Elizabeth Volkenrath. Josephine Singer had said that this accused beat many people in the tailoring shop and threw a Czech woman down some steps. Later at Auschwitz she became supervisor in the parcel store, issuing bread, and that was where Sunschein saw her frequently beating people. Kaufmann had said that during selections she saw Volkenrath throw women to the ground or against a wall, trample on them and beat them with a stick or rubber truncheon. Singer, Trieger, Siwidowa and others had said that hers were not merely beatings with the hand but beatings with rubber sticks, beatings producing unconsciousness and sometimes death, and kicking.

At Belsen she continued her beating. Counsel referred to the evidence of Neiger, Loffler (Footnote 4: See pp. 30 and 31) and others in this connection.

(viii) Ehlert. From the point of view of the Prosecution, there was no evidence with regard to Ehlert’s conduct at Auschwitz. Concerning her acts at Belsen, the evidence against her came from Sunschein, Hammer-

p.114

masch, Helene Klein, Neiger, Korkovitz, Loffler, Kopper and Weiss, and alleged the beating of people at the gate and the beating of people for unimportant reasons, for instance, for wearing a scarf.

(ix) Grese. Grese was quite frank about almost everything which was suggested against her. Kopper had made an allegation regarding Grese’s behaviour in the sand pit Kommando. (Footnote 1: See p. 37) Concerning her actions at Auschwitz, the Prosecutor drew attention also to the stories of Rozenwayg, Watinik and Triszinska, according to which she was in charge of a Kommando, with Lothe as the kapo, and alleging that she set a dog on them. On her own admission alone there seemed ample evidence to show that she was ill-treating, beating, and prolonging roll-calls at Auschwitz. At Belsen she was made Arbeitsdienstfiührerin and again there were stories from the prisoners as to how she beat people and forced them to " make sport ".

(x) Lothe. Lothe was herself an imprisoned German. When she eventually became a kapo, however, she worked with the S.S. and against the prisoners. Against her there were many allegations, for instance of beatings.

(xi) Lobauer. Lobauer was another kapo. There were many allegations of beating against this woman. She had said frankly : " I admit carrying a stick at Auschwitz and I admit using it ".

(xii) Klippel. Against Klippel there was very little evidence. One deponent had said that he was employed in the kitchen at Belsen, that he frequently beat women in this kitchen and that he twice shot Jewish women who approached the kitchen in search of food. (Footnote 2: See the affidavit of Jakubowice on p. 27) On the other hand there was considerable evidence to show that the accused did not belong to Belsen at all.

(xiii) Schmitz. The evidence against Schmitz was contained in the statement of Jecny, who disappeared without signing it. (Footnote 3: See p. 28) Could the Court believe, if the accused were really a prisoner, a Camp Senior over 28 prisoners, that he should suddenly be put in charge of 15,000 people and tell Hoessler how to run the camp ? (Footnote 4: See p. 50)

What was much more likely was that he came as an S.S. man and helped to guard and to supervise the clearing up of the concentration camp during the last few days.

(xiv) Francioh. This accused tried to show that he was in jail during the relevant period in April, but actually his jail period was earlier. The evidence of the people from his own kitchen showed that he was not stating the truth. There were a number of different shootings alleged against him.

(xv) Mathes. All the allegations against this accused were to be found in three affidavits, and concerned the shooting of people trying to steal from the kitchen.

(xvi) Calesson. The Court would remember the allegations against this accused with regard to the transport, of which he was quite obviously the senior N.C.O. He was accused of shooting prisoners on the way, and it was also said that there was no food or water on the journey for the Jews and very

p.115

little for the Christians. He was also faced with allegations of beating prisoners at Belsen and of shooting prisoners at Belsen station.

(xvii) Burgraf. The evidence against Burgraf was that he behaved badly at Drütte and that when he came to Belsen he continued to do so. He became a functionary in Block 19, where he armed himself with a table leg, with which he beat prisoners.

(xviii) Egersdorf The evidence against Egersdorf was that of Almaleh, from which Counsel quoted the account of the shooting of the girl. (Footnote 1: See p. 23) To the Judge Advocate’s question asking what Counsel’s attitude was to the Defence argument, that the evidence showed that the ill-treatment was not of an Allied national but of a Hungarian girl, and that this was not an incident which would support a charge in which ill-treatment of Allied nationals was alleged, the Prosecutor replied that the only reason for quoting these particular incidents in connection with any of the accused was to show that they, having joined the camp staff, co-operated in the ill-treatment of persons in the camp. The fact that the individual person whom an accused was seen ill-treating was Hungarian would not be relevant if the Court believed that the accused was taking a part in the systematic ill-treatment which was going on.

(xix) Pichen. Against Pichen there was a great deal of evidence as to what went on in his kitchen in particular. There was the account of the shooting on the day of the S.S. parade. (Footnote 2: See pp. 12, 27 and 52)

(xx) Otto. The question was whether to believe this accused or not. The allegation made against him was that he caught Stojowska taking a bed from outside Block 213 and that a day or so later he came into Block 201, where she lived, found that the other Block Senior had also got a bed and beat them both. There was only the one affidavit against him, but this man undoubtedly frequented that part of the camp, and, asked Counsel, was it not the practice of an S.S. man, if he saw something irregular as he was going round the camp, to take action there and then ?

(xxi-xxii) Stofel and Dorr. Counsel suggested that the finding of the corpses (Footnote 3: See p. 55) was entirely consistent with the story that Dorr shot each straggler along the route of the transport, and asked was it surprising, realising how cheap life was held in the concentration camps, to find one of the guards who had been in a concentration camp for a long time shooting people as they went, with the full approval of the man in charge, Stofel ?

(xxiii) Schreirer. Counsel did not examine the evidence regarding this accused except as regards his identification. Could the Court have any real doubt at all that he was in fact a member of the S.S., that the uniform he was wearing was his and that he was stationed in Belsen when he spent the evening with the girl in Soltau ? (Footnote 4: See p. 54. The Prosecutor later agreed with the Judge Advocate that nothing had been proved against Schreirer as regards Belsen)

(xxiv) Barsch. In view of the evidence, Counsel did not ask the Court to say that this accused was ever in Belsen at all.

p.116

(xxv) Zoddel. This man accepted the position and responsibility of a Camp Senior, becoming a senior prisoner in the camp, abused that position as the S.S. did, and identified himself completely with the S.S.
(xxvi) Schlomowicz. It was said that this accused regularly beat people at Belsen with a rubber cable and a stick.

(xxvii) Ostrowski. The Court might think there was no doubt at all that this accused had a function in the block in question and that in fact he was engaged, as various witnesses said, in beating and ill-treating people.

(xxviii) Aurdzieg. He was the man who made a full confession to Capt. Pipien of the French War Crimes Investigation team, then told the story of how that was obtained from him and he was made to sign at the pistol point; yet if the Court would examine the original it would find that below his signature he went on to give an account and description of the persons who were working with him.

(xxix-xxxix) Ilse Forster, Ida Forster, Opitz, Charlotte Klein, Bothe, Walter, Haschke, Fiest, Sauer, Lisiewitz and Hempel. Against every one of these women there was evidence of beating. These beatings were not alleged merely to be slaps on the face or the boxing of ears. On the question of the rubber sticks of which the Court had heard so much, Counsel asked whether there existed a kitchen with running water, or with large boilers, and portable boilers which were brought in and filled, which did not have these short lengths of hose ?

(xl) Roth. In connection with this accused, Counsel made reference to the allegations of Sofia Rosenzweig, Rorman and Helene Klein. (Footnote: See pp. 20, 32 and 33) Helene Klein had not been certain that the victim’s name was Friedman ; Counsel suggested that whether Friedman was alive or not was of no great importance.

(xli) Hahnel. The only evidence against Hahnel was that of Stempler, who recognised her from a photograph and said that the accused beat a girl in the bath.

(xlii) Kopper. Was it not plain that Kopper preserved herself at Auschwitz as an informer ? She admitted she was two years in a Strafkommando without being beaten when everybody else was. She claimed that she had this good fortune because she knew her rights. The Court might think it was because, as other prisoners alleged, she was a known informer and was kept as such.

When she came to Belsen she was made Block Senior, and then a camp policewoman, and it was only, the Court might think, because she " got too big for her boots " that on the 1st March she was molested, as it was alleged. She was obviously a woman who was not liked by the other prisoners and they were only too pleased to beat her when given the opportunity. There were many allegations made against her regarding her acts while she was Block Senior.

(xliii) Polanski. Witnesses said that he was an assistant Block Senior in Block No. 12, that he behaved extremely badly and that he was one of the

p.117

gang of people who were forcing people out to bury the dead early in the morning, beating them on the head as they went.

(xliv) Starotska. This accused had admitted to a number of offences, but claimed that she was actually acting as a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel on behalf of the prisoners. Did the evidence support her ? Rozalja said : " She created an atmosphere of fear in the whole block, Block No. 26 " ; this was quite apart from the evidence of her denouncing people to the S.S., and regularly beating people in the block. The evidence of Anna Wojeiechowska (Footnote: See p. 64) did not support the accused’s story in the way the latter had intended ; the witness had not actually been selected for the gas chamber. Janicka and Komsta, two further Defence witnesses, had testified to her kindness, but they were both Aryan Poles, and therefore favourites. Nowogrodzka had made it quite clear that Starotska did no kindness whatsoever for anybody but Aryan Poles, and that she put Aryan Poles in a favourable position and paid no attention to the other prisoners.

Counsel submitted that she made herself indispensable to the S.S. in Auschwitz, and accepted any post which was given to her. When she came to Belsen the same was true."

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#10

Post by michael mills » 02 Apr 2003, 03:56

David,

The material presented by you seems to me to be a summary of the allegations against each of the accused, rather than an explanation of the verdict against each of the accused.

For example, in relation to Kramer, the passage reads "The Prosecutor pointed out...." or "The Prosecution asked the Court to accept.....".

It does not state why the Court did accept what the Prosecution asked it to accept, which is what I mean by giving reasons for its verdicts (and sentences).

In relation to Hoessler, the passage reads "In view of his own admissions and of the evidence of Dr. Bimko and various other witnesses..... Counsel was confident that Hoessler would be found guilty". It is simply recording a submission by Counsel, it does not say why the Court accepted that submission in reaching its verdict.

In relation to Grese, the passage reads "Kopper had made an allegation regarding Grese’s behaviour in the sand pit Kommando", and "the Prosecutor drew attention also to the stories of Rozenwayg, Watinik and Triszinska", and "again there were stories from the prisoners...".

It does not explain why the Court accepted those stories, and more alarmingly, it does not give any justification for sentencing her to death, given that the "evidence" summarised in the passage refers only to ill-treatment and beating.

Giving reasons for a verdict does not mean simply saying "the prosecution asked us to accept the evidence against this guy, so we did", it means stating why that evidence was accepted rather than evidence submitted in defence.

My own statements were derived from the book "The Belsen Trial" by Phillips, in the introduction to which the author stated that the Court did not give reasons for its verdicts.

I guess I will have to toddle off down to the ANU library, consult the book again, and find the exact reference. We'll see how good my memory is.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#11

Post by David Thompson » 02 Apr 2003, 06:07

Michael -- In regard to the passages I cited from the Report of the Trial, you are correct and I am not. After re-reading the section, it is a summation of the argument of the prosecution, and not the judgment itself. The actual judgment of the British military tribunal is not included in the Report of the trial.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#12

Post by Roberto » 02 Apr 2003, 10:30

David Thompson wrote:Michael -- In regard to the passages I cited from the Report of the Trial, you are correct and I am not. After re-reading the section, it is a summation of the argument of the prosecution, and not the judgment itself. The actual judgment of the British military tribunal is not included in the Report of the trial.
Which may have led Mr. Phillips to conclude that there was no document in which the court stated by what evidence it considered the guilt of the defendants under the respective charges to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and what considerations guided the sentences issued against each.

I conclude from your statement, however, that such a document exists.

Is there a chance that you can gain access to it and show it to us?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#13

Post by David Thompson » 02 Apr 2003, 16:42

Roberto -- I'm looking through my books, newspaper clippings collection, etc. to see if I can find the judgment of the British military tribunal in the Belsen trial. The war crimes courts of the western allies routinely issued written judgments in their cases for purposes of review by the military regional commander, so it should just be a matter of seeing if the Belsen judgment has been published, or whether it's gathering dust in the British archives somewhere.

In any event, I'm going to post the newspaper coverage of the trial so that readers can decide for themselves whether the proceedings were "an allied public relations spectacle."

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#14

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2004, 20:37

Is there any update? On another forum I've been called a racist for denying a Jewish physician's testimony that 80,000 people were gassed in one day at Belsen, and I'd like to see as much of Kramer's trial as I can.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#15

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2004, 20:46

David, the first paragraph of the Kramer trial in the link you gave said
Of these that at Auschwitz in Poland had an evil pre-eminence-in it at least 2,500,000 human beings (or as some say 4,000,000) were done to death by being poisoned in gas chambers. These unhappy people had been brought in railway trucks under horrible conditions from the occupied countries : they were the survivors of those who started. How many died on the way is unknown.
Which leads me to believe that perhaps not much useful information about what went on in Belsen is available here. Does anyone know of an online source which deals with Belsen more evenhandedly?

Thanks.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”