Treblinka Perpetrators

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
spottedcow
Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 09 Sep 2006, 00:36
Location: Poland

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#226

Post by spottedcow » 15 Dec 2012, 07:38

Ponury,
If I am not mistaken you will find the trial transcripts in Dusseldorf Archive, not Bundesarchiv Ludwigsburg which would only have the pre-trial investigative materials.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Patrick

Colon
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 01:31

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#227

Post by Colon » 16 Dec 2012, 01:41

Ponury wrote:Or somewhere in the network are available records of the trial of Kurt Franz and Paul Stangl? I do not mean a dry summary and judgment, and the same testimony, questions to the defendants, the testimony of witnesses?
I read a long time ago that no more tape-recordings from the Treblinka trail (Franz) exist! They will erased or to be lost!
Very sad!!
From the Stangl trail I can not say?!


trespasser07
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 27 Nov 2010, 14:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#228

Post by trespasser07 » 18 Jan 2013, 17:32

Apologies in advance that this isnt 100% clear as I used google translate for the following info from Franz trial, hope you can make some sense of it. Regards :)

A. The accused Franz

I. His personal circumstances

The man was born Jan 17, 1914 in Dusseldorf, born as the son of a businessman accused Franz still has a married sister living in Wuppertal. He attended for 8 years in Dusseldorf elementary school. He worked as Laufbote. In 1929 he started the restaurant "Hirschquelle" in Dusseldorf as a chef and put them in the "Wittelsbach court" continues, but not laid off one assistant examination.

After the death of his father, his mother married a second time in 1928. Its also now deceased stepfather was set "German national" with a special fondness for the Prussian-Military. His mother, a devout Catholic, is now living in a retirement home Velberter.

Franz was about a half year member of Kyffhaeuser youth, before he announced in October 1932 at a camp set up by the steel helmet of the Voluntary Labour Service (FSS) in Ratingen. From here he was in the spring of 1934 at a camp of the Labour Service in Bad Honnef. In October 1934, he left the labor service with the rank of Squad Leader. He then served until October 1935 worked as a volunteer at the butcher Stollmann in Dusseldorf Oberkassel. In October 1935, he was performing his military service for drafted into Artillery Regiment 6 in Minden. During his active service he occasionally worked as a chef. When he was released after two years in the army, he had the rank of top gunner.

During his service with the active force, the accused had applied for admission to the SS guard unit. He was adopted and came to the 3rd SS Totenkopfstandarte Thuringia. He was initially stationed in Frankenberg and later in Weimar and Buchenwald. After the usual basic training, he was used as a Drill Instructor and as a chef. Occasionally it was also used for guard duty at the Buchenwald concentration camp. On January 30, 1938, he was promoted to SS-man assault, on November 9, 1938 and promoted to corporal on 30 January 1940 as SS Sergeant. Towards the end of 1939, around October or November 1939, he was with his SS comrades Jirmann and Floss set in march to Berlin, where he had to report to the office of the Chief Medical Officer in the Voss Strasse. By the then SA-Standartenführer Blankenburg, the accused and his companions were informed of the leader of the euthanasia program and then disposed of the Charitable hospital ser assigned to the task of realizing the so-called euthanasia program belonged. In the aftermath of the accused was in the medical and nursing homes Grafeneck in Wurttemberg, Hartheim near Linz on the Danube, sun near Pirna in Saxony and Brandenburg after his entering an unwiderlegten works as a cook. At the turn of 1941/42 he was transferred to the office of the leader and worked as a cook in a kitchen that department on the Wilhelmstrasse 40th

In the spring of 1942, the defendant, who had meanwhile SS Sergeant and on 20 April 1942 finally became SS Oberscharführer reassigned within the Operation Reinhard from Berlin to Lublin to the office of the SS and Police Leader Globocnik and first of the guards of the Belzec extermination camp allocated. Belzec he remained until mid-summer, before coming to the Treblinka extermination camp. After the dissolution of the camp Treblinka was the accused who had been on the express instructions of Himmler on 21 June 1943 promoted because of his outstanding service to the Operation Reinhard to SS lieutenant, about Berlin as a trainer for the National Guard School Trieste in northern Italy, and about 2 to 3 months later to Gorizia, where he was to establish a new national guard school. Towards the end of 1944, the defendant was also wounded in the fighting partisans.

After recovering, he was for a time security officer for the train Gorizia - Trieste. When the war ended, he sat down on foot from to Germany and went to his wife to Arnstadt, Thuringia evacuated. Finally he came to Thuringia in American captivity, but from which he was soon able to escape again. He returned to his hometown of Dusseldorf and answered already on Jun 26, 1945 under his real name at the employment office. In the next three years he worked as a bridge construction worker. From 1949 until his arrest on December 2, 1959, he again worked as a chef.

The accused Franz is married childless since 1940. However, he is the father of four unmarried daughters, who have emerged from relationships with four different women. The accused was a member of Franz SS (SS number 319 906), but neither a member of the Nazi Party nor any of its other divisions. He claims to have not left the Roman Catholic Church called, but in his SS personnel records since 1938 as a believer in God. A denazification process has not taken place against him.

II His activities in the Treblinka extermination camp

In Treblinka, where was a result of the inability of the first commander Dr Eberl the entire machinery of destruction messed up and everything topsy-turvy, the defendant took over the leadership of the Ukrainian guards and brought this "wild bunch", as he put it, once military discipline and order at. He left it, but not stop, but soon took care of the entire warehouse operation, which he built with new and headed by Wirth and organized. He took care of it for everything that went on in the camp, and soon grew even on the deputy camp commander. In this capacity, he had all the reins and on the whole course of the camp events unrestricted influence, especially the followers of Dr Eberl, later SS-Hauptsturmführer Stangl, around the outer service operating with little or almost no care and see little left out. Franz took active at all in the stock resulting work share, inspect the storage facilities in the lower and the upper bearing and the various work details.

With the arrival of transports arrived, the accused not only the measures for increased security measures, but also intervened personally in the unloading of the trains, the selection of the elderly, the sick and infirm persons with a studied, among the arrivals from working Jews and oversaw the handling of shipments on the hub, the undressing of the victims and their routing through the hose to the gas chambers. Rendered the Jews his orders not fast enough sequence or were otherwise resistors, he brutally beat with a whip or fist on the unfortunate victims, chased the dog Barry on people or gave the gun to his words and his will to adequate force. All in all, took advantage of the defendant, because of his pretty face, his good character and his manicured exterior to the Jewish prisoners had the Polish nickname Lalka, which means in German doll that his access to power, wealth in a terrible and uninhibited way of, to help the leaders set the final goal the relentless destruction of the Jewish people mitverwirklichen in his power and the Jews deported to Treblinka in the short span of her life, which was still available to them here, to make the agonizing hell. He revealed it such sadism and such disregard for all Jewish life that the human imagination hardly enough to imagine the atrocities committed by him or under his misdeeds and involvement at all. He called the Jews in the camp as "assholes", as "filth", as "shit" and. "Dogs" that needed to be addressed as soon and as thoroughly as possible Any regard for the life and personality of its victims was alien to him. He abused, punched, beat and killed when he was fun and he was just like it. He found nothing when his dog Barry on his acclamation to the helpless Jews fell, they threw her to the ground and injured in his presence and mangled. Was a prisoner as a result of these abuses are no longer able to work, so it Franz shot on the spot or let him bring the liquidation to the hospital, where he for some reason was not in the mood to make the shooting of himself.

Accordingly, the defendant Franz was the terror of the whole camp. As soon as he let himself be seen on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle in the camp, warned the other one before his coming, because we knew that once again any mistreatment or killing would be due. Every prisoner, he might still be so sick or weak, increasing his eagerness to work and tried to make the most favorable impression, just not so conspicuous. Nevertheless, the defendant kept finding reasons to mistreat Jewish prisoners and torture and even kill either on the spot or to the hospital to send the shooting of. Especially feared his presence was in the daily roll calls, where he frequently undertook a large scale selections to pick out the sick and not fully able to work for the liquidation in the hospital or in retaliation for any escape attempts. Violations of camp discipline and other trifles In many cases, it also imposed corporal punishment and took it personally to the designated whipping-block. It insulted and threatened him. Both the unfortunate victims as well as the driven working prisoners in the nastiest and filthiest manner and made all a big show, which spread fear and terror in the accused wanted to confirm it

How many people in Treblinka have come at the hands of the defendant Francis or its immediate occasion to death is certainly no longer detectable. The only certainty is that this number is not small, and the defendant by his conduct in the camp loaded a large blood guilt. A large part of the rivers of blood and tears that flowed in Treblinka is, alone on his account.

III. The basis of the findings of the accused and to resume his duties in Treblinka

The findings on the CV of the accused Franz based on the extent of his entering an credible in conjunction with the-picked documents, particularly the records of the Berlin Document Center.

The findings about the duration of his stay and his work at Treblinka follow contrast from the statements of his co-defendants and from the unsworn testimony of the witnesses caretaker J., employee Sch., Waiter Josef Oberhauser and stenographer Irmgard Francis, the wife of the accused, if one them may follow, and finally from the depositions of the witnesses psychiatrist Dr. Stru., engineer Eq., employee Au., Kaufmann Yes., hotel assistant manager Sed., Kaufmann Kols., locksmith Tai., mechanic Tu, Kaufmann Jan., locksmith Ku., pub Bom. Lew and employees. insofar as the Court may follow them.

This allows the defendant Franz is as follows:

It was only on November 1, 1942 by the Belzec camp came to the Sonderkommando Treblinka, where he was a member until October 2, 1943, but not until the end of November 1943. During his stay in Treblinka, he was only the leader of the Ukrainian guards and have tried with success in that capacity, this unit to teach and discipline. With the destruction of the Jews, he had to do only insofar as there had been for the guarding of the camp by the Ukrainians and the preparation reinforced items on arrival and dispatch of transports. Representatives of the camp commander or adjutant he had never been and had not usurped this position also. As a result, he had never the SS camp personnel or the Jewish Kapos and working prisoners issued any commands. In particular, he did not beat the Jews and tortured or killed. His ambition had always been rather, from these things that he hates from the soul, as much as possible to distance. This half he also clashed with Wirth, at whose command he once on the office, and a second time when a Jew appeal must beat. To the Jews, to facilitate their hard lot, he had done all that had been in his power. He had passed on the day of his arrival in Treblinka contrary to the command Wirths not a command of Jewish workers fed the destruction, but they sent to the barracks and so saved from certain death. That the uprising on August 2, 1943 was a success ever was, essentially his merit, for he was the friend of his Jewish dentist Dr. Rebschütz noted that on this day, the opportunity to escape in a convenient, because he himself is absent from his Treblinka going and most of the Ukrainian guard would go for a swim at the bow. Wirth had accused him after the rebellion as well as being responsible for the flight of the Jews, and threatened him with incarceration and court martial. Stangl were merely following the transfer still clearing, but no more exterminations carried out. He, Franz could therefore not be referred to as commandant of a death camp, but at best as the leader of a Nachkommandos. The shooting of the last work he had Jews on 1 October 2, 1943 and must carry on the express orders of Globocnik, given to him by this measure by telephone and inquired several times after the execution, was so that he, Francis, in the end nothing was left but the command to be obeyed. He himself had been involved in any case of the liquidation. All charges against him were evil slanders that lacked any real basis. For some reason, wanted to make him responsible for the things that he had also not the least to do. Why blame just him hanging, possibly related to the fact that he is in the camp is always a good soldierly attitude had applies himself and the fact that he used a horse and accompanied by the dog Barry, who had, moreover, been a completely harmless and good-natured animals , admitted to the camp moves and so perhaps more than his comrades in the spotlight of the Jews.

Even more likely, however, that he had been mistaken for the former camp commandant Dr Eberl or with the leader of the lower bearing Kuttner, one of which must have been in fact the legendary Lalka. The reason for his promotion to lieutenant lies solely in the fact that he had the Ukrainians trained to decent soldiers.

This is refuted by entering an the result of evidence in its key points.

First, as regards the duration of stay in Treblinka, so the outcome of the inquiry can be no doubt that the accused Franz already in the high summer of 1942, was in Treblinka, and that he remained there until complete dissolution of the camp late November 1943. Once the defendant has stated in the preliminary investigation himself, he was already in the high summer of 1942, came to the camp, as there are heaps of bloated corpses were lying around, and on the other he has so at his repeated questioning by the investigating judge, the replacement of Dr Eberl by Stangl described in detail and specified that he that day must have been already in the camp. The replacement of Dr. Eberl was but, as is clear from the Wehrmacht found lading, the latest in the first half of September 1942nd Moreover, the defendant has credibly demonstrated rent that Francis in the attack on the SS Sergeant Max Biala on 09/11/1942 already was in Treblinka. Any evidence to show that rent could be wrong on this point are, nor seen as sure that he could have told about deliberately to the detriment of Franz untruth. Moreover, the defendant Suchomel and H. confirmed that Francis in every case the beginning of October 1942 in the camp, and also the accused Münzberger that is pushed to the end of September 1942 Sonderkommando Treblinka can not say whether Francis at this time was already there, but just as he confirmed the statements of the accused Mentz codefendants rent, Suchomel and H., which have been lying around at that time in Treblinka no more bloated corpses and that already Stangl was commandant of the camp, and not Dr. Eberl.

By the defendant for his performance, he had arrived only on 01/11/1942 at Treblinka, named witnesses have expressed nothing decisive to support his appearance. The uneidlich owned motor vehicle master Fu., Who was stationed in the fall of 1942 as an SS man in Belzec, has indeed said he had Francis made during his transfer from Belzec, Treblinka with the cars to the station, he could not, however, surely it to remember when that was. Finally he said to suspension, which could probably have been in November 1942. This statement, which is referred to in terms of time, uncertain and inaccurate, are facing several expressions of other former SS men, from which one can conclude that Francis was moved much earlier to Treblinka. Thus, the question any uneidlich also caretaker J., a former member of the guards of Belzec, explains with clarity, Franz was in October 1942, was no longer in Belzec. The clerks Sch. has heard uneidlich, explained that he was an SS man in October 1942 came from Trawniki to Treblinka and that Franz had already been in Treblinka in October and there filled the functions of a deputy commander. The most well-informed bartender Josef Oberhauser, of during Operation Reinhard adjutant Wirth has testified uneidlich that Franz either had been in August or September 1942 offset from Belzec to Treblinka, there to take over the Ukrainian guards, and certainly not until October or November 1942. Finally, the wife of the accused's own has clearly expressed that her husband had told her during a visit in October 1942, he had to go after the holidays end to Treblinka. Assume that Franz, following his return from holiday on 31.10.1942 for him was unexpectedly transferred to Treblinka, Belzec, as he claims, can therefore be no question. The court is in any case because of assurances from the defendants hire representation that Franz is the assault on Max Biala on 09/11/1942 already been at Treblinka, convinced that Franz is already so early September 1942 been there. This is even more than the details of rent, which incidentally is portrayed in contrast to Franz at various points his work at Treblinka and truthfully confessed individual acts have been confirmed by several Jewish witnesses. Among others who were under oath, because of its personal impression credible witnesses have Ros., Au. and Raj. announced that Francis is the death Max Bialas on 11/09/1942 already been in the camp.

It is also clear that the defendant Francis has been to the end of November 1943 in Treblinka, and after the departure of Stangl early August 1943, not only the stock has performed responsibly but that also during this time when it has been carried out to a more limited extent, even mass killings is. This follows again from the unique and in-depth details of the accused rent Münzberger, H., Ru. and Suchomel, the defendant in this process with the best memory. They have all stated unanimously that have been reached even after the uprising still transports to Treblinka and gassed. This is confirmed by the statements of the other defendants of Mentz and Ru. That the defendant Franz was in late November 1943 in Treblinka, and together only after the liquidation of the remaining commands and after the delivery of the dog in the military hospital Barry Ostrow with Ru. Mentz and is driven a truck to Sobibor concentration camp. The accused Mentz remembers clearly the fact that he had to bring to the witness Dr. Barry Stru., The then chief of the reserve hospital Ostrow before the trip to the truck went off. The defendant has raised this, he had Barry. Few days before the uprising on August 2, 1943, Dr. Stru can bring. The witness Dr. Stru., With the familiar terms, Francis and with it until his arrest pflog friendship and correspondence handling has made the oath under his energetic and credibly denied. He has stated that he had entered the camp Treblinka first time after the insurrection of August 2, 1943 and that at that time, Barry is certainly still been in the camp. This supports the claims of the defendants Mentz, he had Barry. Immediately before departure to the Sobibor camp at the direction of Dr. Franz to Stru brought in Ostrow. This representation of Franz So here - as in many other areas of greater and lesser importance - inaccurate. . The accused Ru who has despite his age still have a good grasp and an extraordinarily good memory is mistaken regarding the departure also not, because he knew it very well that the truck was operated by the SS Sergeant Schmidt and that Franz was sitting while driving next to Schmidt. Next, the details of Mentz and Ru. confirmed by the appearance of the defendants Suchomel, who was only after 1943 that took place on October 14th at Sobibor uprising of the local Jewish prisoners transferred from Treblinka, Sobibor and was handed his marching orders in Treblinka Franz personally. He has also, as he has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Franz also seen later in the Sobibor camp.

Finally Franz from Treblinka on October 2, 1943, the Reichsführer-SS - Race and Settlement Main Office -. Its application for approval of his intended marriage to the Red Cross nurse's aide T., now the New witness found. In this application it has described himself as commandant of Treblinka. In a place with as Treblinka and the November 6, 1943 marked the date letter to the Race and Settlement Main Office in Berlin, he then again recalls the early completion of his marriage proposal. His presentation, he had already written this letter of Germany or even from Italy and given only out of habit than Treblinka sending location, can the jury not to believe.

A careful consideration of all these circumstances, the jury believe that the defendant has been from early September 1942 to late November 1943 in the Treblinka death camp and that his representation that he was arrived on 01.11.1942 and there he had been at Treblinka
October 2, 1943 leaving only an empty excuse, with which he seeks to evade responsibility for a part of the horrible event in Treblinka.

The same applies to the claim of the accused that he had done in Treblinka only the Ukrainian guard and possibly only occasionally represented the Commandant Stangl at his request for the duration of each short absence. Because at this point, all nine defendants unanimously express the opposite. All agree that Franz deputy camp commander was. Thus e.g. The accused Stadie, who as SS staff sergeant until the appointment of Franz to SS lieutenant outranked Franz, expressly said that Francis was superior to his official position for him due to a transfer of Stangl from the beginning and that Franz him have can issue commands and have also issued. In the lower stock markets what has been accused rent, Mentz and Suchomel have argued that it had the same behavior between the first higher-ranking SS Master Sergeant Kuettner and Franz, for it had occurred often, that Franz the SS Master Sergeant Küttner giving orders and him at his activities have controlled as head of the lower bearing.

The jury is therefore completely determined yet because of the extent matching data of the other nine defendants, that Franz has exercised the functions of a deputy camp commander. Requires drawing on the very numerous statements of Jewish witnesses on this issue no longer exists.

From the plethora of eyewitness testimony only were the most comprehensive and precise statements of the witnesses under oath Eq. and Sed. highlighted that - have confirmed that Franz has been deputy camp commander and that he also - - quite independently has shown virtually as absolute autocrat of the camp - because of the passivity of the commandant Stangl and because of frequent absences from the camp.

The contention of the defendant Francis, not he, but either Dr. Eberl or Kuttner must be "Lalka" been an investigation has also not stood. Suchomel says the accused has stated that Franz had only because of his pretty face and his manicured exterior of the Jews = nicknamed Lalka doll. The Jewish Camp Senior Engineer Galewski and other Jews would have told him that repeatedly. All detainees interrogated in court, they may have been sworn or not sworn, have testified unanimously that Franz has had that nickname, and that confusion with Kuettner, which you have called Kiwe, was out of question. Of the many expressions in this context are those of sworn witnesses Eq., Un., Au., Raj. and Academy streets. as for the belief formation of Assize mentioned enough. The co-defendant Suchomel, Mentz and rent have argued on this issue, and that Franz Kuttner had indeed been equal that one. Else but they have quite good can differ, since they had not seen the face similar The accused Münzberger has pointed out that Kuttner had a hooked nose, through which one it was from a distance of Franz may differ. Nor aberrant is a confusion between Franz and Dr. Eberl to speak the word. Dr. Eberl had a small mustache. He said Austrian dialect. He was only the beginning of September 1942 in the warehouse and entered for his replacement by Stangl, the Treblinka extermination camp during the period from early September 1942 until its dissolution no longer so that he as a perpetrator for the defendant Franz alleged misdeeds during this Time ceases. Moreover, there was between Dr. Eberl and Franz, as the defendant Suchomel stresses no resemblance in appearance. Suchomel can tell, because he has the time in the camp was Dr. Eberl.

As for the Defendant Franz exerted reign of terror in the camp, the details of the co-defendants in this respect is much more reserved. This may be due to a misunderstanding of camaraderie towards Franz and also the fact that Franz would intimidate even now with angry glances his former subordinates. After all, hinted especially the three defendants Suchomel, rent and H., Francis was to the Jewish prisoners. Suchomel said he had warned the prisoners whenever Franz was near. On the question of whether and why these warnings were necessary Suchomel has said he wants to not comment on the question. Rent has declared that there could be no question that he was the most brutal in the camp, that is, instead, another was. On the question of who was the other, and whether he was among the defendants, Rent said after a long reflection, he would not give an explanation to this. The defendant H explains, had among the Jews of the upper bearing is increasingly widespread fear and terror, when Franz had inspected the death camp, mostly because then something extraordinary happened. For details, but then he wanted to portray any more. Since all the accused knew no inhibitions when it came to burden already dead or vanished comrades with crimes, one can relate the statements of Suchomel, and H. rent at reasonable appraisal only on the bearing pressure exerted by Franz in Terror. This conclusion is all the more easily as the accused in the Treblinka down on the day by numerous Jewish witness cruel behavior has been confirmed.

Thus, the question any oath, with its peaceful and objective way particularly credible engineer Eq. announced that Franz in many cases imposed corporal punishment that he often even at night appeals to the whipping-block occurred and that he the victim here yet with improper expressions such as "shit", "filth", "dog" and "asshole" insulted. When he ordered their liquidation in the hospital, he expressed the view that this "shit" or the "dirt" would soon be transported to the afterlife. Eq. Franz designated as the greatest sadists that there had been in the camp. The same says the oath question any brewmaster Un, who added, Francis was like a tiger;. When he saw blood, he has become even wilder. In the statement of the oath interrogated employees Au., Who made up the jury a credible impression, it means among other things that Lalka had often gone on appeal to the series is beaten Jews and that he was a fingertip 5-15 people for the shooting of have picked out in the hospital. Continue this witness has described how Francis has once embarked on the tube naked women standing around and shot, because it annoyed him that the gassing engine was broken temporarily and that therefore the more clearance was faltering.

The oath was also Kaufmann Yes. has declared that Franz is often picked out a few people that he brought her to the hospital and there they either shot himself or by a third party shoot left. From him it was welcome to use the camp, he ate no breakfast, no lunch and no supper, before he did not kill a few Jews. The question any oath Hotel Assistant Sed. has testified that he was once punched by Franz to the ground because he did not "respect" roared and not taken off his hat when Francis came into the disinfection chamber where Sed. worked with three other prisoners with the disinfection of the woman's hair. By Punch he was so stressed the witness fainted.

The oath was Kaufmann Kols. has stated convincingly that Francis had him also once punched him to the ground and knocked out several teeth here. Numerous other sworn witnesses, including witnesses Tai., Tu, Jan., Ku., Bom. and Lew. have convincingly argued that Franz other prisoners flogged several times on the whipping-block and that he has set his dog on Barry prisoners when it felt like it.

In such circumstances, the other entering an accused, he had been lying, the fate of the Jews at heart, he was trying to ease the fate, and he therefore asked the prisoner Dr. Rebschütz, the Jews were a riot on 2 August 1943 make because then most of the Ukrainians was on his orders for swimming at the bow appear to be hypocritical and false.

Finally, if the defendant indicates that he was only "military" reasons, and indeed promoted because of good training and leadership of the Ukrainian SS lieutenant, that is also incorrect. In the Eastern Front could even be without a visit to a military school officer when you had distinguished himself at the front especially, but not only by the fact that you are far behind the front lines as an instructor of a unit Ukrainians had success. The activity in a concentration camp can not even compare it to a military combat, as does the defendant Franz. Was promoted to SS-lieutenant, that the officer is, rather, is only because of his special zeal in the destruction of the Jewish people. From the Globocnik with the Personnel Office of the Chief of the SS in Berlin because of the carriage of members of the Aktion Reinhard conducted correspondence, it is clear that Francis has been promoted because he was among the leaders and subordinates, "which action at the Reinhard have particularly distinguished. "

The Franz at the mass killing of Jews in the Treblinka extermination camp within the meaning of the former Nazi philosophy "very honored" that he in addition to the wide variety of ways, namely, by slaying, hanging, shooting, and with the help of his dog, Barry, numerous excess deeds Working prisoners committed, it is clear by the findings of the Court of Assizes in the following sections. As the dog Barry has become a symbol for the prisoners in the camp of Franz exercised terror, the jury has also dealt extensively with the behavior of this dog in Treblinka and this includes witnesses and experts.

IV The dog Barry and his behavior in the Treblinka extermination camp

Either late 1942 or early 1943, the dog was taken to Barry Treblinka extermination camp. There was a large calf, black and white spotted mongrel with the predominant breed characteristics of a Saint Bernard. In Treblinka, he joined the defendants in Franz and saw him as his master. On his patrols through the lower and upper bearing the Francis Barry used to have mostly to himself. Depending on your mood he rushed the dog with the words "man-making that dog!" on prisoners who had noticed him somehow. With the word "man" he meant this to Barry and the words "dog" the prisoner concerned, should pounce on the Barry. Barry went but even then release a prisoner if this just yelling at Francis. To develop Barrys activity, it required not in every case of Zurufs "man, barrel that dog!" Barry always bite indiscriminately on the people concerned. Since he was calf big and with his shoulder level - as opposed to smaller dogs - zoom handed to the buttocks and the abdomen of an average big man, he bit often the buttock, in the abdomen and in the literature on the genitalia of male prisoners, which he some in cases even partially bit off. Is less violent prisoners succeeded sometimes throw the man to the ground and attacked him on the ground to devour almost beyond recognition.

Barry does not stand in the absence of the accused under the influence of Francis, so he was not recognizable. You could pet him and tease him even without that he did something to someone.

Francis was responsible for the care of his dog Barry the Czechoslovak prisoners Masarek. This had to wait for him and take care of his food, which was much better than the work of prisoners.

With the closure of the camp in late November 1943, the defendant brought Barry to Dr. Mentz the Stru. to Ostrow, who was chief physician at the local military hospital. After some time with Dr. Barry went Stru. a new dog-men-binding one. He was usually under or next to the desk in the study of his new master and was in the hospital Ostrow, the largest of several thousand beds German military hospital in the east, referred to as "the big calf." He did more harm anyone.

In 1944, Dr. Stru. the Barry to his wife living in Schleswig-Holstein. Later he took over the brother of the witness. In 1947, Barry was killed off senility.

These findings are based on any defense of the accused, if you can follow them on the details of the co-defendants and rent Mentz, on the sworn statements of credible neurologist and Obermedizinalrates aD Dr. Stru. from Schleswig, the engineer Eq., the master brewer Un., plumber Oscar Stra., the merchant Thu merchant's January, the locksmith Tai., the painter's Hel., the mechanic Tu, the Bautechnikers Koh., the Schlosser Ku., the Hotel Manager Assistant Sed., the butcher Roj., the deputy managing director in a ladies clothing store Sp, the merchant Kols. and the tailor Lac. and on the inbound and convincing opinion on "The behavior of the dog Barry" by Prof. Dr. Konrad Lorenz, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Research in Seewiesen / Upper Bavaria.

Defendant Francis made it his dog Barry following information:

It was an infamous lie, if it is claimed that he had Barry hunted Jews on several occasions, Barry had bitten the Jews, including the genitals, and the so-bitten had been shot in the hospital afterwards. Barry was on the contrary no Jews harmed. He was good-natured and playful disposition.

These entering an accused has been refuted by the evidence collected in full. The witnesses Eq., Un., Jan., Hel., Tu, Ko., Sed., Kols. and Lac. have personally observed that Franz has set his Barry often on prisoners that Barry has violated these detainees seriously, including some on the genitals, and also that the seriously injured have been at the behest of Franz then shot in the hospital. Of course, the jury has to among the plurality of the witnesses in this context described, only three other similar cases substantiate
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

User avatar
Ponury
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 21:38
Location: Gdansk/Danzig in Poland!
Contact:

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#229

Post by Ponury » 19 Jan 2013, 16:16

Thanks :milsmile:

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

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#230

Post by David Thompson » 20 Jan 2013, 19:35

trespasser07 -- Do you have a source for that quote so interested readers can locate it?

User avatar
Ponury
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 21:38
Location: Gdansk/Danzig in Poland!
Contact:

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#231

Post by Ponury » 20 Jan 2013, 21:45


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

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#232

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2013, 00:32

Ponury -- When I asked for a source to accompany the quote given by trespasser07, you volunteered:
I don't think so. Your link is not to the judgment in the case, but a chapter of a "Revisionist" screed attacking the judgment -- Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf's Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?.

User avatar
spottedcow
Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 09 Sep 2006, 00:36
Location: Poland

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#233

Post by spottedcow » 21 Jan 2013, 01:04

I believe it might be from Vol. XXII of Justiz und NS-Verbrechen.

Patrick

User avatar
Ponury
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 21:38
Location: Gdansk/Danzig in Poland!
Contact:

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#234

Post by Ponury » 21 Jan 2013, 23:00

Do you have english version of link in this subject to interview with murder Kurt Franz? Why was such a sadist, as explained?

Stangl in talks with Serena explained in general what and how. In the autumn of 1943, when the camp was liquidated, the last pile ignited, Kurt Franz with ukraininian wachmans killing more the prisoners, who plowed camp.

Barry the dog died in 1947.

trespasser07
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 27 Nov 2010, 14:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#235

Post by trespasser07 » 22 Jan 2013, 21:23

More here, it comes from the german text on the holocaust-history page;

These entering an accused has been refuted by the evidence collected in full. The witnesses Eq., Un., Jan., Hel., Tu, Ko., Sed., Kols. and Lac. have personally observed that Franz has set his Barry often on prisoners that Barry has violated these detainees seriously, including some on the genitals, and also that the seriously injured have been at the behest of Franz then shot in the hospital. Of course, the jury has to among the plurality of the witnesses in this context described, only three other similar cases substantiate. Once the witness has Eq. experienced during the night loading a freight train with textiles in 1942, Francis Barry's a working prisoner rushed, as Barry the man bit into the penis and how the injured man was then shot in the hospital. The witness Jan. describes how his Barry Francis once before entering the tube incited a naked detainee and as a prisoner here Barry bit off the penis and Barry as one on another occasion, at the behest of a detainee Francis near the Ukrainian cuisine tore out pieces of meat by a bite. That these descriptions are correct, the co-defendant has confirmed rent. For he has - admitted to having shot him and those passed by Franz prisoners in the hospital who had been bitten by Barry into genitals and other body parts - after a long silence on this issue.

On the other hand, the witnesses have Eq., Oscar Stra., Jan., Tai., Tu, Ko., Cz., Sed., Roj., Kols. and Lac. also stated that Barry was not recognizable if he had not been under the influence of Francis, as he was then was good-natured and lazy. Next was the witness Dr. Stru. reports that he is led by Barry more often when in Ostrow hundreds of naked soldiers who were lined up in a row on their suitability to untersuchenpflegte front. Dr. Stru. emphasized that none of these soldiers Barry did anything wrong.

To the question of whether Barry is even a traveling beast, on the other hand, however, was also a good-natured house and playing dog, has the jury the director of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Research in Seewiesen / Upper Bavaria, the internationally renowned scientist Professor Konrad Lorenz heard under oath as an expert. In his persuasive opinion Professor Lorenz pointed out, inter alia:

From him by the court submitted photos of Barry he perceive that this was not a purebred St. Bernard, but a mixed breed dog that has certainly exhibited the predominant breed characteristics of a Saint Bernard. Mongrel dogs were much more sensitive than pure-bred animals. If they are a gentleman would join and received a so-called dog-men-binding, they would guess formally that intentions have their master, because a dog was "a reflection of the subconscious mind of his master," and that applies particularly true for mixed-breed dogs. It is accepted in the behavioral physiology, that same dog could be temporarily good and harmless, at times even dangerous and vicious. The latter would be the case if he was haunted by his master to a person. Sometimes it is enough already, if the Lord of the dog yell at a person, so that the dog rush to angebrüllte person. The same dog can short time later harmless play with children without something to be feared. The same behavior he showed towards adults with whom his master speak kindly. Even with these people he loved then. He is aligning itself just at the very moods and whims of his master.

If a dog could it receives a new dog-men-bond his character even convert completely. If Barry had therefore shown under his new master, the witness, Dr. Stru., No more inclination to bite, so it was nothing unusual. Experiments with dogs have corroborated this experience strongly.

After these convincing the professor Dr. Lorenz So there is no logical contradiction between the findings that Barry was both dangerous when he was chased by Franz on Jews, and he on the other hand in the camp grounds in the absence of Franz and later with Dr. Stru. Ostrow been lazy, good-natured and harmless.

The court also has the well-known professor of surgery at the Medical Academy in Dusseldorf, Professor De., Questioned under oath as an expert on the effects caused by dog ​​bites in male genitals. He said among other things:

Injuries to the male genitalia are particularly painful. The pain associated with injury to the scrotum are more intense here than injuries to the male organ. If a male sex organ will completely ripped out, the relevant injuries was usually no longer able to walk. Men with tissue injuries to her genitals are opposed to go despite strong pain capable. Neither a partial injury to the genitals or a complete loss of this part, however, led to death. It is also expected to not having a particularly fast bleeding to death. In fact, even with a full bite off part of the sex of the injured person does not bleed to death, as the veins in the male genitalia have a much smaller diameter than the arteries elsewhere in the body. The smaller veins in the genitals castles therefore relatively quickly by itself

Through this precise and convincing scientific explanation of the expert Professor De. is evidence that detainees who have been bitten by Barry into sex part, due to this lesion alone did not have to die necessarily, so that it could be necessary to liquidate on the spot or in the hospital, as it is on after the confession of the co-defendants rent arrangement of Franz actually occurred.

Expressed by the various Jewish witnesses suspected Francis had trained his dog Barry out the prisoners to bite the genitalia, has not been confirmed by the results of the inquiry. Originally from Czechoslovakia witnessed engineer Eq. was friends with the also from Czechoslovakia who came to Treblinka Masarek prisoner, who was in charge of Francis with the care of the dog Barry. Masarek has the witness Eq. Although it has been reported that Francis and his Barry led by general obedience training, however, he has never told him about the fact that the Franz Barry had specially trained to bite or injure male genitalia. The other witnesses who can not report a hinzielende to bite off the genitals of special training of Barry, so it is here that do not make specific findings. Barry has not only in the way a bite genitals, but also in other parts of the body (buttocks, thighs and more), as the witnesses Eq., Cz., Sed. and Roj. report. If it relatively frequently detected the genitals of his victims, this is due to a calf its corresponding size. While smaller dogs into bite mainly in the lower leg portions, Barry approaching directly through its size with its snout to the genitals of his victims, and therefore hurt her. For this purpose, it required no special training by the accused French This does not exclude that this just grab the Barry was not on the genitals of the prisoners seen by Franz reluctantly, for, according to the statements of numerous Jewish witnesses, including the engineer's equation, the mechanic. Tu and the hotel management assistant Sed. Franz was a "sophisticated sadist" the "specialties" in the abuse and killing of Jews were preparing a special treat. Such delicacy was certainly hurting and tearing out of the genitals of a prisoner by Barry.

V. individual acts of the accused Franz in the mass killings, the so-called transport severance

First Killed a child

Is serving the transportation from Warsaw in 1943 put a woman to her child, which she had worn on the arm until then, near the Frauenauskleidebaracke on the Earth as it was driven into the gas chamber. Francis saw that the child was provided for gasification not as usually taken by his mother to the gas chamber. He therefore decided to kill the child in place to ensure that the smooth running of the clearance was not compromised because of the child. He took the child by the legs and slammed it so long with his head against a beam of Frauenauskleidebaracke until it was dead.

The defendant denies this fact. But it is the sworn statement of the 48-year-old, living in Herzlya / Israel barber Pla. proven.

The witness, who was located at the end of July / beginning of August 1942 to August 2, 1943 at the Treblinka extermination camp, has the defendant Franz in the courtroom spontaneously recognized and stated that the matter raised by Franz at Lalka. He made his statement with great caution and distinction is exactly between what he himself has seen and observed, and what is it only by hearsay. He has a clear idea of ​​the personalities of the individual SS men in the camp, in particular, he has the possibility that the SS Sergeant Hirtreiter who committed the infanticide, ruled with the remark that he Hirtreiter Franz under any circumstances with the SS Sergeant confused, because I Hirtreiter small and black-haired, Franz had been against tall and blond. He has also reported an abundance of details that the court previously had not known, but has been confirmed in the course of evidence are. That his statement had been dictated by hatred and revenge, or even made against my better judgment, there is no evidence showed. For the objectivity of his testimony is corroborated in particular the fact that he expressly stated to have some members of the SS guards, so in particular from the defendant Suchomel, saw no excess deeds. A flat load all defendants, he has expressly stated. The court therefore bears no hesitation this witness who was during his incarceration at Treblinka 25 years old to believe.

Second Shooting of a child and his parents

When the goods of another transportation, came from the Warsaw ghetto, was a bigger child from his mother goodbye before the way to the gas chamber. In order to prevent this farewell scene that could have affected the fast process of the clearance, the defendant shot and killed this child with his pistol. When the mother went back to her dead child, she also shot Franz with his pistol. When the father of the child is finally preparing to go to his dead wife and dead child, the defendant shot and killed Franz him too.

The defendant Francis, this fact in dispute. However, it is converted by the accurate and sworn testimony of credible witnesses Pla., Who observed this incident the same way as the previous case up close with my own eyes.

Third Killing an infant

With another carrier was a mother who had to wait already fully extended into the corridor to the gas chamber, her baby in her arms. The accused Franz took away the child and threw it high into the air. The baby fell on the roof of Frauenauskleidebaracke and died as a result of the force of the impact, as the defendant Francis had intended from the beginning.

The accused, this fact in dispute. The court, however, she sees through the sworn testimony of the 58-year-old Koh Bautechnikers. from Ramat Gan / Israel proved to. Koh. has recognized the accused as Lalka Franz when he was interrogated without hesitation. In addition, he was able to identify it on the submitted three pictures. For his love of truth speaks of the fact that he admitted immediately to have seen the image of Francis in his uniform as an SS lieutenant in 1959 in an Israeli newspaper. That he has not recognized Franz about only because of the image in the Israeli newspaper, is the fact that he could identify the defendants except Franz immediately Stadie, rent and Suchomel, of which he has not seen any pictures in newspapers. He has given many details about life in the camp, who had to be admitted by the defendant. Finally, he has, as he has given credible and reaffirms his oath, while working at the sorting command seen at close hand, as Francis threw the baby on the roof and Barack killed by this. In his thoughtful, superior kind there are no objections, to follow his testimony in its entirety.

4th Killing an infant in the Frauenauskleidebaracke

One day in early 1943 came to a total of 3 large transports of Jews. The command used for sorting, now 48 years old merchant Kols. helped on that day the women undress in Frauenauskleidebaracke. Because of the heavy workload, it had to go that day very quickly. The SS Sergeant Sepp Hirtreiter, called by the prisoners Zepp, hit the left and right Frauenauskleidebaracke wild with his whip on the women to drive them at an even faster off. As all the women stripped the barracks left, remained three infants. Also dealt with the sort of woman clothes witness Kols. still remained in the barracks.

Then took Hirtreiter an infant by the feet and struck him several times with his head against the barracks wall, until he was dead. While this happened, Franz entered the Frauenauskleidebaracke. He told Hirtreiter, he would do better. He took the second baby in the feet up, then took out far and hit him full force with his head so violently against the barracks wall, that he was killed by a blow. After this happened, the witness went away with a pack of women's clothes from the barracks. He could not see what happened to the third infant.

The defendant denies the incident Franz decided. However, it is by the will of the New York-based businessman Kols. transferred. This witness was planning with the two witnesses living in Israel. and Koh. no connection. He has identified as Franz Lalka immediately, although Franz during the hearing of this witness was not his place as the first, but the fifth in the middle of the accused. He has also recognized him at all three light images showing Franz in uniform, the witness asserted explicitly, to have seen no photo of Franz. The now 48 year-old witness has weighed his expressions and very carefully done. Although he lost in Treblinka his younger sister by 2 years, he can not be seen by feelings of revenge and hatred carried away to exaggerate or add only provide hearsay than even seen. This is particularly evident from the fact that he has explicitly stated that he had no longer cared what happened to the third infant, because he had to leave the barracks. The court has no hesitation to believe this witness, especially as he has reiterated his statement also sworn.

5th Killing of another young child in the Frauenauskleidebaracke

At one time no more amount to be determined day in late 1942 or early 1943 were in the of the women already abandoned Frauenauskleidebaracke two infants at the age of about 1/2 year and 1 year. Both were hidden under clothes. As for the sort command active inmate Lak. the clothes, under which the two young children were hiding, wanted to wear a dress mountain located outdoors, Franz noticed the two children. He hit a child against the barracks wall, so that it was dead. The second child was beaten to death by another SS man in the same way.

The defendant also argues Francis this operation energetic. He will, however. By sworn testimony of the 62 year old, living in Eiron / Israel Magazine administrator Lak transferred, which has seen the incident from the beginning. Confusion with the under 4 Witnesses of the Kols. described case is ruled out, since it is there for three infants acted that were not hidden under clothes, while we are dealing with two children hid under clothes. The witness Lak., Who made a very prudent and careful deliberative impression on the court has expressly excluded the number of three children. Since the witness the accused Franz as Lalka identified without hesitation and recognized him on all three photos, the court is convinced that he was telling the truth, especially since he has a good intelligence and to make very precise and detailed information did .

6th Shooting of an about 18-year-old Jewish girl in hospital

One day during the period from September 12, 1942 to mid-October 1942, Franz an already drawn-out about 18 years old girl that arrived with a transport and destined for destruction, was the Männerauskleideplatz to hospital where no one at that time was. There, he shot them with his pistol.

The defendant denies the incident. But he is by the testimony of the 56 year old, living in Jerusalem
Israeli officials Sz convicted of the incident from the beginning to the end watching her closely, because he worked in the hospital close to the sorting station. The witness, who is of Polish qualified lawyer, met on 12.9.1942 in Treblinka and fled in mid-October 1942 in a wagon filled with clothes, from which he jumped off while driving. While he has the defendant can not identify, but recognized him again in the photos. Since he made his statement very carefully and calmly and judiciously because he has reaffirmed his oath, the jury has no qualms about following his testimony.

That the witness has the shooting of not even seen with my own eyes because he could not see inside the cloaked hospital evaluates its expression does not, because he has during his several hours of continuous work observed the sort, at this time, that when Francis the girl led to the hospital, where no one else has found, so that the shot may have been made only by Francis himself.

7th Killing of a Jew with a gun butt

At the entrance of a transport train in 1942 or in 1943, jumped out a Jew from the car and seriously injured was lying. He was taken to the camp and asked for water. The accused Franz left a bucket of water to bring this man. When he tried to drink out of this bucket, let the Franz not to, but beat him the bucket of water on her head. Then he struck with the butt of a rifle so long to the man, until he was dead. This incident, which the accused denies, is confirmed by the affidavit of the 42-year-old locksmith Tai., Who lives in Tel Aviv. The witness, who was on September 3, 1942 to August 2, 1943 at the Treblinka extermination camp, has carefully distinguished between what he himself saw and what he has just heard. He has recognized the accused with certainty. Although he lost his mother at Treblinka and several other relatives, let his statement see no hatred against the defendants. He has instead reported objectively and calmly, which defendants have to be carried away, and what specific actions can have only limited to the exercise of powers delegated function. Then he made a very mature impression on the jury and also summoned his testimony, the court is convinced of the truth and accuracy of his testimony.

8th The death of the Warsaw Jewish Inca salt water

The witness Sed., Who was then employed by the so-called disinfection command which had to attend to the disinfection and packaging of the cut hair woman remarked, is serving the transport his former girlfriend Inca salt water from Warsaw. He wanted to save her. The witness about 1.90 meters wide, which was called by the Germans "Long" enjoyed by German SS men because of its size and because of its sporty looks some sympathy. He hoped, therefore, to his former girlfriend through advocacy at the German SS men can save themselves from the gasification. He turned first to those people working in Frauenauskleidebaracke Jewish barbers, asking his girlfriend Inca salt water not to cut his hair because he wanted to work for them. Then he went to SS Master Sergeant Kuettner and asked him to Inca saltwater choose to work in the lower camp. Kuettner raged initially, but was after a long intercession by Sed. agree with the rescue of Inca salt water. Among the several hundred women tried Sed. according to her, she could not find it. As he listened, she was already on the way to the death camp. At his request, was an SS officer, said the prisoners had been nicknamed Mouse. Toward the death camp and brought back from there the already naked Inca salt water, which could once again attract Full of joy at the successful rescue was Sed. with salt water to Kuttner, in order to introduce him to. As Franz was added and then inquired what was going on. Sed. told him that Kuttner had saved the Inca salt water. As Franz was very angry and said, referring to Inca salt water: "Get rid of the crap" In his arrangement was Inca salt water from one of the witnesses Sed. not known by name SS man brought into the tube and shot him.

The defendant denies this fact and Franz indicates know the witnesses from Treblinka to not at all, while the defendant Suchomel and rent give to know the witnesses from Treblinka, where he was noticed for his body size. The now 51 year-old witness Sed. is assistant director in a large hotel in New York. He had read about the process has already begun with Francis and others for the first time in the New York Times. Initially, he was not willing to report as a witness because he wanted to forget the terrible events at Treblinka, where he lost his wife, his parents and his sister. As he was in a New York law therefore sought advice, warned him of this, by the justice and history's sake but to provide as a witness. Only after a long inner struggle, he has been ready to come to Germany to testify in Dusseldorf. He has been on the jury because of its quiet, precise and balanced description of the situation in Treblinka a good impression. He has not limited himself to express only incriminating things about the accused, but he has sought to disclose to the accused Suchomel and Stadie also favorable circumstances. The defendants Francis, Stadie, Suchomel and Mentz he recognized promptly, Franz on the submitted three photos. Despite the loss of his family in Treblinka, he let himself be carried away in no point to exaggerate in his descriptions or spend only what is heard as personal experiences. He is one of the most reliable witnesses of this process. The court therefore had no hesitation to give him in full faith.

9th Killing of an old Jew

In the period from September 22, 1942 to October 6, 1942 with a transport man aged 70 to 75 years, had arrived, who could only walk slowly. Francis spoke to him on the following analogy: "Why are you running any faster Do you not mind I bring you to the hospital?.." The old man thought he would be in a real hospital and thanked Franz with the words: "Thank you, sir." Then Francis led him to the hospital, where the man returned no more, since he was shot there either by itself or on the order of Franz Franz from a field hospital serving SS.

The accused Franz denies the incident. But he is converted by the accurate expression of the now 39-year-old upholsterer and decorator Zi, who lives in New York. Zi held from September 22, 1942 at two long weeks in camp. Then he was able to escape along with 10 other comrades. The witness observed the incident with the old man at close range. Although he was only 16 years old and only two weeks in the camp at the time, he described many details of life in the camp, which were confirmed by witnesses from other parts of the world, which has no connection Zi. In particular, he has personally Franz recognized spontaneously, besides also on the submitted three photos. The witness pointed out that he had not seen the shooting of the hospital itself. The court is convinced that the old man in the hospital was either by Franz themselves on their arrangement shot from another SS man there because the hospital was determined by the matching information of all defendants and all detained at Treblinka what has been witness to , elderly and sick people who interfered with the speedy settlement of a transport liquidate, shot in the neck. There is no indication that there is this old man here fared differently.

Since the witness Zi has made his statement calmly and rationally, and they also summoned, the court has no hesitation to go out of their correctness.

10th Killing of another ancient Jews

With another carrier during the period from September 22, 1942 to October 6, 1942 Francis was once again on an old man who could not run fast enough. He went up to him and choked him on the neck. Then he let go again. When the old man still was not faster, Franz choked him for the second time in the neck. When that did not work, he took him to the hospital. From there came the old man never returned. There he was either shot by Francis himself, or by order of Francis of an SS man or a Ukrainian who did duty there. Francis also denies the incident. By the court's findings are based here, as in the case 9th, Room on the credible testimony of the witness under oath

As far been discussed at the trial other misdeeds of the accused at Franz transport clearances are the result of sufficient evidence for a clear transfer of the accused is not enough. The statements of several witnesses to this are either too vague and uncertain, or they are in irreconcilable conflict with the statements of other persons of equal credibility, or the witnesses have described procedures do not personally experienced, but know them only from the stories and reports third. In these cases - these are the IA under the numbers 1, 4, 9, 11 and 14 of the legal notice in the trial of 23 July 1965 shall offenses - therefore had to be decided in favor of the defendant Franz doubt.

VI. Proven individual acts (called excess deeds) the defendant Francis outside the mass killings that are listed in the opening decision, and in the Indictment

First Shooting of at least 10 inmates early September 1942 in retaliation for the attack on Max Biala

Late in the afternoon one day in early September 1942 - probably on September 11th 1942 - led to the guards belonging SS Sergeant Max Biala by a selection to be made of the beaten men of a just-arrived from Warsaw transport select new working Jews. When pacing the front rushed from the ranks of In comer, a young man on Biala and wounded him with a knife in the shoulder area. Max Biala collapsed. He was joined by the defendant Stadie and immediately taken to the military hospital in Ostrow. On the way, however, he died already.

The attacker, whose name was probably Lublin, was put down by those present and added rushing SS men and Ukrainians on the spot with shovels and rifle butts and killed as a result.

In retaliation for this attack held the guards occurred among the Jews is a terrible massacre by long periods with guns indiscriminately on the Jews einschossen and thereby killed a large number of them. Among the Jews created a panic. They scattered in all directions. Some of them even managed to get through the camp outside the camp. They all, however, were again rounded up by the Ukrainians and the SS and had to start again.

Meanwhile, in the dead residing in the camp gas chambers SS First Lieutenant Christian Wirth had learned of the incidents. He hurried down to the lower bearing. He raged and gave the meantime also arrived at the scene accused Franz transfer to shoot every tenth of the assembled Jews. Wirth then removed and handed over to Franz the implementation of this arrangement. Franz could at will choose the victims. He proceeded in this way that he sought out not one in ten, but arbitrarily pointed at individuals who had to come out. The men had to lie face toward the Jews have been beaten Kneeling in a row. Franz shot her then shot in the neck. He initially used his own gun and then the gun the defendant Mentz, who handed him this after Francis had fired his own gun empty. The number of men killed in this action is not known with certainty, but there were at least ten people who were here at the hands of the defendant Franz death.

The defendant denies this fact pointing out that he could rely only from November 1, 1942 at the Treblinka extermination camp.

That Franz has certainly already been on the day of death of Max Biala in the extermination camp, once the rent is entering an accused at this point. Rent is in the preliminary investigation and at the trial stated with all certainty that Francis has been found on the day of death of Max Biala in the camp. He even has his own hand made a sketch in the details of execution and the authority has made to the shooting of the Franz, are indicated. All other defendants, especially in the lower stock markets and what has been accused Stadie Suchomel told to hire and Franz had never had a quarrel with each other and they could not imagine that rent say at this point is not true. Also, the jury was able to find no evidence that rent his co-defendant Francis, whether intentional or whether it erroneously has improperly charged. It therefore has no hesitation to follow any defense Mietes, Franz had shot the day of the death of Max Biala ten prisoners. This is even more than three witnesses under oath was this sequence of events have described in general agreement, and that the 68 year old employee Au. from Stockholm, the 42-year-old locksmith Tai. from Tel Aviv and especially the 40 year old port warehouse clerk Ros. from Bat Yam in Israel. Only in the number of on this occasion by Franz killed by Jews shot in the neck are the differences in the testimonies. While Au. puts the number of people shot by Francis with 30 to 40, are Tai. is a number from 30 to. In contrast, the witness Ros., Who has described this process as well as other incidents in the camp particularly accurate, given the number of victims was lower, but there were at least a total of 10 men were chosen by Franz and shot by shot in the neck. In that regard, his testimony largely agrees with the description given by the co-defendants hire representation. The court is therefore in favor of the defendant Franz assume that on this occasion he has killed 10 men shot in the neck.
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

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

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#236

Post by David Thompson » 22 Jan 2013, 23:51

For interested readers -- The judgment in the main Treblinka case can be found at http://www.holocaust-history.org/german ... teil.shtml (German text).

trespasser07
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 27 Nov 2010, 14:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#237

Post by trespasser07 » 27 Jan 2013, 21:53

The court holds the three sworn witnesses heard Au., Tai. and Ros. all credible. The now 68 year-old witness Au., The lieutenant of the reserve has been the Austrian army and took part in the First World War was, from August 1942 until December 23, 1942 in Treblinka. On this day, he managed to hide in a freight car loaded with bedding and about 3 km from Siedlce to jump out of the train. He has Franz recognized immediately. His descriptions of camp organization and camp life are consistent with those of numerous other witnesses and to some extent with the submissions of the accused. He has prudently his statement, quietly and made no hatred and revenge. The court bears no concern of his statement about the general Geschehnisablauf in the shooting of the men to follow on the death of Max Biala.

The same goes for the information of the witnesses Tai. That this witness is credible, is already seventh under AV the Second part of the reasons has been explained in detail. The Port Warehouse Ros. is one of the most reliable witnesses of these proceedings, as he has only described what he experienced personally, especially since he has guarded against any exaggeration, even in the less important points of these proceedings, and because it whole for the jury a mature and has made balanced impression. He has Franz recognized spontaneously. The statements of this witness, who was sworn in, the jury sees the full extent of such statements.

Second Selection of at least 80 working days after the date of death on the Jews by Max Biala and transferred to the shooting of the hospital

Subsequent to the first under described shooting of at least 10 Jews work by Franz the bodies were all brought on that day slain men to the hospital. Then the survivors were conducted among Jews in their accommodation. There they remained until the next day at 11 clock. Then they had to come out to the parade. It traded around 130 to 150 man Francis, who took this appeal, the defendant stated rent, all these Jews were "replaced" by order of host, ie be liquidated in the hospital. Rent asked him out the approximately 50 men who were part of the rent out of sort command to exempt from liquidation. Francis allowed das. After the rent had picked out about 50 men of the sort command, the rest had to weigh at least 80, but not more than 100 men under guard of Ukrainian guards begin the transition to the hospital. On the orders of Francis they were shot by shot in the neck.

The accused Franz denies his involvement in this case. He is the incoming information from the defendants in connection with the rent depositions of witnesses Ros., Au. and Tai., which regards the jury for fully credible convicted. That the defendant Franz has worked personally with the shooting, there is no reliable evidence has revealed. It is also not as in the first case ruled that the originally intended liquidation of the total inmate population was based on a general arrangement of Christian Wirth, whose implementation was made in the discretion of the individual defendants Franz.

Third Shooting of Itzek Choncinsky in the latrine

During a tour of the lower bearing the defendant Francis turned his attention to the present on the sorting station in the reception camp latrine. On this latrine perched several Jews who did their need. They saw the defendant, who was standing behind her not. Franz was a pleasure in, to shoot at the Jews in the latrine and to kill them. He shot on one occasion on a native of Czestochowa Jews Itzek Choncinsky with his pistol, hitting him fatally. The dead Choncinsky was later taken to the hospital and burned.

The defendant denies the incident. He will. But by credible, sworn testimony of the now 48-year-old tailor Lac Washington transferred in New York State. The witness was about 20 to 30 m from the latrine when Francis made on Choncinsky. Since the witness as Choncinsky Czenstochau comes from and he Choncinsky well from there, knew he was interested in his fate. Although the witness lost in Treblinka his parents, there is no objection, his expressions, based on a specific one observation to follow, because the witness has had in his entire statement is not hatred and revenge recognize but certain, even by him experienced incidents portrayed. Where he knew nothing definite more, he has immediately given.

He shall be Lac., Which again saw Franz immediately, further described that Franz was shot several times and on various other occasions squatting on the latrine Jews. However, he has here said that he no longer specify the names of the victims and details of their deaths could. Even the oath was a merchant Kols. and the oath question any greengrocer Br have made such statements. The court has no hesitation to follow, even those witnesses who have made a good impression during questioning. Accordingly, it is highly likely that Franz often shot Jews in the latrine and here at least one or even killed several Jews. An exclusionary doubt finding can meet only in the case of the prisoner Choncinsky as further details about the death of other Jews by the witnesses could not be specified.

4th The death of the Jewish physician Dr. Roland Choranzicky

One morning in the second half of April 1943, the defendant Francis discovered in the infirmary in the German make, coming from Warsaw Jewish physician Dr. Roland Choranzicky a larger amount of money. Were made between the doctor and the accused to a skirmish. Finally, Dr. Choranzicky jumped out the window. He broke out, probably because he had taken poison together. The accused and other German SS men threw themselves now on the fallen doctor and beat him to an almost unrecognizable mass. Franz then let all Jewish workers of the lower bearing convene a special appeal. Came into office than anything on the parade ground, which was like a bunch of bloody-looking doctor who was still breathing gasping zoom, loop and before the eyes of the assembled male and female prisoners again abused by him whipped. It participated with special zeal and the defendant Francis, after he had chosen with great care from the whips of the SS men present that of whip that he was in the best hands. After this flogging Dr. Choranzicky was hardly any sign of life. The accused, who wanted to know all circumstances of Dr. Choranzicky from which Jews gold he had the money trying to bring him back to consciousness, but not in order to save it permanently, but of him after a hearing about the origin money to kill then.

He let the doctor to shower with cold water, pulling him after opening the mouth, the tongue and pour him some water into his mouth. Then he stepped with both feet around on the belly of the doctor to him thereby to cause to pass. Finally, he let him poop by a Jewish doctor the stomach by tube. But when all these attempts were unsuccessful, the physician was placed on the whipping-block and abused again and the hardest hit. After he had stood for a while for deterrence on the whipping-block, let Francis make him finally to the hospital. Here was the doctor whose body was like a bunch of bleeding flesh, nor a coup de grace, before he was thrown into the pit for burning hospital.

The defendant Francis, who was about the incident and in particular, that of Dr. Choranzicky he could not learn more about the origin of the found money, get into great anger left, then all the Jews gold, about 10 in number, in which he the source discovered at Dr. Choranzicky funds suspected to come to the hospital. There they were forced to strip naked. They were then interrogated under threat of death over whether one of them Dr. Choranzicky had given the money. Since the examination was inconclusive and the defendant Suchomel had previously turned to Francis and asked him to protect the inlaid gold Jews, Franz finally dismissed the Jews gold back to work.

The accused can be as follows:

He was in the German area, the door was opened walked past, and I have seen happen to like Dr. Choranzicky've had a bunch of zloty banknotes in his pocket, as he had unbuttoned his white coat. As the possession of money was forbidden, he had him taken to task. Dr. Choranzicky replied that he needed the money to flee. He had thrown himself with a scalpel on him. He, Franz, had taken a chair and uses it as protection. Dr. Choranzicky threw the scalpel at him, hit him, but not because he had dodged. Here he was, Franz, but lost his balance and fell on his buttocks. Dr. Choranzicky have taken poison and jumped out the window. As he was lying there outside, he had him put on a stretcher. He had him by a doctor from the Jewish infirmary can pump out the stomach in order to save him. He was the doctor that is indebted to, because it was from him several times good medical attention. The evacuation of the stomach had his biggest regret unsuccessful. He did not hit him and beat Dr. Choranzicky not leave. Such was remotely located him. In any case he was keen to bring about the death of the doctor. For possession of the money he would have possibly given him a warning or reported the matter to the commandant Stangl.

It is also no truth to the fact that he had subsequently interrogated the gold Jews in the hospital and only at the request of Suchomel released.

As far as the defendant described the process in the German infirmary, shall be based on the extent of its unwiderlegten admission. Moreover, the jury can not follow, however, his account. From the affidavit and credible expressions of the 44-year-old engineer Eq. from Prague, the 43-year-old master brewer Un. of Vancouver in Washington state in the U.S., the 62-year-old sawmill manager Raj. of Montreal in Canada, the 51-year-old mechanic from Tu Bat Yam / Israel, the 55 year old Bautechnikers Koh. from Ramat Gan / Israel, the 56 year old CEO Zygmund road. from Montreal, the 48-year-old tailor Lac. from Washington, New York State of the United States, the 51-year-old hotel management assistant Sed. from New York and the 46-year-old locksmith Ku. from Giwataim / Israel rather arises for the court with full knowledge that the accused was not Franz eager to save Dr. Choranzicky, but that he did everything possible to kill him in a bestial way, after he has more succeeded, was to receive from him information on the origin of the money. These statements of living in different cities and countries, witnesses agree on all major issues. They describe consistently including the beating and flogging of Dr. Choranzicky by Franz and the fact that Francis tried to get the doctor using eingeflösstem water back to consciousness. They express finally agreed that Francis came around on my stomach the doctor when he is no longer in spite of the instilled water touched.

However, all of these witnesses does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Dr. Choranzicky died because of the mistreatment suffered by Franz. The possibility that he has found through the previously ingested poison death, can not be excluded. It must therefore be accepted that a defendant Franz.

Franz is that after the incident in Dr. Choranzicky Jews took the gold and her naked in the hospital, interrogated to learn something about where Dr. Choranzicky had his money, is not only the witness Eq. Whose special credibility in describing the case A.VI. 6th A full justification is, but also by the co-defendant Suchomel confirmed and who was invited to his specifications Franz that he would do anything the Jews gold as they were incorporated people. The question of whether his request was Franz opposite was necessary because of the life of the Jews gold, has Suchomel - after long reflection, while Franz looked at him angry - do not want to answer. Since Suchomel certainly would have answered the question if his answer would have been favorable to Francis, the Court draws from his silence on this point to the conclusion that he feared at the time, Franz would kill the Jews gold.

5th Violation of an inmate by a shot with the shotgun and its liquidation in hospital

On a day the accused is no longer detectable Franz noticed in a labor camp area inmate who struck him for some reason. He took a hunting rifle that he carried with him from the shoulder, made a prisoner of fun working on this and hurt him. Since the man was not mortally wounded, but still could only hold on his legs, gave the accused the defendants Franz rent the command to take the wounded to hospital inmate work and let him shoot there. The man went, accompanied by rent, to the hospital and was shot here. The defendant denies the incident whereas at Treblinka there were no hunting rifles. At this point the defendants Stadie and Matthes have stated that there have probably been at Treblinka some hunting rifles, which had, however, in the main, the commandant Stangl was available, but could be used by other members of the SS guards. The incident itself is proved by the oath, credible testimony of the 60 year old businessman from Bat Yam Thurs / Israel, who watched the incident from a distance of 70 to 80 m and the prisoner known to him, the injured went to the hospital not more looked back.

The presentation of this witness gives the jury particularly why faith because several other witnesses, says the engineer Eq. and the plumber Oscar Stra., have announced that Francis often with a hunting rifle used to shoot prisoners.

6th The death of Hans Burg

Subside as the spring of 1943, the frequency of transports began, had the Jewish workers of the lower bearing on the sorting site run earthworks and create for this purpose a Kipplorenbahn. The sixteen-year-old prisoner Hans Burg, who had recently recovered from typhoid fever, introduced himself to this awkward, and thereby drew the wrath of the accused Franz. The defendant yelled at the boy and gave him violently with a spade such a heavy blow to the head that castle collapsed bleeding and was probably killed already by this blow. Francis was then the co-defendants rent command the castle, who gave no sign of life is to bring to the hospital and to liquidate there. The hospital received a mercy shot castle.

These findings are based on the sworn testimony of living in Prague, now 44-year-old engineer Eq., Of the whole process, of course, is to deny the Franz observed at close range and then his friend, the witness Un., Has notified reported what this has in turn expressed in his hearing under oath by the German consul in Seattle. In the engineering equation. is it is a very reliable, very intelligent and very credible witness. His statement that he made dispassionately and objectively, is so valuable because it not only some of the defendants charged in specific points, but because the other in turn by some German SS men, such as the defendant Suchomel, mostly positives reported. He has also stated that it is him, since he fared very fluent in German and spoke for a neat appearance, despite adverse conditions, gave some better than other prisoners. He has e.g. noted that he has none of the defendants ever beaten or whipped. He has reported on the lower bearing, bearing on the general affairs and the German camp personnel such a wealth of detail that the defendants him. Regarding general things fully agree with this view had This is especially true of the defendant Suchomel, of. At Gl because of his height and because
his dialect remembered exactly. The witness Eq. Incidentally recognized the accused Franz without hesitation. For the jury, there is no doubt that Eq. not only in the description of general things, but - said at the expression of individual acts the truth - as in this case. He is the witness with the most comprehensive knowledge of the processes of the lower bearing, and thus a special support of Assize find the truth.

7th Shooting of 7 prisoners

The end of November / beginning of December 1942, there was a group of seven prisoners initially succeeded in escaping from the camp. However, they were caught in the subsequent persecution again. At morning roll call, the seven prisoners who had been in spite of the prevailing cold, completely naked, is shown to the Jews occurred.

Defendant Francis made a speech and announced under constant threats and imprecations, that the seven men were to be shot. Then he had the seven prisoners bring to the hospital and killed them there at the pit by a pistol shot to the neck in the presence of all capos who had to attend for reasons of deterrence on the orders of the accused in the execution. The defendant denies the fact Franz. He is. However by the depositions of credible witnesses Gl and Un. transferred, which participated in the parade, on the Franz announced the upcoming shooting of the seven prisoners. The Czech Kapo Bloch, the shooting of the seven men in the hospital looked at himself with reported notify the two witnesses Eq. and Un. in detail. The witness Eq. also saw the bodies of seven people shot themselves lie in the mine hospital.

8th Shooting of a detainee who had not removed the Star of David

In early winter 1943, the defendant Francis discovers during an inspection of the already sorted, packaged into packets and prepared for transportation clothing that a garment of the Star of David had not been separated. He got out of the inmate responsible for it and take the whole left sort command to sort the place. Then he ordered a member of the Ukrainian guards, shoot the prisoner before the assembled squad. The shot of the Ukrainian killed the prisoner immediately. The only lower abdominal injured prisoner fell into the snow. He doubled over in pain. Franz drew his pistol and killed by headshots.

The defendant denies the incident. He is, however, the credible and then sworn statement reiterated the Bautechnikers Koh. transferred. That the witness Koh. Personally credible, is already in A.V. Third been presented. As he saw the incident described here at close hand, as to the accuracy of his statement is no doubt.

9th Shooting of a young prisoner in the upper bearing

In summer 1943, the defendant ordered Franz during an inspection of the upper bearing a young prisoner to strip naked and settle down on hands and knees. After the prisoner had done so, the defendant shot him a bullet through the head and killed him as a result.

The reason for the killing was at the trial can not be resolved.

The defendant denies the incident. However, it is the sworn statement of Lev by now 42 years old, living in Bat Yam / Israel clerk. transferred, which has seen the incident personally.

The witness Lew. Who escaped one of the few women of the Treblinka extermination camp, has made to the jury a credible impression. She was on December 15, 1942 to August 2, 1943 in Treblinka, initially in the lower camp and from March 5, 1943 in the upper bearing. She has an excellent memory. With an almost startling accuracy could give an accurate description of the camp staff, based in Germany. Spontaneously, she was aware of the defendant, on the day of the hearing of a witness - as in many other days of negotiations - had to swap their places of a constantly changing schedule, recognized eight. Only Ru. Lambert and she could not identify. She also described the general camp conditions and the general events in the camp so precise that some of the accused, the defendant Suchomel for the lower bearing and the defendant H for the upper bearing, their data indicated the extent of 100% correct. In addition, Ms. Lew. Expresses some circumstances that the defendants Stadie and H. are not adversely by what she said, she had Stadie thereby saved from the gasification that he had chosen for the laundry, and H. had with the women of the upper camp frequently entertain friendly and distributed to some of the women candies, said she was not even considered, however. That the defendant H has confirmed. Are the descriptions of the witness but applicable in all these points, there is no reason why they should have just said in relation to individual acts of the accused Franz untruth, particularly as it has itself been abused by him even once. Under these circumstances there is no objection, on the testimony of the witness, Lew. the shooting of a young prisoner in the upper bearing by Franz be regarded as established.

10th Shooting of the prisoners Chaim nobleman Jacob Edelmann and Salk Wolfowicz

In the morning at about 11 clock one day in late December 1942, the defendant Francis one of his notorious tours of the camp. In the upper camp he noticed coming from Warsaw brothers Chaim and Jacob Edelmann and the also from Warsaw Wolfowicz Salk, who were employed in the transport of all three bodies. In order to prepare a change of pace, he decided to shoot the three prisoners. They had to line up between the second and third chambers of the large gas house. Franz then shot them one after the other hand with his pistol.

Although the defendant denies shooting of this, the Court found that in this case because of the sworn testimony of reliable government employees Li, who is now 46 years old and in Givataim / Israel lives, as proven. This witness, who was born in Warsaw and lived there until his deportation to Treblinka, knew the three victims in the real world from Warsaw. Since their fate therefore particularly interested him, he watched the incident from close range. The reason he could do so thoroughly, because he was near the big house gas as "Dentist" dealt with the break-out of gold teeth from corpses. The exact names of the three victims and details the precise description of the time and location of the deed leave no doubt that these three shot Franz Warsaw Jews.

11th Shooting of two prisoners in the hospital following the so-called sport

During a period of time in 1943, some of the members of the German camp staff procured the Treblinka extermination camp in a pastime that they following the evening roll call with a group of prisoners organized the so-called sport. Inmates who had worked as a result of her weakness too slow or noticed otherwise and were therefore usually been with a whip in the face "drawn" were or their prisoner numbers we had noted had, after the completion of the evening roll call emerge. They were then under constant insults and lashes on the parade ground with frequent lying down and standing up for so long driven around in circles until some could not go along with that, collapsed and lay there.
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

trespasser07
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 27 Nov 2010, 14:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#238

Post by trespasser07 » 27 Jan 2013, 22:02

These were pulled to the side, and the "sport" was continued until they had sorted out in this way sufficiently weak. All that had been left in the "Sport", were then taken to the hospital where they were shot. Those prisoners who were by the "sport", was seen as yet sufficiently operational. They were taken back to the barracks accommodation. As for the "sport" selected prisoners was known that they survived only if they did not limp when walking and fell down, they gave her her last physical strength to the "sport" to survive and stay alive to. The "sport" was organized either by the defendant or the Franz SS Master Sergeant Küttner or by both together. To support them worked with the occasional SS Sergeant, so in particular the SS Sergeant Hirtreiter, the defendant rent and also the Ukrainians Rogossa. Franz had in some of these "events," Barry his dog with him, he rushed to the date.

In the evening roll call in one day in 1943, along with other prisoners and the native of Lodz, but until his deportation to Treblinka living in Czestochowa prisoner Starsze Lipchitz was chosen. He suffered from typhoid fever, had been for 2 days in the hospital was, but then went ahead to appeal. At roll call, he was a sick man noticed the SS Master Sergeant Kuttner, who chose him with other prisoners for the "sport". The next "sport" itself was attended by the defendant Franz, Kuettner, rent and Ukrainians Rogossa. These four men chased headed by Franz the sick prisoners in a circle across the parade ground. The prisoner Starsze Lipchitz and another prisoner were not known by name to the efforts of "sport" is not grown. She fell down from exhaustion, were pulled to the side and then brought to order the defendant to the hospital and shot by Franz rent. The accused Franz denies having taken part in such a "sporting event". He also wants to have the so-called "sport" is not even heard. All this is certainly incorrect. The defendants rent, Ru. Suchomel and have stated that such sporting events in the camp took place more often, but that they were particularly organized by SS Master Sergeant Kuttner and the SS Sergeant Hirtreiter. The defendant rent has denied having the "sport" itself participated personally. However, he admitted that it had the sports Selected shot in the hospital. When asked who had given him such Selected for Shooting of, he replied, was that in some cases, by Franz, happened in other cases of Kuttner. Rent believes it is possible, also liquidated Lipchitz and his comrades have. The names of the victims, he says, he did not specify, however, virtue.

That the defendant has participated several times in Franz such sporting events, have the engineer Eq., CEO Zygmund road., The plumber Oscar Stra., The storekeeper Lak., The merchant Kols. and the mechanic Tu expressed. They reaffirmed their statement with their oaths. That Franz, who. According to the testimony of the witness Eq tended from all that happened in the camp to make a "vision", will have the opportunity not to be missed, with the inmates to run the "sport", it is the Court persuaded. It was just that kind of a "sporting event" the best opportunity to the accused once again organize a "show" and for several hours to have fun in satanic way.

However, does not clarify exactly how many have been organized such "sports" as often Franz was involved thereto and have a total of how many Jews lost their lives in this case because the witnesses - with the exception of the witness Tu - specific cases with specific victims could not describe. With reasonable certainty can be only a single case of "sport" determine where the prisoner Starsze Lipchitz and another prisoner were singled out at the direction of Franz and then shot in the hospital. This case, the 51-year-old mechanic from Tu Bat Yam / Israel, described in detail. He has a window of Jewish property barracks this "sporting event", which was attended by Franz, Kuettner, rent and Ukrainians Rogossa observed in great detail, because under the "Sports" driving prisoners of Czenstochauer Starsze Lipchitz was he of Czestochowa knew her well. His fate, he was particularly interested. He saw Starsze Lipchitz and another prisoner fell down during exercise. He heard the loud statement of Francis to rent, bring these people to the hospital and shoot there. When the shooting of the two has not lived through rent in the hospital, still speaks of the fact that he has Starsze Lipchitz and the other prisoner since that time no longer seen in the camp, clearly indicate that these two men of rent in the hospital have been liquidated. That it was common for the victims of the "sport" to shoot in the hospital, has the rest of the co-defendants rent - so far quite believable - given. Finally, it was the purpose of the "sport", weak and sick inmates to test their ability to work and resilience, and to kill the weakest of them.

The question any witness under oath Tu has made to the jury a credible impression. He has personally Franz recognized immediately. The photographs showing Franz in uniform, he immediately identified him. Has particularly impressed the jury of the fact that he is here for no particular suspension immediately said it had a picture of Francis, which shows him as an SS officer, but he saw some years ago in an Israeli newspaper. This speaks for a special objectivity of the witness. This is also the fact that he approvingly regarding the accused Stadie remarked that he owed him his life because he had sought him out to work, and thereby preserved prior to gasification. He has so far only fixed reported misdeeds of the accused, but rather endeavored to express also some positive things in favor of individual defendants. He also has very carefully distinguished between what he personally experienced, and what he has just heard. The court has no hesitation to follow his testimony.

12th Shooting of a prisoner in the hospital, which he had previously injured by a whip on the eye

During an inspection tour of the camp in 1942, said the accused a working prisoner a whiplash in the face and injured thereby an eye of this prisoner. The in this way "stamped" inmate asked the defendant Francis, he would let him live, he wanted to work in the future very well. This prayer he uttered because he feared injured as immediately come to the hospital for liquidation. In fact, let Franz soften the resolve to uphold the life of this victim. After a few days this was injured the defendant Franz on an evening roll call by his still black eye. He asked him if he'd better go now. When the prisoner said yes, Francis took with him to the hospital. There, the prisoner was shot, either by himself or by the Franz there serving SS noncommissioned officers at the command of French, the defendant Francis, who denies this fact is, by the affidavit of the magazine manager Lak. transferred. Lak. has not only seen as Franz the prisoner with a whiplash injury to the eye, but also seen him led away to the detainee to hospital. The fact that the witness Lak. has not witnessed the actual shooting of the hospital, leaves no doubt as to the prisoner in question was actually shot, because the witness Lak. namely has further testified that he heard of the shooting of this prisoner of the comrades working in the hospital and that he had also seen this prisoner ever again. That leaves some to the conclusion that the prisoner in the hospital, so that was actually a perfect neck shot conditioning, has been shot.

The core of the Lak by the witness. statements made under oath was also the employee has Au., confirmed 68 years old and living in Stockholm. The witness Au. has not seen the prisoner Franz with a whip in his face slapped and injured an eye of this prisoner. But he has been present at the evening roll call in which Franz took out the prisoner with the black eye and he led away to the hospital. He also has this man never seen again later and also taken by fellow learned that the man was shot with a black eye in the hospital.

Both witnesses have made to the jury a credible impression. The now 62 year old, living in Eiron / Israel witness Lak. has made his statement peacefully. He has exactly the distinction between what he experienced himself and what he has just heard. Although he lost in the Treblinka extermination camp his parents, his wife, three children and other relatives, he has indicated in his testimony no hatred and revenge. He has recognized the accused Franz immediately, although Franz before the examination of the witness had to take a position different from the usual seating space. His portrayal of various stock transactions was so clear and well balanced that the jury carries no concern to keep the witnesses credible.

The situation is similar in the 68-year-old and living in Stockholm witnesses Au., The. With witness Lak has no connection whatsoever. This witness possessed before pursuing a textile factory in Lodz. After studying in Vienna, he served in the Austrian army, and brought it to the lieutenant of the reserve. He fled on Dec 23, 1942 from the warehouse. What he of his arrival at the camp in August 1942 saw up to his flight on December 23, 1942, he probably weighed and described objectively. He also recognized Franz again immediately. His credible testimony follows the jury.

13th Shooting of the detainee Eliasz Adlerstein in the upper bearing

In winter 1942/1943, the witness worked Ros. and his comrade Eliasz Adlerstein the funeral transport in the upper camp. Because they were hungry, they wanted to go from the gas chambers to the kitchen in order to eat something warm. Because of the prevailing cold, they kept their hands in his coat pockets. As they arrived, the defendant Francis, who made an inspection tour in the upper bearing contrary. Ros. Adlerstein and shouted "Attention." They stopped and took to attention because they knew was that Franz the so wished. After accepting staunch attitude and Francis had initially said no, they went in the direction of the kitchen. Cried Franz returned the prisoner Adlerstein. He drew his gun and shot him in the face, in the forehead between the eyes. Adlerstein was killed instantly then called Franz also Ros. themselves. He slammed his hand down so hard on Ros. one that he fell to the ground. Ros. expecting to be shot also. Contrary to expectations, saw Franz accepted it. Because it was cold and not really because his gloves were sitting, he worked some time, donned his gloves so that they again his hands properly covered. He lost interest in it at once, and Ros. to shoot. This was Ros. alive.

14th Shooting of the detainee Mendel Nuessenbaum the upper camp on horseback

In 1943, at a time when little transports arrived, the witness Ros. and his comrade Mendel Nuessenbaum busy throwing sand over the corpses stacked in a burial pit. Then came the defendant Franz ridden slower pace on a horse into the upper bearing to inspect it. When he had approached the burial pit, he suddenly drew his gun and shot at Nuessenbaum Mendel, whom he met in the body. Nuessenbaum fell to the ground and writhing in pain. Franz came closer with his horse and said, ". I have deliberately not good" Then he shot that lies next to the pit Mendel Nuessenbaum his pistol into the head. Mendel was killed by that second shot.

The accused Franz denies having killed the prisoners Adlerstein and Nuessenbaum. In both cases, however, it is the sworn testimony of the witness Ros. transferred, the special credibility in already A.VI. First has been presented. Ros. is one of the most reliable witnesses of this process. He has always described what he has personally experienced. He's all hyperbole, also contained in less significant, Treblinka related issues. He has Franz recognized spontaneously. Since he has taken on a whole the jury a mature, balanced impression, the jury sees his statements in full to be accurate.

15th Killing of the Gold Star of David

In the spring of 1943, the defendant Francis one day at a fixed control the Jews gold that gold Jew star had illegally money or gold in his possession. He took him outside with you, let him with his arms over his head to go into the squat and whipped alternately with the SS Master Sergeant Küttner as long as one of the unfortunates, to whose face was a bloody, unpredictable and identifying mass. During the subsequent special appeal star was under the direction of Franz dragged by the legs on the parade ground, doused with cold water again and whipped hard. Francis left the last star that was hardly a sign of life, to create shooting of the hospital. Stern was shot there.

The accused is decided in Franz denied having anything to do with the death of the Jews gold Rochester in the slightest. However, he is convicted in this case clearly by the results of the inquiry. This allowed the codefendant Suchomel - after months of silence on this issue - not but acknowledge the mistreatment of the star by Franz and Kuttner. While he has not seen himself, Francis and Kuttner have chosen to star. Before Stern was dragged on the parade ground, could Suchomel, the Jew of the gold star was working under moderate, speak with Stern and ask him who had abused him. Stern has stated thereon, he was beaten by Franz and Kuttner. How Suchomel further indicates that he had tried then to Franz and Kuettner a rescue of the star, but without success.

The abuse and killing of the Gold Star of David is also proven by the credible testimony of several witnesses who witnessed the incident personally. These are the witnesses Oscar Stra., Eq., Tai., Ku., Koh., Sed. and Lew. All these witnesses have described the incident in detail and have summoned her statement. They come from different countries and cities. When considering the case of the Gold Star of David in general agreement express, then leaves the only the conclusion that they this very cruel incident has remained in very good memory. The court is therefore convinced that Stern and Franz Kuttner has been severely mistreated and that he has been on the order of Franz brought to the hospital where they were shot.

16th Killing of a prisoner in the hospital, which had previously been injured by a shot in the hip

In the fall of 1942, Franz morning came on the sorting station. To his delight, he shot around with his gun in the area. Here, a young Polish inmate was injured by a shot in the hip. The prisoner left not show it, but continued to work, not to be taken to hospital. Evening in the barracks, the witness tried Un., Remove the ball with his pocket knife, which did not succeed. The hip injury even worse. The prisoner remained in the barracks because he had a fever and was unable to work. A day or a few days later Franz controlled during working hours, the Jewish property barracks, in which among other things. The injured inmate at the hip and the feverishly ill witness Eq were. Franz asked each inmate about the reason for his absence from work. When the prisoner was at the hip injured in the series, who said to Franz, "I have a shot in the hip by you, Mr. Boss." Francis replied: "I will make this better." He took the man to the hospital, where he was shot.

This incident is in spite of the vigorous denial of the defendant Franz fixed due to the accurate and credible sworn testimony of the engineer Eq., Who witnessed the entire process in the barracks personally. That Eq. during the shooting in the hospital itself was not present due no doubt that the man was actually shot, because Eq. learned on the same day of the Jewish prisoners working in the hospital, the man was shot with the Hip Shot. He also saw this man from that day no longer in stock.

The testimony of the witness Eq. he has sworn question any brewmaster Un. confirmed. Un. however, has pointed out that he has only the first part of Tatherganges, namely the hip injury of that prisoner, lived through. When selecting the prisoner to the shooting of the hospital according to his statement he was not present because he was at that time at work and not in the barrack accommodation. Among the transactions in the barracks, the witness Eq. but then once his friend Un. reported since Un. 'd want to help extracting the bullet that was personally very interested - in the fate of this prisoner, he carried the - unfortunately not successful. Both witnesses have brought the jury to believe that the detainee Franz at the hip injury that he took with him to the shooting of the hospital and then either shot himself or shoot through the serving German lieutenants left.

17th Shooting of one bitten by Barry prisoner in hospital

In 1942, the prisoners had one at night a freight train loaded with textiles, where they had to do all the work in a hurry. Francis oversaw the loading. He had his dog with him Barry. At the behest of Francis Barry threw himself on one of the inmates who worked there and bit him in the genitals. With the words: "My Barry the guys can soon be ripe for the hospital," Franz let the man get into the hospital, where he was immediately shot.

This incident is proved by the sworn testimony of credible witnesses Eq. Having been as already stated several times, has made to the jury a reliable, factual and very good impression. The denial of this incident by the jury Franz can attach no importance. This is even more than the co-defendant has admitted rent after initial stubborn reluctance finally that among him by Franz for shooting of the hospital transferred detainees were also those who found that had been incurred by Barry and bitten in the genital area.

18th Hanging of a prisoner in the upper bearing

One day in late 1942, the defendant accompanied the co-defendant Francis Matthes, who was chief of the death camp, after lunch from the lower to the upper bearing. In the upper camp he wanted to cause the hanging of an inmate. He left hurriedly build a gallows and then demanded by a rope. As in the upper bearing such was not to be found, he sent Matthes personally into the lower camp, where Matthes should get a rope. As Matthes, who wants to have intentionally delayed longer than necessary down, came back up, the prisoner was already dead and hanged The reason for the hanging could not be determined, probably it was the punishment for a failed escape attempt.

The defendant also denies any guilt in this case. However, it is converted by the specific details of the co-defendants Matthes. That the upper camp in late 1942 an inmate was hanged, besides also the co-defendants Münzberger confirmed. He said in this regard that he was not present at the hanging, as he had off duty because of night duty this afternoon, but at night he still had a hanged see the gallows. That Matthes and Münzberger accused the defendants about Franz against better knowledge of this fact, a lack of any evidence. All other defendants have in fact indicated that it was between Matthes and Münzberger one hand and on the other hand Francis never got to specific tensions or conflicts. Even the defendant Francis has any explanation for how Münzberger Matthes and loading it to their testimony, do not come to pass, but merely limited to contest the fact simple. That he committed it, which the jury is convinced by the details of Matthes and Münzberger.

19th Liquidation of the group consisting of at least 25 people remaining commands in late November 1943

After the demolition of the camp were to end of November 1943, except some members of the German and Ukrainian guards at least 25, more than 30 Jewish prisoners in the camp area, including two Jewish women who worked in the house in the settlement housed kitchen. The remaining prisoners were housed in two boxcars that were either guarded or complete. When the defendant was ordered to close the camp and finally come up with the rest of the teams in the Sobibor death camp, he ordered the liquidation of the last Jewish prisoners.

To this end, all the male Jewish prisoners locked in the two freight cars and there by the defendants Ru. guarded. One of the Jewish prisoners hanged himself in the car, waiting for their shooting of the other. Using a commanded by a German SS noncommissioned officers train Ukrainian, who was put out of the 2 km away at Treblinka is available in the space between the freight cars and the settlement house a cordon was set up to rule out any possibility of escape. Then the SS Sergeant Bredow took out the first two working in the kitchen of the settlement house Jewish women. At the same time the first five male prisoners were brought from one of the two cars. These seven people were dressed, had to kneel in a small depression left by the settlement house and lower the head. Then they were in the presence of the accused Francis of the co-defendants Mentz, SS Sergeant Bredow and the SS-leaders from the labor camp Treblinka with Finnish submachine guns, which were set to single shot, killed by shot to the neck. The three participating SS noncommissioned officers who shot divided, in the way the work that one left, the other right in the middle and the third began with the firing squad victims. When that was done, each of 5 men were brought out of the cars. They had to carry the bodies of those already killed a provisional ADAPTED grate on which the bodies were burned. Then these five men were shot in the described manner. This was repeated until all the prisoners were killed. The last prisoners were shot by Ukrainians supported the grate and burned.

Having thus the last Jewish prisoners of Treblinka extermination camp had been removed, the defendant Franz went with members of the Guard commands, including the co-defendants Mentz and Ru., By truck to the Sobibor extermination camp. Earlier, the accused Mentz. Barry the dog on the orders of the accused Franz at the head physician of the reserve hospital Ostrow, the witness Dr.med Stru. Must deliver.

The evidence has not shown that Francis has been involved in the shooting himself. Any mind that he ordered the execution of the Jewish remnant commands and monitors their exact implementation, is the outcome of the inquiry is not.

This situation, for naturally no Jewish witnesses are present, is to convince the Court of Assizes by the details of the accused Mentz and Ru. proven. The accused Franz does not deny having ordered the liquidation of the remaining commands. He claims, however, according to his entering an other that this liquidation had taken place on October 2, 1943, on the express orders of Globocnik. This is middle of September 1943 came with a Fieseler Storch to Treblinka and had given him explicit orders to shoot on leaving the camp, the then remaining Jews. During a second visit, this time is to be done with a passenger car, Globocnik had repeated his statement again. Finally Globocnik told him on the morning of October 2, 1943, where the phone again and irrevocable order for liquidation. He, Franz had to this command can not escape even though he had had great compassion for the remaining detainees. Their bodies were not burned, but by the Ukrainians, who had taken over the house and settlement inhabited buried properly.

This is by entering an clear and unambiguous information of the co-defendants Mentz and Ru. refuted in conjunction with the other results of the inquiry. That the defendant Franz Treblinka not already on October 2, 1943, but left before the end of November 1943, was already in A. III. the Second part of the reasons shown in detail. The alleged instances of instructions Globocnik he may also have been obtained in this way not because Globocnik had been abandoned since the summer of 1943 the General Government, to pursue his new duties in northern Italy and Istria. This is clear from the credible sworn testimony of former SS-Obergruppenführer and General of the Waffen SS of the Ba., Who stated that he had Globocnik, with whom he had five met to 6 times, the last time August 9 Seen in Lublin in 1943, and in early September 1943 was Globocnik's successor SS-group leader Jakob Sporrenberg been in Lublin. Then Globocnik must be received in late August 1943 Lublin have left to take up his new position in Istria and northern Italy. So he can not under any circumstances Franz end of November 1943 gave the order for shooting of Jewish radical commands. Everything Franz argues in this context is therefore untrue and will only serve to diminish his responsibility for the recent incidents in Treblinka. Thus, the defendant may, however, given the clear evidence to the contrary results are not successful. The defendant shall be responsible for the destruction of the last Jewish prisoners at Treblinka in the established manner, the full responsibility, even if - which can not be excluded - the final impetus for the liquidation of the remaining commands should have been one of Lublin invitation made to him transfer, but is not given to him personally by Globocnik.

The two co-defendants Mentz and Ru. have the shooting of residual commands consistently portrayed so accurately that the jury is convinced of the correctness of the description given of them. Both confirm that the bodies - contrary to the representation given by Franz - not buried, but was cremated on the spot are. When you consider that so far, the bodies of all the victims have been burned to destroy all traces of the "Operation Reinhard", one can not imagine that it should have been handled just with the shooting of the last prisoners differently. It is indicative of the accused Franz that he remained there despite repeated suspensions, the defendants Mentz and Ru. would have been wrong, the bodies were not burned but was buried at his express instructions in the settlement house resident Ukrainians properly in graves.

VII killings of prisoners outside the transport clearance, which is not included in the decision to initiate

Apart from those already mentioned acts, the evidence more cases of killing of prisoners by the accused Franz arise outside the transport clearance, although not the subject of the prosecution and the adjudication order, because they are only at the trial for the first time had become known that at but the verdict should not be discounted, because they are for the realization of the personality of the accused and his attitude to the events of considerable importance in Treblinka.

Of the 43 offenses that are included in the on 23.7.1965 given other legal notices that the jury has found 31 cases for lack of sufficient evidence as the following 12 cases, however, considered to be detected:


VII killings of prisoners outside the transport clearance, which is not included in the decision to initiate

Apart from those already mentioned acts, the evidence more cases of killing of prisoners by the accused Franz arise outside the transport clearance, although not the subject of the prosecution and the adjudication order, because they are only at the trial for the first time had become known that at but the verdict should not be discounted, because they are for the realization of the personality of the accused and his attitude to the events of considerable importance in Treblinka.

Of the 43 offenses that are included in the on 23.7.1965 given other legal notices that the jury has found 31 cases for lack of sufficient evidence as the following 12 cases, however, considered to be detected:

First The death of the young coachman

Located next to the hospital in the big garbage pit in the camp were the waste they produce, the papers and documents of the victims and also the discharge of railway wagons "Any transport dead" burnt. The waste of the camp were among others moved into a two-wheeled horse-drawn carriage to the landfill. Coachman this with a horse-drawn carriage was a young prisoner.

One day in the fall of 1942, this young driver turned the horse carts loaded with waste waste pit where a good fire was burning. On the edge of the pit, the horse shied. His coachman could not prevent it from falling into the pit. Immediately all working near the pit prisoners were mobilized. Over the heads of prisoners across a shooting, drove German SS men, including the defendant Franz and rent, as well as Ukrainian guards who initially reluctant prisoners in the burning garbage pit, so they should get the horse alive. When this failed, it was shot and then taken out by a crane from the pit. Later it was skinned. Its meat was used to feed the prisoners. Over the loss of the horse Franz was very angry. He waved to the young coachman, and announced that this is responsible for the loss of the horse, and that he was therefore to shoot. Franz and rent led the young driver in front of the gathered at the garbage dump prisoners to hospital. Here he was shot, either by himself or by an order of Franz Franz by rent or other German SS noncommissioned officers.

These findings are based on the sworn statements of the 40 year-old, who lives in Berlin businessman Yes., The 62-year-old, living in Montreal / Canada sawmill manager Raj. and the 46-year-old, who lives in Norfolk, Virginia / USA businessman Bu.

The witness Yes. Extending from October 3, 1942 was at about 3 weeks in the Treblinka death camp, has made to the jury a credible impression. Since he has only been about 3 weeks in Treblinka, he has not experienced as much as other witnesses. His testimony was limited therefore - apart from an accurate portrayal of the former camp conditions - the presentation less excess acts by Franz and rent. The not up to his interrogation known shooting of young coachman he has shown from his own experience in detail and convincing. The defendants Franz and rent he has identified spontaneously. The witness Raj., Who joined the revolt committee and thus possessed the special trust of his comrades, made to the court a credible impression. He has most of the defendants, particularly defendants Franz and rent immediately recognized. He has described the everyday events and special events in the camp calmly and objectively. If he - completely independent of the Berlin-witnesses Yes. - The incident with the horse and the shooting of the coachman as well - though not as detailed -. Describes as Yes, the jury is not afraid to follow his testimony.

Finally, the witness Bu., The Yes to the witnesses. and Raj. no connection has described the death of the young coachman in his testimony before the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in New York in detail. Bu. fully confirms the Yes of the witnesses. and Raj. before a jury in such statements. Although this act of the accused by Franz already sworn testimony of the three witnesses Yes., Raj. and Bu. is proved, the court takes the affidavit of the interrogated before the Consulate General in New York 53 years old and living in New York butcher cutting. supportively with zoom. Cutting. Although the incident was not a horse, and the shooting of the coachman lived through, but learn from this only by other prisoners. But he knows from his own experience that he was charged on Tattage so, skinning the horse shot to death along with another comrade. This would also support that this incident with the horse - has really happened - contrary to the denials of the accused Franz and rent. While the contribution to the act of the accused Franz - apart from the question whether he shot the driver in person or ordered the shooting of by another only - by the evidence before the Court can clarify exactly has not be determined whether the co-defendant rent in the shooting the prisoner has been personally involved, for the possibility that Francis personally shot the driver or another that it is not known by name SS-leader killed on the orders of Francis can not be turned off.

Second Shooting of a previously abused on the whipping-block prisoner in hospital

In an evening roll called the SS Master Sergeant Kuttner on the number of a prisoner who had noticed during the day for some reason. The prisoner was clamped on the whipping-block and by Kuttner and the defendant Franz beaten on the buttocks bared. Subsequently announced Franz Kuttner and that the prisoner was to be shot in the hospital. On their way the arrangement was also battered immediately taken to hospital where they were shot. This incident, which interrogated under oath by the plumber Oscar Stra. has been described, stand firm to the conviction of Assize. The witness Oscar Stra. has made on the court a factual, truthful impression. He has recognized the accused Franz immediately. As he has told about some of the German guards, so the defendants Suchomel, also effective, there is no reason to believe that he might have said subjectively or objectively wrong. Though the shooting of the witness has not even witnessed in the hospital, this is also fixed to the satisfaction of the Court. Been that the battered actually liquidated in the hospital is, it speaks to the fact that Franz and Kuttner have announced his upcoming shooting of the evening roll call. Furthermore, it has been witnessed that evening appeal no longer seen in the camp. Since the hospital was a neck shot system, which allows only the conclusion that the battered has been shot there.

Third Shooting of an inmate at the sorting station

In October 1942, a group of eleven prisoners of sorting commands to escape from the camp. Out of anger and outrage and a deterrent for the remaining prisoners are examined, the accused Franz one working in the sorting yard man who just happened to fall into his eyes out, and killed him on the spot with the pistol.

These findings are based on the credible sworn testimony of the 51 year old, living in New York hairdresser Bom., Who was in the clearance of shipments for shearing the next women to the gas chambers, but otherwise used in the sorting station. The witness Bom. has recognized the accused Franz immediately and with certainty. He has been from September 23, 1942 until his flight in late November / early December 1942 in the camp. His statements he made factual and well balanced. His memory and intelligence are good. The court is required to follow the less concerns his statement, as the oath was also confirmed upholsterer and decorator Zi credible to be in the first half of the month October 1942 along with 10 other inmates escaped from the camp.

4th Shooting of a prisoner because of a piece of bread

As the defendant Francis one day with his dog Barry was staying at the sorting station, he noticed that one of the inmates who worked there was hiding a piece of bread under his clothes. Francis set his dog Barry on this prisoner, who was beaten by Barry evil. Finally shot Franz those injured on the spot with his pistol.

These findings are based on the credible sworn testimony of the 55 year old, residing in Ramat Gan in Israel Bautechnikers Koh. He was able to identify the accused Franz without hesitation. He has also recognized him in the pictures, which show Franz in uniform. Quietly, correct manner in which he made his statement, the jury has no qualms to regard him as credible. This is even more than he has explicitly stated that the prisoner was hiding bread that he had not seen it, but this is only learn from other comrades as he had watched all other even down to the last detail. The fact that he is different from what is heard only personally experienced strictly speaking, for the objectivity of his testimony.

5th Shooting of a prisoner near the carrot flower bed

One day in the fall of 1942, the former prisoner Thu how the accused Franz observed in the square behind the Jewish barracks, where in the vicinity of the camp fence, a flower bed was planted with carrots, with a not ascertainable reason his dog Barry the words "man, take the dog!" rushed to a Jewish prisoner who worked there. The dog attacked the prisoner, threw him to the ground and mangled him the abdomen. Finally, the defendant shot and killed the man, Franz on the spot with his pistol.

6th Shooting of a prisoner because of a suicide attempt

Another worker prisoner who had tried to commit suicide by cutting the veins, the defendant Franz made in an appeal because of this suicide attempt and the subsequent accusations ersehenden stupidity. Then he gave it to the defendant to hire shooting of the hospital. Since rent had no revolver with him, gave him his own revolver Franz. The man was led away and shot of rent in the hospital. He has not been seen since this appeal.

These findings of the cases 5 and 6 are based on the affidavit, the credible testimony by the District Court in Tel Aviv / Israel extensively interrogated businessman Thu, who has been on September 21, 1942 until August 2, 1943 at the camp. Since the witness described the German camp staff well, as he referred to it to Franz images thrice recognized and he has made also provided inaccurate information to the general stock events, the jury has no qualms about following his testimony.

7th Killing of a young Jewish workers during the execution of leveling work at the sorting station

As during the transportation time low of 1943 a greater proportion of the prisoners was busy leveling work at the sorting station, should a young man wear with another a sandpit. But he was so weak he could not lift the box. Then three or four SS men beat among them the accused Franz and rent, with their leather whips as long as a the boy until he collapsed. Finally, he was instructed by the defendant Francis brought to the hospital where they were shot.

Although the defendants ask Franz and rent this incident to deny the jury sees him because of credible sworn testimony of the 42 year-old, living in Warsaw butcher Roj., Who has observed the Tatgeschehen at close range, as proved. The witness recognized the accused Franz and rent without hesitation. He made his statement carefully, slowly, but surely. His description of the details of camp life agrees in most points to the testimony of other witnesses living outside of Poland, and with which the witness has no connection. The court has no objection to listen to the witnesses faith.

8th Shooting of a prisoner in the hospital who wanted the Jews abused gold rich star water

As for the already under A.VI. 15th described abuse and subsequent killing of the Gold Star of David was a fellow prisoner using an abuse has taken place during the break to reach out to the unfortunate star a drink of water, he was prevented by the defendant Franz thereto. In his rage, let this fellow prisoner Franz immediately bring to the hospital and there shoot, and only because he had dared the bloody beaten fellow star to bring drinking water.

The incident is due to the sworn testimony of the witness Eq. determine who has made just about the case Stern very detailed data that have been confirmed by the co-defendant Suchomel. That the witness Eq., Who has made the most detailed, objective and reliable statements about the processes in the lower camp, credible, has already been pointed out on several occasions.

9th Killing of a young prisoner near the potato store

One day it was a 15 to 16 year old boy who served in the German housing block for service and there probably without permission taken something to eat had, from near the potato store, which was located inside the store at the camp fence toward the Jewish living quarters, Barry the dog attacked and bitten after the defendant Francis Barry was rushed to the boy. On arrangement and with the approval of the accused then struck several Ukrainians with potato forks as long as a the already injured by Barry boy until he was dead. Franz stood by and enjoyed this barbaric killing of the boy. These findings are based on the sworn testimony of the 56 year old, living in Montreal CEO Zygmund road., Who witnessed the incident through a window of the locksmith shop out from the start. The German consul in Montreal, who has heard the witnesses, has been shown in a lengthy statement that he thinks the witness is credible, since he has made his statement in more restrained form, to any animosity has kept against one of the defendants, and because he has a good memory and was capable of describing individual processes in detail. The court has, the less concerns the assessment of the consul of his conviction based educational setting, as put forward by the defendants objected to the credibility of this witness turned out to be totally unfounded. By an agreement of this witness about a particular, individual charged with the incriminating evidence before the jury witnesses interrogated Oscar Stra. and Raj. can therefore be no question once already, because all three witnesses have each made different statements that explained by the fact that they are often in different locations in the camp worked and therefore watched each other incidents. Otherwise have the tools Zygmund road. at his second hearing under oath before the consul in Montreal, his wife Maria road., the witness Raj. The Witness and Oscar streets. express satisfaction with their oath stated that they are not discussed in terms of their statements and that they have especially decided not to testify untrue. The witness Zygmund road. has expressed that. said he made after the first interrogation in the presence of the consul in the interrogation room talking to the witnesses Raj merely referred to the agreement, a meeting place for the hearing, as Raj. with the present in the hearing attorney Gn. wanted to meet. In his at the hearing on June 10, 1965-picked official utterance from June 1, 1965, the Consul Dr. Ber. recounted the events of that telephone conversation similar. It follows that the jury is not afraid to witness Zygmund road. to hold credible.

10th Hanging of the prisoner Sklarczyk

One day in the fall of 1942, let the defendant Franz hang the dish command when working Sklarczyk prisoner. Sklarczyk in which they had found money and therefore probably suspected an attempt to escape, had to undress and was then suspended on the orders of Francis with his head down on his feet on a gallows erected on the sorting station. After that had been hanging on the gallows whipped and abused him Franz killed by a pistol shot to the head.

The defendant denies this fact. He will. But by credible depositions of 48 year old, living in Herzlya / Israel barber Pla and the 62 year old, living in Eiron / Israel Magazine administrator Lak. transferred. That the witness Lak. credible, has been demonstrated in AV5 of part of the grounds. The witness Pla. has made to the jury a credible impression. He has recognized Francis and described his position as deputy commandant properly. He has also reported an abundance of details about the camp, which has been confirmed by other witnesses living outside Israel. The Court was particularly impressed by his calm, dispassionate manner in which he made his statements. For an objective supported by the fact that he has not impacted all Germans in the camp make sweeping. On the contrary, he has expressed himself even more than the co-defendant Suchomel meaning that he had heard him say anything bad and seen nothing wrong. On his honesty and credibility, there is no doubt.

Moreover, the oath question any trader have Yes. from Berlin and also on his sworn statement Zi upholsterer and decorator from New York described the hanging of a prisoner in the fall of 1942. The details given by them (hanging by the legs of a standing on the gallows sorting station, the line hanging by Franz, escape suspicion regarding the Broken BHL) agree with the statements of the witnesses Pla. and Lak. match. Only the witnesses Yes. Zi and the name of the man who hanged himself no longer remember them. The court, however, draws its statements supporting the more accurate statements of witnesses Pla. and Lak. zoom. That the witnesses Yes. and Zi are credible, already in the second part, the reasons and under A.VII.1 AV9. demonstrated.

11th Flogging and killing of a prisoner in the lower bearing

One day in 1942 under the leadership of Franz accused a number of working Jews were chosen for use in the upper camp. Here, one of the selected inmates refused to go along to this as "death camp" known upper bearing. Franz was very angry at this refusal. With his leather whip he got to blow out the recalcitrant prisoner. In his fury, he met not this man, but accidentally standing next fellow inmate. After he had hit him hard with the first blow, he struck him on now continue until the Out Whipped collapsed. Then he gave before the other prisoners ordered to bring this man to the hospital and collapsed to shoot there. His command was executed. The man came to the hospital and was shot there.

The accused denies the fact. However, it is the sworn statement of the Au by credible witnesses. converted, who has observed the action up close. Why the jury has held this witness is credible, has already been explained in A.VI.1 the Second part of the reasons.

12th Hanging of three detainees

In the winter of 1943, on the parade ground of the lower bearing on a gallows three inmates who were likely to flee in a loaded wagon, naked and on her feet hung with his head down after all the Jewish workers of the lower bearing summoned to an extraordinary appeal had been. In the comer had some time before the gallows, they could again move away for work. The Broken BHL remained alive for some time on the gallows. Then they were cut off, taken to hospital where they were shot. The hanging of three Jews accused the French headed He gave the command, supervised the hanging and finally ordered the shooting of the cut, surviving three victims in the hospital.

The defendant denies the facts Franz. However, he is transformed by the unique affidavit of the witness Eq. Whose special credibility and reliability have been repeatedly emphasized in connection with the sworn statement of the witness Zygmund road., Who in his testimony in Montreal also described the hanging of three detainees and in his statements from witnesses extensively with the Eq. given representation matches.

That this incident with the under I.B.10. explained the adjudication order listed case is identical, is not sufficient evidence has shown. A definitive answer to this question was not possible because of the IB10 in case. the adjudication order named witness Fl. did not appear for trial. Be presumed in favor of the defendant Franz must therefore assume that the. By witnesses Gl and roads. expressed hanging of three detainees may represent a different case than the detected solely by the decision to initiate the case, the witness Fl. should portray.
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

trespasser07
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 27 Nov 2010, 14:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#239

Post by trespasser07 » 27 Jan 2013, 22:05

VIII Not proven beyond individual acts of mass killings that are listed in the opening decision and the indictment

First The death of a man who did not want to go into the upper bearing

The defendant is placed in the indictment and in the decision to initiate a burden, a prisoner who refused to go to work in the death camp, to have flogged to death. The witness Au. has explained (see A.VII. 11th of the Second part of the reasons) that Franz did not this man, his orders to go to the upper camp did not export it, flogged to death, but another man, the instruction next to the objectors have been. Been whether the man, who refused the command, due to this accident that left the whip of the accused Franz fly down to another, uninvolved inmate remained alive or killed by Franz on another occasion is, it is able the witness Au. not to remember. In this case, the prosecution is not to convict Franz consequently.

Second Killing of a Jewish work of sorting through multiple command groin shots and a head shot

The defendant Franz is further accused that he had in the winter 1942/1943 a boy who worked in the sorting yard killed by several bullets in the abdomen and a shot to the head because he was in the sorted from the boys bundle of clothes a not separated Jewish star 've found. The 38 year old employees Cz. from Tel Aviv / Israel has described the incident at the trial and reiterates that the oaths. Although the jury witnesses the Cz. believes there are considerable doubts as to whether the in Cz. with the case described. witnesses of the Koh particularly accurately described shooting of a detainee who forgot to separate a Jewish star, identical by the accused Franz (compare A.VI.8. the Second part of the reasons). These doubts could the jury not to be overcome, as a reasonable assessment of both statements it is not allowed, with convincing certainty determine two different executions of prisoners by Franz that have been triggered by the fact that he one not separated Jewish star was found.

Both witnesses testify that these acts were committed in the winter. Both also describe that the victim first shots in the abdomen was, only to be killed by a shot to the head of Franz. One can only assume that in these circumstances shooting of an inmate. The court has the shooting of a detainee who forgot separating the Jewish star, already classified in proven cases (see A.VI.8.). A second case is not proven with certainty.

Third Hanging of two prisoners, one of whom was said Langner

The accused is further alleged to have arranged the fall of 1942 the hanging of two prisoners, one of whom was said Langner, and supervise the implementation of the hanging to have.

Due to the sworn testimony of the witnesses Au., Bom. Rap., Koh., Ku., Bu., Sp, Sed., Wei. and Tai. is beyond any the satisfaction of the Court that in the fall of 1942, two young prisoners have been hanged for a failed escape attempt from a gibbet and that at least one, probably both with their feet up, both during the approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours been permanent suspension beaten brutally in the face and especially on the genitals that one of the two recorded BHL, a native of Czestochowa Langner, to be beaten before the gallows Jews shouted in Yiddish or Polish, they should make flee a rebellion and, since they otherwise would fare just as he and his comrades, and both eventually got shot in the head. Not clarify, however, is the question of whether Francis was involved in this hanging. While. Witnesses Au., Bom. Rap., Koh., M. and Bu are of the opinion, Francis was present at the hanging, the witness is able to Sed. no longer remember whether Francis was there. Moreover, the witnesses Tai. and Ku. even declared that Franz had not been present at the hanging.

On top of that the incriminating witness Franz Au., Bom. Rap., Koh., M. and Bu. turn to another part of outlying data do about who else from the German camp staff was present at the hanging. While Au., Bom. Rap. and Koh. Franz only to have seen with some Ukrainians are, at Sp, along with Franz Kuttner and rent would still faced the gallows, and Bu. expresses even, along with Franz, Kuettner and rent is also the main man with the beard - is probably meant captain Schemmel, who wore a beard - was there. Moreover, no clarity is to win over who ultimately both recorded BHL given the coup de grace. The witnesses Au., Bom. Rap. and Koh. my, Franz did it, Sp says, rent or Francis had fired, Ku. holds rent for the shooter and Bu. indicates that both grace shots were fired at by Ukrainians command of Captain with the beard.

That it is just in this case, come to each other as conflicting statements to be credible witnesses, may be due to the fact that the observed hanging from them has been perhaps the most barbaric atrocity that took place in the camp. As the witnesses themselves admit they have disgusted by the gruesome events, the
entire course of the long time constant execution can not watch continuously. They simply look at the floor or need to look in a different direction. Thus it is quite possible that they have not taken enough on what German SS men were located in the vicinity of the gallows. In fact, this particularly gruesome hanging of the prisoners has been an occasion for it, intensify their preparations for the planned uprising.

4th The shooting of the boxer from Krakow

The defendant is accused, in late 1942 one of Krakow coming, about 25 years old prisoner, the boxer, was challenged to a boxing match and it shot here with a gun hidden in the boxing glove through the glove to have.

The case on this question any uneidlich 60 year old butcher egg. from Jazur / Israel has expressed the following: On a Sunday late November 1942 was Franz, as no transport had arrived, want to organize a pleasure. He had picked out, among other things an approximately 25-year old boxer from Kraków to fight with him. The boxer had attracted two boxing gloves, Franz, however only the right boxing glove, which had a small pistol or a revolver found. As the two began to fight, Francis had been shot the boxer with the revolver by the boxing glove through. As the gun was acceded to the boxing glove, we could not be seen. In the objective accuracy of this statement, the jury has considerable doubts. Once have many credible witnesses, so Eq., Sed. and January, the drummer of the band bearing gold, announced that pleasure as boxing, theater performances, dances and the like took place only in 1943, when the frequency of transports subsided. Secondly, the jury the nature of the killing seems unlikely. While it may not be technically impossible, a revolver or a small pistol in a boxing glove and accommodate hindurchzuschiessen through the glove, but the court can not believe that the ever-mindful of his welfare accused Franz thereby wanted to expose an injury that he had chose the form of killing, especially as it were open enough other, for him completely harmless ways to kill a prisoner. In addition, the witness egg. has said that he had not seen and do not otherwise know how the firearm was acceded to the boxing glove. The witness, who otherwise strove honestly to contribute to finding the truth is, that this important point not according to his own account sufficiently observed. Under these circumstances, the jury can take in response to his testimony alone is not safe conclusions about the crime.

5th Shooting of five prisoners from the sort command

The indictment makes Franz continued to charge that he had the end of October 1942, five men of the sort commands, namely the prisoner Szlama Czapnik the prisoner Swiderski, the prisoner Goldstein, the prisoner Feiner and a fifth prisoner, whose name is not certain, for no reason on the sorting station as "spies", it brought to the hospital and shot himself. The purpose was uneidlich witness egg. has confirmed the incident and added that there had been at one of the five men to his landlord from Czestochowa. However, as has been explained in the previous case involving the shooting of a young boxer, is composed, on the objective reliability of the testimony of the witness egg. considerable doubt. These doubts could also be the jury in assessing the present facts not overcome. In addition, the witness egg. during his interrogation was very excited. It is not ruled out that strong emotional Antipathievorstellungen the witnesses against all defendants who are given the mitgemachten His time of terror and horror humanly understandable, directed his statement even in the wrong direction, if he was personally at pains about his willing to contribute to uncovering the truth to. His unsworn statement is therefore not sufficient to convict Franz to a shooting of five men of the sort command.

6th The hanging of three detainees because of conspiracy

The accused is placed also charged with having arranged some time after the death of Dr. Choranzicky to three inmates for alleged conspiracy and for the preparation of a flight with his head hanging down and they have to be there for so long left hanging until one died agonizing death. As the appointed witness this incident Fl. at the trial could not be heard - it has moved from Cologne, and his new residence can not be determined -, can not be established this hanging. Although witnesses have Eq. and Zygmund road. also described a hanging of three prisoners (see A.VII.12. the Second part of the reasons), but you can not hear the witness, the court Fl. not clarify whether this is the case for the prosecution or to a different case, which is not in the indictment and in the opening decision included. If in doubt, must be assumed that the second option more favorable to the accused.

7th The hanging of two prisoners who attempted to flee in a loaded freight car

According to the indictment, Francis is the end of 1942, two prisoners escape, who had a wagon loaded with textiles want to have hung in the vicinity of the platform on a gallows with their feet up and killed as a result. This hanging is just like the previously described three men not proven because of this case named primarily witness Fl. at the trial could not be heard. By the German consul in Seattle oath was brewmaster Un. has described the hanging of two people also, but he could no longer remember clearly about whether Francis attended this hanging of two prisoners was or not. Even the witness Eq. has not helped with his testimony to a clear explanation of this hanging. Although he recalls the fact that Franz two Jews who had been found by SS Sergeant Beelitz in an already loaded with textiles wagon, let hang on the feet. It indicates, however, that the hanging had not been completed on the platform, but in the vicinity of the Jewish property barracks. Under these circumstances, it is not excluded that Eq. here a case of hanging of two young Jews, one of whom was the Czenstochauer Langner said or that he even had a third hanging of two prisoners in the eye, which tried to escape in a car, for the flight to a loaded freight car was often taken a few times with success, several times without success. A clarification would only hear the witness Fl. provided. Since this was not possible, all encountered with this hanging of two inmates doubt the defendant Franz benefit.

8th Killing of a young Jew Gold

The defendant Francis is accused of not only the Gold Star of David (compare A.VI.15. The Second part of the reasons), but also have a second gold Jews to have flogged for the illegal possession of money and arranged his shooting of the hospital . This included the witness Eq. explained in a detailed statement that his previous statements about the killing of Jews gold relate to the case of the Gold Star of David. Whether a second gold Jew was killed by Franz, then Eq. further explained, he could do not to tell for sure, and he remembered only because of the possession of gold or money has often been the cause for violence against the accused Franz individual prisoners.

Under these circumstances, the killing of a second gold Franz Jews is not to convict.

9th Shooting of one Baumfällers the death camp

Against the accused of the charge is made, he had to climb on a check on dead camp a prisoner of felled trees, gave the order to, on the top of a tree, and he had then killed him with a targeted gunshot. The uneidlich this incident belonged railwaymen Gol. has stated that he did not remember more of such shooting of.

10th Fatal mauling of a prisoner by a dog Barry, near the so-called "Checkout"

The defendant Francis is accused that he has had to bite near the so-called "Checkout" a just at the beginning of the storage period used for valuables on the left side of the Frauenauskleidebaracke the entrance to the tube, a naked man with his dog Barry to death . Of this oath question any credible businessman Jan, who was in Treblinka, a member of the camp orchestra, has stated that he had seen through a window of the Jewish property barracks, as Franz the Barry incited a naked man and as Barry bite this in the genitals, he could but do not say what had happened then with the man because the inmate Klepfisch, the capo of gold Jews, the window was closed and the other so that he no longer was able to follow process.

Thus it is clear only that the prisoner Barry bitten in the genitals, but not that he has mauled him to death. The bite off any part of sex alone, as painful as it may be, leads, as the expert Professor De. explained in detail and convincing, but has usually not fatal. Although it is likely that the detainee has lost his life in this incident, it is completely unclear how this happened. It may be that Barry has bitten him, it may be that Franz shot him or that he has let him shoot. It may also be that Franz has drained from any whim of this man and that the patient is going through the arbitrary actions of another SS man or a Ukrainian killed. This variety of options must come to the defendant Franz benefit.

11th Fatal mauling of a prisoner from the kitchen of the Ukrainians by Barry

The indictment puts the defendant Francis in another case of an inmate by the mauling his dog Barry to load. To this indictment the witness Jan is also been questioned under oath. He has announced that Franz had on another occasion set his Barry on a busy kitchen in Ukrainian prisoner, because you've found in this prison twenty dollars. Barry did so, the witness further stated, this prisoner, who was clothed, bitten out a piece of meat, but if the prisoner had been killed or whether he was ultimately still been alive, he did not know. Also here is a killing Franz thus not to convict.

12th The death of Latrinenkapos

The accused is alleged to have arranged for a boxing match by him of the two so-called Latrinenkapos killed one of the two capos thereby that he ordered his shooting of the hospital. Because of the depositions of witnesses and Oscar Zygmund road., Eq., Tu, Ko., Jan., Sed., Roj., Kols., Lac. and Thursday is the conviction of the Assize Court found that:

The lower bearing two so Latrinenkapos were used. They wore clothes rabbi, had an alarm clock around his neck and armed with a whip. They had to be in front of both Häftlingslatrinen the camp set up and ensure that the inmates for the performance of their necessities related only a few minutes, otherwise they had to sell their whips, the prisoners of the respective latrine. As part of the boxing matches that took place in 1943, let the defendant Franz boxing Latrinenkapos the two against each other. When she is not strong enough to beat, he whipped them and fired at them to greater zeal struggle. One of the two was Latrinenkapos he finally declared the winner. Now what then happened to the two Latrinenkapos remains, however dark. While the witness Oscar and Zygmund road., Eq. and my Tu, both Latrinenkapos had been taken away for shooting of the hospital, said the witness Sed., only when the boxing match losing Latrinenkapo had been shot in the hospital, and the witness Koh. indicates that one of the two boxers had been killed by security, but may also be two Latrinenwächter all been shot in the hospital. The witnesses Jan., Kols. and Lac. assets are no longer to remember what happened to the two Latrinenaufsehern while the witness Thurs even thinks to have both also later seen in the camp, and that one of them in turn, in his capacity as Latrinenkapo. These conflicting data concerning the fate of the two Latrinenkapos possible to make clear statements about whether Francis has one or even both Latrinenwächter can shoot in the hospital, do not meet.

13th Killing of several prisoners during bottle Shootout

Against Francis the charge is made, he ordered one day in the lower bearing a large number of prisoners to line up at some distance from him, and this to keep a bottle in his outstretched hand, because he wanted to test his accuracy, and he had rather than aim at the bottles, each killed prisoners with pistol shots in succession. These facts, the question any witness under oath Lak. confirmed, but added that he does not personally observed the incident, but had received from him by a fellow comrade knowledge. The fact that the witness knows the whole story from hearsay, is not enough to make any firm conclusions.

14th The slaying of one for belated appeal prisoner on the parade ground

The indictment Franz puts a burden to have a prisoner who came to the parade too late slain directly on the parade ground. Of this question any witness under oath Lak. has stated that he remembered only because Francis one to appeal to late comers inmate put a slap and that he had ordered, lead away the prisoners. Next, the witness has testified he did not know what happened later with the inmate. That Franz sent him slain on the parade ground, which he could not remember anymore. In this proof, the result remains open deeds of the accused Franz.

15th The slaying of 12 prisoners from the wood chipper commands

The defendant is accused of having 12 prisoners who dug for the kitchen stoves and ovens and the accommodations firewood, killed together with other SS men by piston and lashes.

The sworn testimony of his witness Lak. has expressed this, he remembered a broad outline of such incident, but knew not what was the actual reason for this massacre, as it was played out in detail the role played in this case and who did Franz Franz yet except at the massacre had been involved. The court, it is not at all impossible that 12 prisoners were suddenly whipped and beaten to death, because "at Treblinka was nothing impossible," as the co-defendant Suchomel once formulated correctly. However, when the need - without the use of firearms - the slaying of 12 men were made of wood chippers commands have contributed a large number of German and Ukrainian guards, a fact which the witness Lak. grants. Since the witness but can not say that people who participated in the massacre along with Franz and the manner in which they have become active in the individual, is the complicity of the accused in the dark Franz. Because the jury could not reconstruct the incident completely, can consequently also the contribution to the act of the accused Francis not distinguish.

16th The shooting of Czenstochauers Stajer

The accused is also the experts employed by the loading of wagons coming from Czenstochau prisoner Stajer with a hunting rifle in the buttocks shot, viewing the violation and this establishes to his regret that he had not taken the scrotum of Stajer. He reportedly then rushed furiously his dog Barry on the injured inmate and then placed in the shooting of his hospital.

Through the depositions of credible witnesses Oscar Stra. and Lak. it is clear that the defendant Franz and employed in loading a wagon with textiles, originating from Czenstochau prisoner Stajer by a shot from the hunting rifle to a thigh injury that Stajer had to pull down his pants and that Franz exclaimed in controlling the violation of disappointment "Gosh, the bag (= scrotum) is still quite" The fate of the Stajer is not completely clear. That Barry has bitten the prisoner Stajer Stajer and that was immediately brought to the shooting of the hospital, the two witnesses have not seen. The witness Oscar Stra. has, however, heard that rent on arrangement of Franz allegedly shot Stajer the injured in the hospital, while the witness Lak. says that Stajer was still a few days left alive, because he had seen him a few more days in the camp, but not more later.

If one bears in mind that the capricious accused Franz once injured prisoners immediately shot or shoot left, on the other hand sometimes for some mood swing out and it refrained, someone kill immediately or a few days later, there remain too many possibilities as to the fate of the prisoner Stajer open. When the two witnesses Oscar Stra. and Lak. have injured Stajer later not seen in the lower camp, so this may also be because Stajer to work in the upper camp was assigned or that he even had managed to escape in a loaded freight car. This is not therefore be ruled out completely because Stajer belonged to the work detail that the boxcars loaded with textiles, and as he was thus informed of the related potential escape routes that used some inmates with success. Since both witnesses firsthand could not give any precise information about the fate of the prisoner Stajer, Franz is not to convict on this point of the prosecution.

17th Shooting of about 350 inmates by volleys of machine guns

The indictment puts the defendant Franz continues following a burden: he had in mid-summer 1942 with the arrival of a coming out Miedzyrzec transport of around 5000 people, of which about half was on arrival already dead, the blue squad in at about 500 men filled that he had picked out of the surviving men of the newly arrived train about 350. These 500 men he had then entrusted with the removal of about 2,500 corpses from the cars and the cleaning of heavily soiled cars. Then he picked out of the 500 men of the blue commands the 150 most prisoners. The remaining approximately 350 men he had to be killed by volleys of machine guns. May have taken place that such a mass execution, is in the realm of possibility at Treblinka, as you on the death of SS Unterscharführer Max Biala also not shied away from indiscriminately firing on the Jews and many of them to kill this way. For the shooting of about 350 men but lacks a reliable detection. The purpose uneidlich, was 75-year old retired administrator How. from Rishon Le Zion / Israel has made appropriate statements, but his information alone is not sufficient to convert the defendant Franz. Although the witness how. made to the jury the impression that he is endeavoring to be fair, to tell the truth, could not stay on the other side out of consideration that this already 75 years old witness who has participated in the Treblinka extermination camp much significant in his testimony memory and lack of concentration had. It went so far that he, because of his severely weakened health, some time after the beginning of the interrogation be no coherent and comprehensive description of camp events anymore. It is also significant that he does not recognize the defendant longer able. The defendants Franz Stadie and he guessed the correct identity, but was not even safe here. After a lengthy recovery period, as acknowledged by the witness, it was also not possible to question him appropriately in accordance so that his testimony had to be ended prematurely. Given his age-related memory loss and concentration gave his testimony is not enough to convince the jury the fact that Franz ordered the shooting of 350 or even 400 men of the blue commands.

18th Shooting of a Polish peasant

The accused is alleged to have abused a Polish peasant who have spoken in the supply of potatoes illegally with prisoners, and shot. The uneidlich to this point was witness how. able to remember while at the shooting of a Polish farmer, but not about who killed him by the German SS.

The co-defendants Münzberger and Suchomel have indicated whether they merely carried out by the SS Sergeant Beelitz shooting of a Polish peasant known that have tried the camp fence yourself with Ukrainians barter and was despite loud calls of them went to the stalling with his carts. Whether that described by Suchomel and Münzberger case with the. By the witness as expressed case is identical left, not be resolved because of the witnesses at the existing, age-related memory loss.

19th The shooting competition in the labor camp Treblinka

Finally, the prosecution puts the burden on the defendant Francis, he had one day on a visit to Treblinka together with the witnesses Pr held a shooting contest and this shot at least six prisoners in the labor camp. The defendant Francis, this fact also deny as the uneidlich question any witness Pr, against the process has been separated. The question any uneidlich, 62-year-old sales representative Sza. from Paris, has indeed portrayed that Francis and Pr had one day in Treblinka held a shooting contest for about 15 Jews from a distance of about 10 meters and this killed several men with the gun. This witness is not credible. For he has first declares firmly that he was before his interrogation never been in Courtroom. As the oath question any 57 year-old housewife from Dusseldorf Kab testified, however, Sza. have one day before his hearing for several hours witnessed the taking of evidence in the courtroom and sat next to her in the audience, the witness admitted that he had told the truth at this point. Under these circumstances, however, the accuracy of his entire expression has become doubtful, so that can make with respect to the penalty mark Bet no safe conclusions for release of the defendant Franz.


IX. The attitude of the defendant Franz to his use at Treblinka

Defendant Francis realized that the Jews and Gypsies were killed unlawfully. He made the report prepared by, among other things, Hitler, Himmler, Globocnik and Wirth plan to destroy brought to Treblinka victims such as our own, that he not only according to the report prepared in Lublin guidelines mass killings zealously perform carried out and left, but he beyond that Many prisoners work because of some minor breach of discipline or the bearing of a personal whim of some barbaric way to kill or even killed by other left, although that was not ordered by his superiors. His extremely zealous participation in the transport clearances as well as the individual killings satisfied him for various reasons. He was filled with an overwhelming hatred of all things Jewish. Jews were in his eyes worth less than animals. You had to like "dirty" and "shit" are eliminated quickly. He also gloated sadistically in the tormenting his victims, they may in the mass killings suffocated painfully in the gas chambers or they may have been killed by him individually on a partially refined way. When old and sick Jews against the truth promised they would be in a real "hospital" care and cure, or when in his occasional speeches the newcomers said that they would only be bathed and then assigned to work, so he was glad gleeful know when he managed to deceive the Jews raised about her true destiny. As far as he Jews on parade or at a special appeal killed or kill left, he could demonstrate his dominion also in the camp. As he had in the civil and military life mostly only worked as a cook, so in a subordinate position, gave him such demonstrations a deep personal satisfaction. His former simple life he sought thereby to forget as quickly as possible, that he is before his promotion to SS lieutenant's officers acted by wearing a tailored SS uniform and officer's boots, as the sole leader used a horse and the inside and outside camp accompanied by his dog Barry as cocky and domineering man appeared, like his co-defendants and numerous witnesses have described vivid and believable. Whether the defendant, as he indicates in the Belzec extermination camp has refused to success, work to do on the gas chambers can be left aside. Treblinka in any case he has any previous inhibitions in the killing of Jews immediately overcome by his arrival and shown as a merciless and ferocious Jew-haters. This was attributable to the fact that the accused Franz Stangl was his deputy and the rule over him practically left in the camp, at decisive. Since he was well liked because of his camp, he made no serious attempt to be relieved. Since the destruction of the Jews of his attitude corresponded to him was also a refusal to obey or command bypass the question. On the contrary, he did far more than was commanded.

These findings on the inner Tatseite necessarily resulting from the accused's behavior at Treblinka, as has been stated by the description of the co-defendants and the testimony of the numerous witnesses to the Jewish belief.

The accused can be Franz as follows:

He underlined have been aware that the killing of innocent Jews and Gypsies was unlawful. The Jews had done him heartily sorry. He was not an anti-Semite, but a benevolent friend of the Jews. He therefore confined himself to train the Ukrainians to "decent men" and then what was their duty to guard the camp and to secure for the handling of transport use. He had used the Ukrainians Although controlled in the lower and upper storage, but otherwise the actual destruction of the Jews do not care, because it was the disgust. He was beaten only twice, in each case at the direction and under the supervision of Wirth, Jewish and otherwise utmost correctness towards the prisoners cultivates. He had killed a Jew with his own hand. Only in the case of Dr. Choranzicky and the shooting of Jewish radical commands he ever appeared. Dr. Choranzicky he did not hit, but he wanted to save him. Globocnik's command to rest shooting of commands he can not escape. Had succeeded the insurgency from 2.8.1943, the Jews had to thank him. The insurgency efforts of the prisoners he had faced very sympathetically and the Jewish dentist Dr. Rebschütz proposed to carry out the revolt on 08/02/1943, because then most Ukrainians had to swim at the bow. Barry had his dog anyone harmed. On the contrary, some prisoners had with Barry hold harmless games and so at their sad existence can provide a relaxation.

It was true that he had ridden more often. That had happened only sporting interest. However, he was by riding in the camp may have become more aware than many other German SS men.

With Wirth he had been in the camp at Belzec quarreled. He refused to take instead of the SS man Niemann the line of the upper bearing. Wirth hit him in the face, but otherwise nothing else done. Was shot as his friend Fritz Jirmann by witnesses G. Belzec was, he had expressed his displeasure and want to see the body of the dead man. Thus he was annoying and Wirth liked this then have him "a punishment" for four weeks sent on leave without that he would have filed a request for leave. On the day of arrival at Treblinka Wirth had ordered him to choose 20 Jews, and with them the cast-off clothes of the gassed victims to clear away, and they then need to supply the gasification. But he picked out 80 prisoners and those out after work in the accommodation of the working Jews. Thus he keeps these people from annihilation. Also in the following years he had for this "his Jews" special interest and fought for their good treatment and food. As Wirth had not taken care of the matter, he was not punished for it.

He would much rather have fought at the front, rather than train in Treblinka Ukrainians. If he had submitted relevant requests, they were immediately rejected by Wirth each with harsh words.

As far as the defendant Franz tries to narrow his responsibilities in the camp, where his guilt on numerous deeds denies excess and where he speaks of a benevolent attitude toward the Jewish prisoners, is supported by the findings of his entering an A.II. to VI. the Second part of the reasons refuted. The statements made there is made. That Francis has committed his acts of sadism, need for admiration and hatred of Jews, is, among other things by the sworn testimony of the witnesses Eq., Un., Sed. and Ros. confirmed, for these witnesses say that Francis was bloodthirsty as a tiger, and the biggest sadist in the camp that he had always been inclined to make a killing of a show, and that he, the Jews as "filth" and "shit" have referred. As far as Franz claims to have the prisoner Dr. Rebschütz August 2, 1943 as the proposed date uprising, he is the sworn testimony of credible witnesses Raj. refuted, the committee has heard the uprising and was one of the main instigators of the uprising is. Raj. said Dr. Rebschütz have not heard the committee and that he had never before this Committee on a conversation with Francis, informed concerning the uprising. The Dr. Rebschütz would have done if Francis would have made a proposal on the uprising appointment. Moreover, neither of the co-accused has not expressed a single of the numerous Jewish witness something even remotely possible to hold Franz had any Jewish prisoner proved good.

That the defendant Franz in stock as a "master race" has occurred, and that he allowed every opportunity to demonstrate his power and practical supremacy in the camp, all defendants and including the witness Eq., Sed., Raj. and Ros. demonstrated.

Whether the inspector Franz Wirth really asked for a transfer to the front can be left aside, although all other co-defendants accused of such transfer requests of Franz is not known and in his DC documents is not a single document to this effect. If the accused should have ever weggemeldet of Treblinka, he may have done this for all sorts of personal reasons, but not because he disapproved of the destruction of the Jews in Treblinka and wanted to distance it.

Finally, with regard to the allegedly entering an accused person of his poor relationship with Wirth and the embargo imposed by the latter in connection with the death of the SS man Jirmann "punishment" with unerbetenem holiday, so these is entering an disproved. Besides the fact that this kind of "punishment" in itself is highly unlikely and with the described by the accused person Wirths not reconcile already has the tools Gi. credibly announced that Francis is the time of death of Jirmann no longer been in Belzec.
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

User avatar
Hecht
Member
Posts: 521
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 19:04
Location: from a mere

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

#240

Post by Hecht » 19 Jun 2013, 23:16

I have a problem with Wirth ranks and uniform.
Being a KriPo man we know he had a Kripo rank (Kriminalrat) and an SS rank too (he was an SS member), but I've found a document listing him also as Polizei-Major, that's an OrPo rank.
I wonder how this was possible, since I'm not aware of KriPo men holding OrPo ranks too, being different branches.
It's know Wirth was an OrPo officier earlier, but a KriPo member all over the war, nontheless there's a picture of him wearing the OrPo uniform, I think taken during the late 30's.
This is a bit of a mistery to me, maybe some more knowledgeable members would be able to explain that?

many thanks

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”