Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-01-05 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 Dr. Servatius It is true that this was a rather incriminating document; however the Accused says: "I did not do anything because the matter did not concern me, because it was not within the scope of my duties." I now come to the case of the children of Lidice. In this case, no Jewish children, but Czech children are involved. The case, therefore, should be excluded from this trial for legal reasons. The Israeli Court has no jurisdiction in this matter and the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law does not apply. President Dr. Servatius, does the theory of the difference of blood between races still exist? Dr. Servatius The difference of blood is legally irrelevant as distinguished from citizenship. The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law provides for the punishment of persons who persecuted the Jewish People and not the Czech people. Justice Agranat But it also provides for the punishment of crimes against humanity, of persecution of a civilian population. Dr. Servatius This Court does not have the authority to punish crimes against humanity wherever they were committed. President Well, that is different. Justice Agranat Counsel for the Appellant - this observation has nothing to do with the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. Dr. Servatius I do not know whether I have understood correctly. I think that the State of Israel has authority only to prosecute crimes against humanity committed within the territory under its jurisdiction. It cannot prosecute people for offences committed in Czechoslovakia or, if you will, in any other country. As to the charge itself, I wish to point out that the Accused was not involved in the activities of the Central Office for Jewish Migration in Lodz. It was not under his authority. If the competent authority did not give directives as to what should be done with the children, and his Section was approached, no conclusions can be drawn from this fact as to the Accused's authority. A similar situation exists in respect of the executions by shooting in Serbia carried out by military and operations units in cases of attempted rebellion. The telephone call from the officer in charge in the Foreign Ministry, Rademacher, and Eichmann's alleged reply "Eichmann recommends shooting" cannot alone establish his responsibility. The Accused is convinced that he never uttered such words, and he believes that they are absolutely untrue. What actually happened seems to me, rather, that the Accused did not remember this short incident after such a long time. I think that his reply to this cursory question was spontaneous, unwilling, and when he was irritated; for the matter by which the military authorities considered themselves threatened was not his business at all. Justice Silberg But in T/37 he says, he did it upon the orders of his superiors. That is to say, he did do it. "I did not personally issue the order for execution by shooting but, as in all such matters I dealt with them through the proper channels of the service, and the order of my superiors was execution by shooting." Dr. Servatius That is correct. The Accused says, in respect of his attitude in this matter and in similar matters, that his first reaction, after the document was shown to him was, "It will probably be correct," without being able to examine the matter more thoroughly. Upon further consideration, so he thinks, he came to the conclusion that it cannot be correct at all. It seems that Rademacher's note in this respect was a short summary of the negative reply, namely that the military itself had to find the proper solution and had to shoot, but it did not indicate his basic attitude. Actually the Foreign Ministry sent the officer in charge, Rademacher, to Serbia and intervened itself. President They sent, in addition, another person. Who was that? Dr. Servatius Hunsche. President Which Section did Hunsche belong to? Dr. Servatius Hunsche belonged to the Accused's Section. Whether he was assigned for service in Serbia, or whether he was stationed in Berlin, I am unable to state at this moment. President According to the Judgment, both of them went to Serbia and carried out an operation against 8,000 Jews. They took 500 for compulsory labour and executed 7,500 by shooting. That was the outcome of Hunsche's and Rademacher's journey. Dr. Servatius But Rademacher served in the Foreign Ministry. President Yes, that is correct. Dr. Servatius Unfortunately, I am unable to call on the witness Rademacher. He is in one of Israel's neighbouring countries, so that I cannot produce evidence of what actually happened. This is a situation in which the Accused is prevented through no fault of his own from producing his evidence. Justice Witkon Suhr went with Rademacher. Dr. Servatius However, Rademacher does not mention Suhr again. Thus, it looks as if he was not there at all. President Paragraph 106 of the Judgment reads that instead of Eichmann, "One of them was Suhr, who is known to us as a member of the staff of his Section. He was accompanied by Rademacher..." Rademacher reports on the journey in T/883 that "500 of them were needed" for work and "the rest would be shot." Dr. Servatius I have not yet found the passage. Attorney General May I perhaps call the Court's attention to T/882 where it is stated that instead of Eichmann, Suhr and Stuschke would go with Rademacher. President That is precisely what I read from the Judgment. Dr. Servatius, have you found the passage? It is paragraph 106 of the Judgment. Justice Silberg In the second half of paragraph 106. Dr. Servatius I have found it. I cannot explain it at this moment. I shall have to ask the Accused himself, and I cannot do that at this moment. President Please continue. Dr. Servatius We are dealing here with a permanent organization. However, the Court refers to particular events, and it arrives at the construction of a picture which does not give appropriate weight to documents likely to be construed in favour of the Accused. If these documents, too, are taken into consideration, a somewhat different picture will emerge. I shall now deal with the events which occurred in Vienna. It is alleged that the Accused was guilty of rude behaviour towards the Jews and thereby revealed his intention to exterminate them. President I have to interrupt you, Dr. Servatius. Perhaps I am mistaken, but my impression from the Judgment is that, in respect of that period, an intention to exterminate is not imputed to the Appellant, but only compelling persons to emigrate under the worst conditions. But it seems to me - and please correct me if I am mistaken - in respect of this period in Vienna, there is as yet no intention to exterminate imputed to the Appellant. Dr. Servatius Yes, that is correct, inasmuch as the alleged purpose was the immediate extermination, but not the annihilation of the Jewish People by emigration and direction to places where bad conditions prevailed. As to the complaint of rude behaviour, I think that manners customary in the military will be regarded in the eyes of every civilian as harsh. Even soldiers having returned to life as civilians will share this feeling. Possibly the Accused at that time... Justice Silberg Is it not correct that the seventh count of the indictment includes the Accused's activities in Vienna, Prague and Berlin? It says here, that the Accused is found guilty, under the seventh count, of crime against humanity, in that "during the period from March 1938 to May 1945 he...caused, in the territories..., the plunder of the property of millions of Jews, through mass terror...starvation and deportation of those Jews." This indictment refers to the period beginning in 1938. Do you understand me? This is not a crime against the Jewish People but a crime against humanity, so that you will have to express your view in that respect. Dr. Servatius This does not constitute a crime against humanity, either. May I continue? It will transpire from the arguments that what applies to one, will apply to the other as well. President As you wish. Dr. Servatius The Accused, at that time, had to deal with the technical aspects of the emigration only, and he facilitated its implementation by these technical arrangements. Had he not been instrumental in this matter, hardly anyone would have left Vienna. His activity was not inhuman. The witnesses' statements that the procedure was connected with endless waiting and that it was resented by the persons affected thereby as harassing, may well be believed. But one of the witnesses also understood the expediency of the organization. The witness Six, who was not involved, considered the Accused's organizing activity also as serving the interests of the Jews. The candidates for emigration were saved the ordeal of application to the various offices, which often proved to be futile. It is significant that, according to the report made at that time and produced in evidence, Dr. Loewenherz complained to the Accused of the bad treatment inflicted upon Jews by other agencies. This would have been pointless, had he [Eichmann] been the monster as he was portrayed later. However, two private letters from the Accused to his comrade Hagen have been submitted. They are framed in the slang of a subordinate officer desirous of "getting things going properly." In my opinion, nothing in this letter shows inhumanity. At that time, the Jews of Vienna would have liked to emigrate had they not been deprived at the same time of their property. However, this plunder was caused by laws which were not made by the Accused. In this respect, the Ministries are to be held responsible. In Vienna, an exception from the currency regulations was made, and the Jews were allowed to acquire the foreign currency necessary for their emigration. This exception was the result of the Accused's personal intervention only, and this was quite a feat, at a time of most vehement agitation against the Jews. The Accused also arranged the discharge of Jews from the concentration camps for the purpose of their emigration. This measure has also to be brought into account in favour of the Accused. At that time, the political goal proclaimed by the Government was, precisely, to clear the country of its Jews. Inhuman conduct cannot be attributed to the Accused. In the chronological order of events, the Nisko Plan now has to be discussed. This plan proposed by the Accused, as well as the Madagascar Plan, originated in the circumstances under which emigration, for all practical purposes, had been made impossible by the policy of the countries of destination. The political situation at that time must be considered, and therefore the Accused can hardly be found guilty of having had the intention of bringing about the extermination of the Jews. In connection with emigration, the Accused is found guilty of having seized the property of the Jews and having disposed of their property. However, everything which happened to property was only the result of legal provisions originating in the Ministries. Jewish property at that time was automatically vested in the State when the owner crossed the boundaries of the Reich, and was sequestered by the Head of the Finance Department. In these circumstances the Accused could not receive anything. It is obvious that the Accused had neither the knowledge nor the manpower to carry out the voluminous administration of property and finances required in these circumstances. President How do you explain T/55(12)? This is his personal file. He had returned to Berlin, and this file contains a memorandum showing his merits in the acquisition of enormous property for the Reich, and it is also marked to his credit that he cleared Austria of its Jews. Dr. Servatius I think this is a testimony intended for his promotion which stressed, in an exaggerated fashion, the so- called merits of the candidate for promotion, whilst actually these merits were not those of the Accused at all. Inasmuch as later on seizures of property were effected during the Accused's period of service, only the legal requirements, by way of filling out forms, had to be complied with, without any connection whatsoever with measures of persecution by the Accused. In this connection, the Accused's activities in Vienna have to be mentioned. According to Dr. Loewenherz's report referring to that time, he always consented to substantial withdrawals of monies from the funds of the Jewish Community. Furthermore, the case of the transfer of a Jewish sanatorium as a recreation home to the Lebensborn organization, which has been mentioned, is striking evidence of the fact that other agencies had seized the property of Jewish Communities, without having asked for authorization. The Accused was confronted with a fait accompli, and it remained for him only, formally, to add his signature. The scope of the Accused's functions was, in fact, in the field of deportations. The Judgment contains obscurities as to the activities ascribed to the Accused; they are called summarily "rounding up and deportation." The following are to be distinguished: orders for deportation; determination of the time of deportation and of its destination; drawing up the timetable; the rounding up of the deportees, their transportation and their delivery. The Accused received the order for the deportation, as well as its time and destination, from the political command, through the intermediary of his superior. He then transmitted this deportation order to the Reich Railways Administration for the drawing up of the timetable, and then informed his superior who had given the order of the alternative trains available. Justice Silberg Wasn't the connection with the Ministry of Transport established by Novak? Dr. Servatius Novak was employed in the Section and was entrusted, in particular, with these matters of transportation, and for that purpose he was also sent to enquire what could be put at his disposal by the Reich Railway Administration. Thereafter, the deportation order was transmitted to the local commanders. The round-up was then carried out by these commanders and the transportation carried out by the same organization. The deportation operation was completed by the delivery at the place of destination. However, the District Court wrongly found that the Accused, on his own initiative, zealously carried out this round-up. A number of examples are typical in this respect: The deportation of 1,000 German Jews from Stettin was not carried out on the initiative of the Accused, but was an independent operation of local authorities for the purpose of vacating apartments. Another case was the deportation of Jews from Baden- Wuerttemberg. In this case, the order for deportation had been obtained by the District Leaders (Gauleiter) through direct contact with Hitler.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor