Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Written-Defence-Summaries-02 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 5. (I e) Acting through Specialists on Jewish Affairs and Police Attaches Means of Proof: 42. N/6 - Document 495 43. T/10 - Document 542 44. T/1415 - Document 544 45. T/731 - Document 466 6. (I f) Deportation camps Means of Proof: 46. T/1359 - Document 731 47. T/1278 - Document 413 48. T/1279 - Document 416 49. T/665 - Document 1 50. N/94 - Document 49 51. N/95 - Document 50 52. T/219 - Document 1410 53. T/299 - Document 155 54. T/1374 - Document 11 In connection with the extermination camps,the Accused is charged with having been involved in the supply of gas. 55. T/1309 - Document 185 56. T/90 - Document 226 57. T/715 - Document 42 This document is of evidential value only to the extent of Wetzel's handwritten note. In this note about the possibility of gassing Jews, Eichmann's name is not mentioned. There is not sufficient room in the empty spaces of the manuscript for the name or the rank of the Accused. Only in the pages called "draft" it states: Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann of the Head Office for Reich Security agrees to gassing. These pages bear no letterhead or signature and are typewritten. Their authenticity is not established by the fact that they were produced at Nuremberg. They are dated 29 October 1941. The above three items of evidence relate to different times and events. They do not support each other as circumstantial evidence. The Wetzel document deals with the planning in October 1941. Hoess alleges that at that time (summer 1941) he already had orders for gassing from Eichmann. Hoess and Gerstein (T/1309) were accomplices. Finally, Gerstein speaks about the period of summer 1942 and does not mention the Accused at all. The allegation that the Accused was competent for concentration camps is based also on the allegation that he had put skeletons at the disposal of Prof. Hirt in Strasbourg. The Accused was not responsible for this operation. Means of Proof: 58. T/1362 - Document 91 59. T/1363b - Document 46 60. T/1363b - Document 46 61. T/1367 - Document 913 62. T/1370 - Document 912 63. T/1366 - Document 46 64. T/1371 - Document 790 65. T/1369 - Document 1050 Sievers and Brand approached Eichmann in writing. The items of evidence did not show that, as a result, Eichmann took action. Only Sievers' testimony affirms that he called on Eichmann. Sievers was an accomplice. Sievers' diary further shows that, according to him, he received the positive information from Guenther. 7. (I g, I h) Operations Units The Operations Units were created by agreement between the heads of the [SS and SD] and senior military echelons. They received orders from Heydrich, with whom they were in communication through the Sonderstab (Special Staff) at the Head Office for Reich Security (Prinz Albrechtstrasse). The Accused did not communicate with him. The contrary cannot be concluded from the fact that at irregular intervals his Section received their reports. A connection between Eichmann and the Operations Units in Poland is based solely on the testimony of Wisliceny. Means of Proof: 66. T/85 - Document 773 67. T/175 - Document 1097 68. T/312 - Document 776 69. T/102 - Document 778 70. T/295 - Document 1464 71. T/313 - Document 1465 Many of the further reports do not show any distribution list. It cannot be proved whether the Accused received them or not. Means of Proof: 72. T/309 - Document 1699 73. T/1390 - Document 1443 8. (I i) Operations Units Kovno, Riga, Minsk (working in co-ordination) Means of Proof: 74. Testimony of Karstadt of 5 May 1961, Session 29 75. Testimony of Neumann of 8 May 1961, Session 30 76. T/714 - Document 504 Second letter - order by Daluege, Chief of the Order Police, of 24 October 1941. The Security Police carries out deportation to Riga and Minsk. The Order Police provides escort, by agreement with the Chief of the Security Police. Not an enterprise of the Accused but of the Chief of the Security Police; no willling and conscious co-operation between the Accused and the Operations Units. Means of Proof: 77. T/305 - Document 1092 9. (I j) Labour Camps For documentation on this, see para. II 1a. In addition, the following is submitted: Means of Proof: 78. T/215 - Document 1362 79. T/249 - Document 945 10. (I k) Deportations (as to the concentration in ghettos and transit camps, see para. II a). The Accused carried out deportations within the framework of his office in the following countries: Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Romania and Yugoslavia. There is no evidence about deportations for the purpose of extermination from the USSR, the former Baltic States or Poland. The activity in the framework of resettlement in Poland was not directed towards extermination, nor did the Accused carry out deportations from Italy. Means of Proof: 80. T/XV - testimony of Kappler Regarding the deportations, the Accused never acted on his own authority or initiative. The operations were ordered entirely by his superiors, or by the Governors, District Leaders, or other authorities. Means of Proof: 81. N/97 - Document 412 Also, in rounding-up for deportation, the Accused did not act alone. The local offices (BdS, or Inspector of Security (IdS)) were themselves active within their respective authority. 82. T/506 - Document 872 11. (I l) Hungary Anti-Jewish measures in Hungary were decided upon between Hitler and Horthy on the basis of a conference held in Klessheim. Means of Proof: 83. T/I - Testimony of Hoettl Veesenmayer negotiated during his activity as Reich Plenipotentiary with the Hungarian Government on the execution of measures against the Jews, under directions from Ribbentrop. Means of Proof: 84. T/XIII - Testimony of Veesenmayer 85. T/V - Testimony of Grell 86. N/71 - Document 372 87. N/74 - Document 676 88. T/1206 - Document 384 The Foreign Ministry insisted jealously on its influence on the subject of the Jewish Question. Means of Proof: 89. N/70 - Document 1124 Concentration and ghettoization were dealt with by the Hungarian gendarmerie, on the advice of the Security Police. Means of Proof: 90. T/1160 - Document 1316 91. T/1161 - Document 1317 92. T/1162 - Document 1318 93. T/1163 - Document 1319 94. T/1164 - Document 1320 95. T/1165 - Document 1321 96. T/1166 - Document 1322 Among the tasks of the Special Commando Unit was the tendering of advice to the Hungarian authorities. Means of Proof: 97. N/93 - Document 104 The tasks of the Special Commando Unit also included the organization of the transports, including provision of escorts for the trains. Means of Proof: 98. T/1210 - Document 637 99. T/1124 - Document 639 100. N/81 - Document 518 The competence of the Accused ceased upon the arrival of the transports on German soil. Means of Proof: 101. T/76 - Document 374 It is alleged against the Accused that he was the initiator of the foot marches from Budapest to the Austrian frontier. He was involved in these foot marches. However, no witness could confirm that he was the initiator. Means of Proof: 102. T/IX - Testimony of Krumey 103. T/XIII - Testimony of Veesenmayer 104. T/XI - Testimony of Winkelmann The first steps in the organization of the foot march were taken by Veesenmayer. Means of Proof: 105. N/89 - Document 871 The Accused promised Jewish officials exit permits for a small number of Jews. Those Jews emigrated. Means of Proof: 106. T/1232 - Document 450 107. N/91 - Document 451 The Accused also tried, in every possible way, to allow the emigration of one million Jews about whose emigration there had been negotiations. Means of Proof: 108. Testimony of Brand of 29 May 1961, Session 56. 109. T/IX - Testimony of Krumey The witness Gordon claimed that the Accused was guilty of the death of the youth Salomon. The Accused denies that occurrence. The witness Slawik (XVI) also denies it. Even if Salomon was beaten in that toolshed, his death is not the inevitable result. Anyhow, the witness could not have observed the death from where he was standing. Also, if Teitel is alleged to have said, "I have thrown him into the Danube" - that is no proof. The witness alleges that the corpse was placed on the rear seat of the amphibious vehicle. That is technically impossible. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether from the garden the witness could have seen a vehicle parked in front of the house. In order to find the Accused responsible for the death of the youth Salomon, the required measure of proof was the same as if he had been accused of murder. Such proof was not provided by the testimony of Gordon at the 54th Session on 26 May 1961. III. Submission for the Defence Cf. oral pleading on Count I.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor