Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Pleading-02-01 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 ADDITIONAL WRITTEN PLEADINGS SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ADOLF EICHMANN 15 February 1962 re: Criminal Appeal 336/61 Adolf Eichmann versus The Attorney General In my capacity as Counsel for the Defence I hereby submit the following arguments supplementary to the pleadings dated 31 January 1962 A. I hereby make application to allow the hearing of the witnesses whose names appear below and to issue an official summons I. Witnesses from Israel 1. Shioni [sic - should be Shimoni] (Israel), already summoned as a witness in the Court of First Instance but not examined. Address in the Court records. 2. Thoar [sic - should be Tohar] (Israel), already summoned in the Court of First Instance. Address in the Court records. 3. Minister of Justice of the State of Israel, Dr. Dov Josef [sic - should be Joseph], Jerusalem. 4. Joel Brand, Tel Aviv, Israel, examined in the Court of First Instance, address in the Court records. 5. Shaim Barlasz [sic - should be Chaim Barlas] 1944 Jewish Agency main representative in Constantinople 6. Benjamin Yaakov Griffel, 1944 Head of the Aguda [sic - should be Agudat] Israel in Constantinople 7. Venia Pommeranz 1944 with the Jewish Agency in Constantinople 8. Ehud Avriel 1944 with the Jewish Agency in Constantinople 9. Menachem Bader 1944 in Constantinople with the Va'ada Ezra ve-Hatsala. 10. Moshe Sharet [sic - should be Sharett] 1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative 11. Zvi Yechieli 1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative 12. Reuven Zaslany 1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative 13. Samu Hirschmann 1944 in Cairo 14. Shaim [sic - should be Chaim] Weizmann 1944 President of the Jewish Agency, Tel Aviv 15. Secretary Itkin 1944 at the office of President Weizmann, Tel Aviv The Witnesses are to testify as follows: (a) The Witnesses under (1) and (2) (Shioni and Thoar) that they carried out the abduction of the Accused from Argentina on official orders and were commended by the Government for their actions. Their examination is relevant because the evidence show that the abduction was an illegal Act of State. This fact should have been taken into account before the Court of First Instance and have led to the dismissal of the indictment. (b) The Witness under (3) (Minister of Justice Dov Josef) that the Argentinian Government did not abandon legal action by the Argentinian State in respect of the violation of the law caused by the abduction of the Accused; that the Argentinian Government made enquiries concerning the kidnappers who were present in the State of Israel and applications to that effect were made to the Government of Israel. The examination is relevant in the light of the fact that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance states that the violation of the law was settled by agreement between the States of Argentina and Israel. (c) The Witnesses under (4) to (9) (Brand, Barlasz, Griffel, Pommeranz, Avriel, Bader) that the representative of the Hungarian Jews, Joel Brand, told them in Constantinople in 1944 that the Accused had made an offer to him, after a promise of a provisional agreement by the Jewish representation in Constantinople for the supply of 10,000 lorries, to allow 100,000 Jews to leave immediately for foreign countries; that until then the deportation of the Jews from Hungary would continue, but that the deportees would be taken to Austria; that he did not tell them that the Accused had promised that he would put an end to the gassings in the Auschwitz gas chambers. (d) The Witnesses under (10) to (12) (Sharet, Yechieli, Zaslany) that Joel Brand made the same report to (10) Moshe Sharet in the presence of an English officer in Aleppo as he made to the Jewish Agency meeting in Constantinople. (e) The Witness under (13) (Hirschmann) that Joel Brand gave him the same information when he was in detention in Cairo in 1944 as he gave to Witnesses (1) to (10). (f) The Witnesses under (4), (14) and (15) (Brand, Weizmann, Itkin) that in 1944 Joel Brand submitted a memorandum to them about the offer made by the Accused, which inter alia contained the same information as was reported by him to the Witnesses (1) to (11) above; that this memorandum still exists in the Presidential Office of Witness Weizmann. The examination of the Witnesses is relevant in respect of the Court's assumption that the witness Joel Brand erred in his statement concerning the "advance performance" of the departure of 100,000 Jews. This clarification is important to the Accused because the promise made by him, contrary to the Court's assumption that the Accused prevented the halting of the persecution of the Jews, indicates the contrary. II. Documents in Israel 16. Admission of the memorandum referred to under I (f), which was submitted by Joel Brand to the Witness under (12) Chaim Weizmann, as is offered for proof under I (f). The admission is relevant for the same reason as the testimony of the Witnesses listed under I. The examination of the Witnesses referred to under I can be dispensed with if the memorandum is admitted. 17. Admission of the book written by the Accused between the Judgment and sentence concerning his official activities and his mental approach to the events which form the subject of the indictment. If the Defence should not be able to submit this document because it is withheld by the police authorities or the State Attorney's Office, an application is hereby made for the document to be admitted through official channels. III. Witnesses from the Federal Republic of Germany 18. Expert Dr. Seraphim, Lecturer at the University of Goettingen. The Witness can testify that according to his findings as a historian of the Nazi period in Germany (a) applications for transfers from one post to another were not allowed as a matter of principle and involved the risk of disciplinary penalties. (b) that any open refusal to obey orders was punished by death, and that therefore no resistance was offered to unlawful orders. The examination of the Witnesses is relevant, inter alia, as against the statement made by Witness Six, who was examined in the Court of First Instance and stated that if the Accused had refused to obey orders, he would not have risked life and limb. IV. Further examination of the Accused I hereby apply 19. for the requested examination of the Accused as witness, in order to supplement his statements in the Court of First Instance, with particular reference to clarifying the points listed in B below. The examination is relevant having regard to the fact that the Accused, because of the great quantity of material presented to him, was unable to recognize fully the significance and weight of various facts which were decisive for the convistion in the Court of First Instance, and was therefore unable to comment on them when interrogated. B. Facts to be elucidated Observations on the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in the order of the Paragraphs of the Judgment I. Paragraphs 1 to 55 - Competence: No observations. II. Paragraphs 56 to 57 - Persecution of the Jews in Germany: 1. On Paragraph 61 - (a) The District Court's assumption that Wisliceny was one of Eichmann's main assistants is erroneous. Wisliceny was one of the main assistants of the Police Attache in Slovakia and of the Senior Commander of the Security Police in Greece. The reason why Wisliceny was not promoted was because he was not married, and chances of promotion depended on this, and not because the Accused was promoted over his head. (b) It is not correct that the Accused himself spread the rumour that he was born in Sarona. This was an inaccurate report that appeared in a Paris newspaper. 2. On Paragraph 62 (in conjunction with Paragraph 76) - Concerning the keywords for the memorandum for solving the Jewish Question (Madagascar Plan) The extract from the document does not correctly reflect the content of the document; Points (b) and (c) have been omitted, dealing with the clearing of youth education (sic) and making land available. The document indicates the Accused's efforts to achieve the best possible solution relative to the political realities. The only points quoted in the Judgment do not show the Accused's attitude and aim. 3. On Paragraph 63 - (a) Running the Vienna and Prague Central Offices The Accused did not run these Offices. They were run by the Inspector of the Security Police in Vienna, and the Senior Commander of the Security Police in Prague. The Accused was subordinate to them and had to carry out their orders. (b) The Accused's brusque behaviour The statements of Witness Dr. Meyer and Witness Lindenstrauss give the impression of being later figments of their imagination. The fact that the emigration was combined with the confiscation of assets was the consequence of official policy, which was laid down in the form of legal measures. The clearing office organized by the Accused in order to comply with the requirements for emigration made life easier for those concerned. Until then they had to apply to a large number of offices in order to deal with matters, and they complained about their treatment there. The Accused's comments in a private letter to Hagen that he would "keep these gentlemen here on the run" is a common expression in the barrack square, which has become so hackneyed that it has lost any meaning as a manner of speech. On the other hand, it is a fact that the Accused saw to it that the Jews in concentration camps were able to leave the camps and emigrate. The Accused's actual attitude is shown by the memorandum drawn up at the time by Dr. Loewenherz, the Director of the Vienna Jewish Community Office, dated 19 December 1939. He complained to the Accused about the brusque attitude he encountered in other offices. It would have been unthinkable for such a complaint to have been made to the Accused if Dr. Loewenherz thought that he was the person who actually wanted such conditions to prevail. 04. On Paragraph 64 - Atmosphere of terror in Vienna (a) No responsibility on the part of the Accused can be ascertained for the degrading treatment of a rabbi who was forced to sweep the street in his prayer shawl. (b) Witness Fleischmann may be mistaken concerning the identity of the person who is supposed to have stated that other ways and measures would have to be found to get the Jews to disappear if emigration did not increase. There was no need for the Accused to make such a threat, because after the Crystal Night pogrom the Jews themselves were pressing more urgently for emigration. The difficulties were to be found not in the Jews' lack of desire to emigrate, but in obtaining permission to immigrate to other countries and to obtain the necessary Vorzeigegelder (sums of money needed to obtain the entry permit to the country of immigration) in foreign exchange. On the contrary, the Accused carried out actions towards fulfilling that aim. (c) Dr. Loewenherz's later general report dating from 1961 contains a description which contradicts his above-mentioned note of 19 December 1939. The report ignores the note. (d) Remarks to the delegation of Berlin Jews in Vienna The expression chosen here, "Konzertlager," was taboo in the offices of the authorities; its use here by the witness shows that the witness is depicting impressions on his part which might have changed subsequently. (e) Financial measures (1) The rapid financial settling of economic affairs served to facilitate the technical aspect and was one of the Accused's organizational contributions. However, the actual measures were not his doing. The decisive factor was the foreign-exchange legislation and the arrangements of the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Reich Ministry of the Interior, the Reich Commissioner for Reunification and other bodies. (2) The money received, particularly foreign currency, did not go to the Emigration Fund, as the Judgment assumes, but to the Vienna Jewish Community (cf. Defence documents). (3) The measures concerning public property were taken by the Moratorium Commissioner under the Reich Commissioner for Reunification (Defence documents). (4) Dr. Loewenherz' regular contemporary reports indicate how the resources were disposed of. Dr. Loewenherz' general report, drawn up later, ignores these earlier reports. 5. On Paragraph 65 - Re-activation of the Jewish organizations in Vienna (1) The pressure on the Jews was applied not by the Accused, but by the policy of the leaders of the State and the Party. Had the Accused not taken action at the time and allowed everything to proceed unhindered, no Jew would have been able to leave any concentration camp and emigrate, and the income of foreign currency would have been confiscated by the Reichsbank. The activation of the organizations accrued to the advantage of the Jews not only seen retrospectively in vuew of the extermination, but also from the contemporary viewpoint. (2) Witnesses Cohn and Meyer are mistaken concerning the Accused's presence in Berlin in March 1939: (a) Dr. Loewenherz' memorandum dated 19 December 1939 showed that it was not until December 1939 that the Accused came to the Berlin Central Office. (b) Documentation proves that in October 1939 the Accused's predecessor, Lischka, signed on behalf of the Central Office. But, experience shows that no departmental head will allow some other person, seven months before giving up his post, to carry out official duties in his office in his stead. 6. On Paragraph 66 - Move to Prague (1) The Accused did not move to Prague together with his superior, Stahlecker, but received instructions to go to Prague a considerable time after this, and only after Stahlecker had been appointed Senior Commander. (2) The pressure to emigrate was not exercised here by the Accused, but was based on the relevant legislation for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. These laws are available with the Government of Czechoslovakia. Application for evidence: An application is hereby made to admit these laws and regulations as evidence. 7. On Paragraph 67 - The Accused's efficiency and outstanding performance The proposal for promotion referred to here is not only a standard commendation of the person being considered for promotion, but also appears to contain factual inaccuracies. (1) The Accused was never "in charge of the Central Office" and cannot have distinguished himself as such. (2) The securing of huge assets was a result not of the Accused's initiative, but of the laws and regulations of the State.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor