Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Pleading-02-05 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 53. On Paragraph 131 The Accused was demonstrably not connected with the Reinhard Operation. 54. On Paragraph 132 - Fate of the Jews from Stettin and the territory of the Reich On the Accused's participation in the deportation from Stettin an explanation has already been given which shows that the deportation was not initiated by the Accused. Nor was it the Accused who ordered the deportation of the Jews from the Reich. The evacuation was the result of the general Jewish policy of the top levels of the leadership. The Accused had no influence on this policy. 55. On Paragraph 133 - Warthe District 1. The Accused does not deny that in the Warthegau [Warthe District] the State Police offices were under the control of the RSHA and thus in Jewish matters also belonged to his Section. But the difference was that Gauleiter Greiser, Governor of the Warthegau, also had his own right to issue instructions to his State Police offices. This is indicated by the available documents. The Accused had no centralized plenary powers. 2. Nor did the Accused as a Specialist Officer have any power of control over the Loedze Ghetto. From the documents submitted it can be seen that here as a representative of Heydrich with special authority he was ordered to attend a discussion with the OSTI concerning economic matters. 56. On Paragraph 134 - Other areas annexed to the Reich in the East 1. It should be noted that the Accused limited his Section's responsibility for Bialystok to carrying out the "work that was ordered on the deportation" with which he was "entrusted." This was primarily the evacuation. Thus his permanent deputy Guenther also only carried out the transports. 2(a) The Judgment mentioned a cable dated 16 December 1942 about the deportation of 30,000 Jews from Bialystok which contains an order from Office Chief Mueller. The cable went out via the Accused's Section. This provides good support for the Accused's claim that in such matters he was simply a transmitter of orders. (b) The same applies to Himmler's order to execute seven Jews in a camp. It was for organizational reasons that the implementation reports then also went back to Himmler via the Accused's Section. 57. On Paragraph 136 - Generalgouvernement 1. The documents and the Accused's Statement do not indicate any responsibility on the part of the Accused for the Generalgouvernement. The Generalgouvernement's independence was not limited by the absence of unlimited freedom, but by the fact that of necessity a central authority existed to clarify cases of doubt or questions which might impinge on overall government policy and were of importance to the Reich. 2. The fact that the Accused dealt with the question of the foreign Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto is no proof of the Accused's authority. An examination of the context shows that in the matter which had been taken up by the Foreign Ministry the Accused was sent with a special mission to clarify the situation on the spot. The Accused is not here acting on the basis of any general authority as a Specialist Officer. 3. The document referred to in the Judgment concerning foreign nationals in the Generalgouvernement and other Eastern Occupied Territories is signed by Kaltenbrunner. This is an indication that the Accused himself had no general authority. His Section was restricted to preparing a draft in accordance with instructions issued. The same is also shown by the letter referred to of 23 September 1943, which is signed by Mueller. 4. The Court's assumption that the Accused undoubtedly knew that the report of the natural death of the foreigner in question here was incorrect is not corroborated by any of the circumstances. 5. The affairs of foreign Jews in the Generalgouvernement were a matter which exceeded the framework of the Generalgouvernement. Consequently the fact that the Accused's Section handled such a matter also in no way proves his having comprehensive powers in the Generalgouvernement. 6. The instruction concerning the Jews employed by the Beskides Oil Company was given by Mueller. This is an indication that the Accused was unable to take any decisions. In practical terms this was a matter of labour mobilization, and it appears to be a case in which the Chief of Staff was particularly interested. 58. On Paragraph 136 - Participation in the Generalgouvernement 1. The exchange of letters between State Secretary Ganzenmueller and Wolff, the head of Himmler's personal staff, shows clearly that the transports to the Generalgouvernement as mentioned could definitely be carried out without involving the Accused's Section. 2. For the evacuation of 600,000 Jews the same must be assumed. No supporting evidence is available for the assumption that the Accused must have been involved in this. The Accused's reflections during his police examination are of no significance. This was an attempt to help shed light on matters; there is no contradiction. Witness Novak also states that he had no connections with the Generalgouvernement authorities. This does not exclude the possibility that on occasion Novak had dealings with the railway administration concerning questions of waggons, etc. 3. The evacuation of Jews from Bialystok does not concern the Generalgouvernement. Bialystok did not belong to this area. 4. The carrying out of transports within the Generalgouvernement itself from Cracow to Auschwitz must be called into question, given the circumstances that have been described. 59. On Paragraph 138 - Directives on the Jewish Question (Brown File) 1. The text of the directives was drafted by Bilfinger in Group IIA (Organization and Law). The Accused's claim that he was not the official in charge but simply centralized matters on a bureaucratic technical level appears not to be unfounded. The Court's assumption that lawyers simply had to draft the instructions issued to them in suitable legal form but had no influence on the content contradicts the practical arrangements which have been verified in another case. 3. Wetzel's draft letter about the Accused's consent to the introduction of an apparatus for killing by gas is, as evidence, to be subjected to special investigation. In the interim, Wetzel is said to have been arrested in the Federal Republic of Germany, and he should be questioned in order to clarify this important point. After further ascertainment of Wetzel's whereabouts a suitable application for his examination will be submitted. Application for evidence is reserved 3. The Accused's dealing with matters of foreign Jews in the Generalgouvernement does not prove his general powers in all questions in the Generalgouvernement. Matters involving foreigners exceed the limited powers for the territory of the Generalgouvernement. In matters concerning foreigners Mueller's decision would clearly be required. 60. On Paragraph 139 - Operations Commandos 1. The Accused did not hand any Jews over to Nebe and Rasch, but it was Heydrich who ordered the deportation to Minsk and Riga. 2. The Accused's presence when the commanders of the Operations Commandos were designated does not indicate that there he learned about the Operations Commandos' killing assignment. Schellenberg's description of this meeting is hardly credible, since his statement that the Accused personally led and supervised the Operations Commandos is clearly incorrect. 3. Nor is the sending of the Operations Commandos' reports from the Operations Units Commando Office in Berlin to the Accused's Section any proof of his participation. These reports were duplicated and went to some 50 to 70 offices. Receiving these notices does not prove contact with the Operations Commandos. 61. On Paragraph 142 - Visits to extermination camps The description of bringing Globocnik retrospective authorizations for killings rings true because no reason can be adduced as to why the Accused would have reported this strange occurrence in this form. No active support of the killings can be found in the document drawn up following orders and its delivery. It was not the Accused's intention to advance the extermination; rather, he found the entire process strange and incomprehensible. 62. On Paragraphs 143/144 - Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp In the Judgment Hoess' statement has not been recognized as evidence against the Accused. 63. On Paragraph 145 A general decree by the Accused for the killing of the Jews who reached the Auschwitz camp has not been proved. The Accused had neither the authority nor the power to issue such a decree. 64. On Paragraph 146 1. According to the exhibit submitted, releases from concentration camps fell within the competence of the RSHA. But that does not mean that the Accused's Section or the Accused himself became responsible. 2. The notifications about the executions carried out, which had been ordered by Himmler, came to the Accused's Section only for bureaucratic technical forwarding. This provides a specific confirmation of the role of secretariat on which the Accused relies. 65. On Paragraph 148 - Blobel's covering up of the traces The evidence submitted for the Accused's participation was inadequate to prove to the Court that the Accused took part in covering up the traces. But what becomes clear here is that Hoess and Wisliceny obviously told untruths in incriminating the Accused and are untrustworthy. 66. On Paragraph 149 - Bergen-Belsen Camp, Theresienstadt It has already been indicated that the Accused had no control over this camp. The person who drew up the International Red Cross report misjudged the command structure. 67. On Paragraph 150 - Theresienstadt The Prague Central Office was in all respects under the control of the BdS Prague. The latter himself designated Theresienstadt as his office and also gave technical orders. For particulars, the Accused's examination should be referred to. 68. On Paragraph 152 - Theresienstadt (continued) The statement by Witness Diamant must be reviewed. It makes no sense that the Accused, who was charged with fulfulling general duties, and who at the time in question was in Hungary, should have personally dealt with the minor duty of a selection of inmates to be deported. The Witness's recollection of the Accused's participation cannot be correct. 69. On Paragraph 153 - Bergen-Belsen 1. The Jews of Argentinian nationality were not arbitrarily rounded up and taken to Bergen-Belsen by the Accused, but this happened on the basis of orders from the highest echelons in view of Argentina's entry into the War. From these transfers it does not follow that the Accused was responsible for administering the camp. 2. Nor does the negative response to the application by the International Red Cross to visit the camp prove the Accused's responsibility. This involved a matter of maintaining secrecy, which had been ordered from above as part of the Reich's overall Jewish policy. The various aspects show that the Accused had no power to decide on the fate of the inmates. 70. On Paragraph 154 - Transportation conditions 1. In 1943 the conditions for transportation were primarily determined by rolling stock losses. The circumstances of transportation were not arbitrarily made worse by the Accused. 2. In Hungary the Hungarian authorities were responsible. 71. On Paragraph 155 - Emigration to Palestine 1. Preventing emigration to Palestine was a principle of the Reich policy of the time. Veesenmayer's cable dated 25 July 1944 confirms that the Accused referred specifically to Reich policy, and Veesenmayer does not oppose this policy, but also supports the evacuations. As Reich Plenipotentiary he does not intervene in favour of the emigration, although he would have had the authority to do so. It may be assumed that in view of the tension between the Foreign Ministry and Himmler and Kaltenbrunner, Veesenmayer wanted to stir up opinion against the RSHA, but refrained from mentioning the principals, instead shifting to the forefront the Accused who had presumably relied on the RSHA. 2. The Accused had good reasons for not wishing to acknowledge the reference to the Fuehrer's orders, according to which emigration was allegedly authorized in the case in question. The Accused was aware of the existing differences between the top echelons, and the break with the basic attitude in respect of Palestine was extremely striking. It was unlikely that an order by Hitler had been issued. The Accused could therefore rightly attempt to obtain clarification first, in order not to come to harm in the quarrel between his superiors. 3. Veesenmayer's document can scarcely be considered to be an objective description of the incident which must necessarily be given credence. Witness Veesenmayer's flippancy is demonstrated by his examination in these proceedings, where he claimed to have no recollection of having been Reich Plenipotentiary in Hungary. 72. On Paragraph 156 - Mufti The Judgment's finding that in 1941-1942 the Accused lectured before the Grand Mufti on the Jewish Question is based solely on the statement of Wisliceny, whose general untrustworthiness is manifest. Apparently in claiming that he refused the position with the Mufti that was offered him, Wisliceny wanted to achieve something to his advantage. In his interrogation by the police the Accused gave a credible description of the facts, and no obvious reason is apparent why he should have repressed the truth. 73. On Paragraph 157 - Questions concerning persons of mixed parentage The Court considers that it has not been proved that the Accused was involved in the settling of questions concerning perons of mixed parentage. However, the matter is of significance in the overall picture, because it is precisely in the handling of this question that the intensifying activities of the Ministry of the Interior came to the fore, where Stuckart, Loesener and Globke were active. 74. On Paragraph 158 - Sterilization The Judgment does not find that the Accused was involved here. However, the matter is of importance because the Court's decision is based simply on a handwritten correction to the document submitted as an exhibit. Instead of the Accused's Section, the correction inserts Office Chief Mueller as the person responsible. When examining all documents the possibility must be borne in mind of such apparently unimportant inaccuracies as the one which was corrected here. 75. On Paragraph 159 - Prevention of births 1. Obersturmfuehrer Burger, who was mentioned by the physician Dr. Munk, was not subordinate to the Accused, but can only have received his orders from the BdS Prague, who in turn would have received his orders from Higher SS and Police Leader Frank. There are no other RSHA records which indicate any participation by the Accused's Section. Had there been any such participation, written documents could also have been found here. 2. The assumption of the Accused's responsibility for preventing births in Theresienstadt is based solely on the statement by Witness Rahm who is supposed to have heard from Jewish Elder Eppstein about an "alleged" order by the Accused. This is not sufficient proof, particularly since here too no written documents which might incriminate are available.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor