Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-03-09 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 Attorney General: On the 20th of the month there was the first meeting conducted by Krumey and Wisliceny. We shall talk about this when we get to the Hungarian chapter. Had Eichmann only been carrying out orders and only doing what he was told to do, he would not have had to do anything with the Kistarcsa matter. Horthy stopped the deportations. He had a perfect excuse to wait until good relations were re- established and co-operation was restored, and he would get the Jews again. But he does not remain silent. If Horthy is not going to allow it, then he is going to use a ruse, and he will smuggle the train out himself. President: How do you explain that after Horthy did what he did, that the Appellant or his representative Novak had the power to force the Hungarians to give them trucks and carry out the deportations? Attorney General: The Hungarian gendarmerie actually followed the orders of Eichmann's unit. You will see this in the Hungarians' own reports, showing that they were actually tools of the Sondereinsatzkommando (Special Operations Unit), and the personal friendship which is praised there, between Eichmann, Endre and Baky, was doubtless also a factor in their activities, the "Arrow Cross" men - although they were not yet in power - were doubtless of considerable influence. President: Was Ferenczy already in Budapest at the time? Attorney General: Ferenczy was in Budapest at that time. We heard from Freudiger that a member of the Judenrat, Janos Gabor, was afraid to appear before Eichmann after the first deportation was foiled. In Session 52, Vol. III, page 950, there is the story of how Eichmann told him off for daring to interfere with the deportation operation. Freudiger says: "I said that Janos Gabor was a liaison officer before he was appointed to be a member of the second executive, but after he was appointed as a member, he continued in that role, and day after day he used to go to the Majestic Hotel in order to deal with current matters. He came back and said that he had spoken to Eichmann and had received a telling-off - it was something awful. Eichmann shouted at him and said: `What is this - you people are interfering in my affairs, you are here to assist us and not to meddle in our business.' He said that Eichmann was very nervous, and after that there were days when he did not want to go to the Schwabenberg any more, and he said that Eichmann had shouted at him in such a way that he was afraid to go." Justice Silberg: Is it true that on 9 July Horthy stopped the deportations, and the Germans accepted this and gave in? Attorney General: There was political pressure. Justice Silberg: Apart from Kistarcsa, did they carry out deportations? Attorney General: Kistarcsa was a deportation carried out using a ruse. Afterwards they waited until things resumed. President: When did the Appellant's unit leave Budapest because it had nothing to do? Attorney General: In August. President: Horthy's order had an effect, and the foreign forces stopped the deportations in July. Did the deportations to Auschwitz continue until July? Attorney General: Yes. President: And then in August the Appellant's unit left Budapest. Attorney General: What he said was: If that is the case, I have nothing to do, I will disband the unit. Justice Silberg: It was on 28 September that Eichmann's unit was disbanded. They stayed on for about a week. Justice Agranat: They returned in October. President: It is unclear when they left. Justice Silberg: At the beginning of October. Attorney General: They left before that. Justice Silberg: In Paragraph 114 of the Judgment it says: Himmler's order to stop all additional transports of Jews arrived the following night [after 24 August 1944]. From the evidence before us, it is difficult to know what induced Himmler to take this step... Eichmann's Special Commando was disbanded on 28 September 1944, but the Accused and his men were instructed to remain in Budapest for another week..." They returned in October. President: Horthy intervened as early as July. At the same time there were also negotiations on allowing several thousand people to emigrate. There were meetings about this, negotiations were held. The deportations were stopped at the end of July. But the Reich authorities wanted something in return for the permission for 8,700 families to emigrate. This apparently was the subject of the negotiations from July to September. Attorney General: Yes. In August there was a discuusion about a major operation that was to be implemented by municipal officials, by chimney sweeps and postmen, to pick up the Jews, concentrate them on an island and then deport them. There was a disagreement as to whether this would be carried out on 20 August or 25 August, and Eichmann wanted it to be earlier. President: Correct. There is a document about this, where he asked for the evacuation to be carried out earlier. Attorney General: I shall discuss the Hungarian chapter as a whole. I referred to the Kistarcsa matter as an example of the Appellant's outstanding zeal for utterly destroying and exterminating, without his being able to argue that he was instructed to do this. He had no such instructions. On the contrary, if he had wished to wait for instructions, he could have sat with folded arms and waited. The victims of Kistarcsa are victims of his outstanding wickedness and treachery, which were not at all required of him. The way in which he dealt with the children of mixed marriages is a further example of fanatical extremism. During the War Hitler was prepared, following the advice of Keitl, the Army Commander_in-Chief, to ignore the problem of the offspring of mixed marriages and spouses of mixed marriages, because there were people going home who were only one-eighth Jewish, they would go home from the front, they were soldiers, and they would go home to parents who were to be deported and put to death. This created problems in the Army. So the top echelons said that they would solve this problem after the War. T/526 is a report by a man called Wimmer. President: The one who was in Holland? In the Judgment he is called Schirrer. Attorney General: I am talking about T/526. President: Is that about Loesener? Attorney General: Yes. It is from the Reich Representation in The Hague, and it reports on various attitudes concerning a problem which was particularly acute in Holland, and it contrasts two approaches: the approach of Hitler, which was a compromise position supported by Loesener from the Interior Ministry, and the position of Reischauer of the Party Secretariat, together with Eichmann. When Eichmann is described in that document, it says that he is from the RSHA, that he arranged the deportation of the Jews from Vienna, Prague and Stettin to the Generalgouvernement. In T/693 Loesener stated after the War... President: When was this, when did he make his statement? Attorney General: On 24 February 1948. President: Where did he make a statement, and before whom? Attorney General: This document was submitted in the Foreign Ministry Trial, the Wilhelmstrasse Prozess , and he made a statement to one of the American prosecution investigating officers. In the same document, he also refers to the Accused together with Reischauer as the most fanatical and extreme men. On page 4 he says: "Also besonders fanatische und boesartige Judenhasser, mit denen ich viel zu tun hatte, benenne ich den spaeteren stellvertretenden Reichsaerztefuehrer Dr. Blome, Oberregierungsrat Dr. Reischauer, (Parteikanzlei Muenchen), Minsterialrat Sommer (Parteikanzlei), zuletzt Praesident des Reichsverwaltungsgerichtes, Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Eichmann (Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Abteilung Kurfuerstenstrasse, Berlin) und Regierungsrat Neifeind (Reichssicherheitshauptamt Berlin)" (As particularly fanatical and vicious Jewhaters with whom I had much to do, I will mention Dr. Blome who was later Deputy Leader of the Reich Physicians, Senior Government Cousellor Dr. Reischauer (Party Secretariat, Munich), Ministerial Counsellor Sommer (Party Secretariat), in the end President of the Reich Administrative Court, Haupsturmbannfuehrer Eichmann (RSHA, Section Kurfuerstenstrasse, Berlin), and Government Counsellor Neifeind (RSHA, Berlin). Justice Agranat: What is the meaning of the phrase, "Eichmann is also extremely in favour of the new arrangement?" What is the new arrangement? Attorney General: Sterilization. Justice Silberg: The option of sterilization, either sterilization or extermination. Attorney General: Yes. In Session 106 I questioned the Accused about these two documents. At first he was evasive and claimed that Loesener's comments were made after the War and were not evidence. President: Which page is this on? Attorney General: I will give you the page reference in one moment, Your Honour. Justice Sussman In T/526, Mr. Attorney General, it does not give the name of the man, but there is a reference to a conversation with Loesener. The person who is giving the report is not indicated. There is no signature here. President: In the judgment he is called Schirrer or Schiller. Attorney General: We will give this in a moment. The treatment at that time - I shall get to this in the chapter on sterilization - the treatment then was in connection with the sterilization of the children of mixed marriages, so that in future generations there would be no hint of the Jews. This was the plan. Justice Sussman But this document does not deal with sterilization. President: There was one tendency towards sterilizing, and another tendency towards exterminating. Justice Witkon In the Judgment it says Stiller. President: But where did they take the name Stiller from in the Judgment? Attorney General: We will check on this in a moment. I should now like to turn to the examination in Session 100, not 106, Vol. IV, page 1735. I asked Eichmann: "Do you know that Hitler himself, for the duration of the War, was prepared to turn a blind eye in the case of soldiers of mixed blood returning from the front, for whom it was difficult to meet their parents? "A. Yes, I have read that here. "Q. And Reischauer expressed the view that measures should be undertaken even against such people of mixed blood. "A. That would indeed be entirely in keeping with his attitude, yes. "Q. What was your position? "Q. As I was not a lawyer, my position was of no interest. But my personal attitude was the opposite of Reischauer's... "Q. To whom did you express it, and when? "A. That was my personal position; officially I could not express it, because I was not in fact present at these meetings, being a non-lawyer. When I was present, it was not up to me to express any professional opinions." I when I showed him Loesener's document, later in this examination, he said that this was said after the War, and this was definitely not binding. He accuses the jurists and Loesener. I tried to submit to the Court Loesener's report, which was published after the end of the proceedings in the District Court. But Counsel for the Defence objected to this, and so the report was not submitted. I would not have referred to this had the Accused himself not claimed in his argument on the sentence that in the meanwhile he had learned of Loesener's report, and Loesener was trying to clear his own name while he, Eichmann, had done nothing extreme in respect of the offspring of mixed marriages. President: I did not understand the end of your comment, Mr. Hausner. Attorney General: There is a report by Loesener... President: Where he is trying to clear himself. What does he say about Eichmann? Attorney General: There is a report which is not before the Court, and therefore I cannot quote from it. I wished to submit it. President: You said something about Dr. Servatius which was not clear. Attorney General: Not about Dr. Servatius. The Accused himself, when in arguing about the sentence, said: In the meanwhile I have learned that Loesener is also casting aspersions at me, and he was no less guilty than I was. Justice Agranat: Mr. Attorney General, you cannot make use of this report, since it is not before the Court. Attorney General: But if the Accused referred to it, I wish to explain to the Court what the meaning of this reference is when he talks about Loesener's report. Dr. Grueber, the Pastor, testified in Session 41, Vol. II, page 739, that he would receive help specifically from Dr. Loesener in dealing with things of this nature. The writer Josef Klepper lived in a mixed marriage in Germany. His wife and child were destined to be deported. He was a well_known author. We submitted his diary, authenticated by his sister, T/1135. On 8 December 1942, Jochen Klepper wrote in his diary: "I went to see Frick (that was the German Interior Minister), he still remembers everything. He is one of the most important Ministers, and in the War he is in charge of the entire civilian population. He still stands by what he promised in October 1941. He will get Renate out of Germany. But here in Germany he cannot protect her. Nobody can." President: Is Renate his wife? Attorney General: Yes. Then it talks about the action of one of the men from his Ministry, Darger. "9 December 1942, Wednesday. In the afternoon I saw Eichmann from the Security Service, after Ministerialrat Darger prepared everything in the morning. Eichmann: I cannot give you a final yes, but I think that it will be arranged. Klepper adds: 'When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, We were like unto them that dream.' "10 December 1942, Thursday (afternoon) negotiations with the Security Service. Now we die - oh, that too was decreed by God - tonight we go to our death together..." Klepper, his wife and daughter committed suicide. Does the Court wish me to go on to a new section? President: No, we shall adjourn now. [The Session ended at 13:50]
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012