The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-04-04

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-04-04
Last-Modified: 1999/06/15

I should like to comment that this document also shows the
falseness of what Eichmann says about having to deal with
foreign nationals' affairs. There was a Foreign Ministry
representative with Frank, and you can see this on the
second page of T/346. This is signed by a man called
Jelisch, who is the "Foreign Ministry Representative to the
Generalgouvernement." But today, of course, Eichmann knows
that we can depend on the Foreign Ministry Archives, which
fell into Allied hands at the end of the War, and these
created for the Court a new image of Adolf Eichmann, one
which is made up of all those documents that we have. He
would like to protect himself by using these, and he wants
to display such an image to the Court as is reflected by
these documents. But there is also other evidence which
attests to his image.

President:  Did the Prosecution itself not argue that the
Appellant took all kinds of steps and action against Jews
who were foreign nationals?

Attorney General:  He acted against all the Jews, including
the foreign nationals. But what happened here? He burned his
archives. Where did this documentation come from? It is
based primarily on German Foreign Ministry documents, which
in their entirety - hundreds of tons of paper - fell into
the hands of the Allies after the War. Obviously the
documents of the Foreign Ministry provide an image of his
actions in which he was in touch and contact with the
Foreign Ministry. And in which matters was there contact
between the Foreign Ministry and him? The contact concerned
actions in foreign countries or actions concerning foreign
nationals in Germany. And in any case we draw our material
primarily from these documents. This explains the fact that
the dealings with individual cases primarily concern foreign
nationals, because it is the Foreign Ministry Archives which
survived and reached us.

President:  Concerning the area of the Generalgouvernement,
were the relations between the Reich and the area of the
Generalgouvernement not handled by the Foreign Ministry?

Attorney General:  No.

President:  If that is the case, how would you explain
document T/277 dated 18 February 1942? In this document
Eichmann writes to the Foreign Ministry that a greater
separation must be made between the Jewish population in the
Warsaw Ghetto and the other population, and that foreign
nationals must also be placed in the Ghetto. He writes this
to the Foreign Ministry. Why does he write this to the
Foreign Ministry if this is in the area of the

Attorney General:  That is precisely my argument. He dealt
with Jews anywhere and everywhere, including the
Generalgouvernement. But the problem of how to deal with
foreign nationals had to be co-ordinated and agreed with his
Foreign Ministry, because there were English and American
nationals and nationals of neutral countries. We will see
how cautiously the Foreign Ministry deals with Hungarian
Jews, it did not want to hand them over to Eichmann. And in
the Warsaw Ghetto, when they adopt radical measures, there
was the problem of how to get those foreign nationals out,
how not to include them in the overall operations. The
Foreign Ministry is in touch with Eichmann over this matter.

This proves my argument. If Eichmann had nothing to do with
the Warsaw Ghetto or the entire area of the
Generalgouvernement, there would have been no need for this
correspondence. Then the correspondence would have been
between the Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Governor
General, Frank. And it is precisely the fact that we see him
dealing with these matters that proves that his Section had
a hand in Jewish matters everywhere, without geographical
limits, as was decided at Wannsee.

Justice Silberg:  Was there not a link between Eichmann's
Section and the Generalgouvernement through General Krueger,
who was both a BdS man and a member of Frank's Government?

Attorney General:  How exactly the link operated, through
Krueger or Schoengrath, how the link between Eichmann and
Globocnik operated, that is very difficult to find out. Nor
did this always pass through precise command and service
paths. Frank wrote in his diary towards the end of the war,
"We established a network of authorities in the Reich which
are an anarchy unto themselves," or, as someone put it, "the
Nazi regime was the most organized chaos."

Justice Silberg:  Who said that? Frank?

Attorney General:  No, Frank talks about "the garden of
illusions of the authorities," one of which would act
without the knowledge of the other.

Thus in letter T/355 Eichmann's Section informs the German
Foreign Ministry that the Hungarian Jew Sillec, a Jewish
journalist, is not to be allowed to leave Warsaw, because he
was a witness to the events that took place there. The
letter has a marginal note by von Thadden from the Foreign
Ministry, basing himself on a comment by Krischak, a man
from Eichmann's Section, that it is absolutely out of the
question for Sillec to leave and that the easiest way is to
send him to a concentration camp.

T/345 is a letter from Eichmann's Section to the Foreign
Ministry about the Jewish family Zuckermann, Romanian
nationals. The Section refuses to allow the Zuckermann
family to return from the Generalgouvernement to Romania.
This is also referred to in the internal Foreign Ministry
note (T/357) and here too von Thadden's memorandum is
typical: "There is no point in making any further
representations in this matter."

In T/345, Eichmann's letter to von Thadden, he announces
that he is unable to locate the whereabouts of the Jew
Hersch Reifer, a Romanian national who lives in Lvov.

T/266 is a letter from the Section to the Head of Himmler's
personal staff concerning the Solution of the Jewish
Question in the Generalgouvernement, and it says there that
"the Jews currently working in the oil fields in the
Beskides Mountains are not to be deported - an instruction
has been given to the BdS in Cracow." The letter is signed
by Mueller and was sent by Section IVB4.

In the light of all of this, and given Eichmann's long arm
which reached as far as the Jews of this country too, it
will come as no surprise that the German Foreign Ministry
passed on to him the reports on atrocities which were
published abroad concerning what was going on in the
Generalgouvernement, such as in letter T/272. This is a
letter from the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann, concerning a
Jewish report on atrocities about what was happening in the
Warsaw Ghetto. And it says: I am enclosing what was
published in a book by the Jewish community in Switzerland
about atrocity stories in the Ghetto, for your information.

Justice Agranat:  What is the date of this document?

Attorney General:  12 August 1944.

And in this connection the German Foreign Ministry provides
Eichmann with the articles published abroad, in the
Palestine Post and the Egyptian Gazette, about atrocities
perpetrated against Polish Jews (T/1285).

And Eichmann himself testified about everything, about the
orders for extermination which he passed on to Globocnik,
two or three times, which the District Court discussed in
detail in Paragraph 142. When I questioned him on this
matter, at first he tried to be evasive and said that he
acted in this connection like a messenger boy, in those
words, he only passed on the papers. After that he corrected
his story and said that his action was like that of an
officer who has personally to hand over a secret state
matter (Session 96, Vol. IV, p. 1674).

Justice Silberg:  Where in the Judgment is there a reference
to the Beskides Oil Company?

Attorney General:  In Paragraph 136, Your Honour.

In another examination, when I was questioning Eichmann
about the orders to Globocnik, he admitted that he dictated
them, and he admitted that he handed them over and passed
them on. I shall read out a passage of the record of Session
99, Vol. IV, page 1711. I said to him:

     "I am going to read out a passage to you. Will you
     please tell me whether this is correct or not?
     `I was given orders to produce a letter for Globocnik.
     A letter I would have to hand over in person, I
     constantly kept an eye on. I dictated the letter to
     Mrs. Werlmann, after which this letter was received by
     Unterscharfuehrer Martin as Head of Registry, who gave
     this communication its number as Secret State Business
     and entered it into the Registry. No copy was made,
     there was only the original, and then I took this
     letter with me and either handed it to Heydrich in
     person or gave it to Mueller, who in turn handed it to
     Heydrich, and then I received this letter back through
     official channels.'
     "Is what you said here correct?
     "A.  Not verbatim, but the meaning is correct. Things
     were as follows: As I explained, I received orders to
     draft a letter of this kind which either Mueller or
     Heydrich - I believe Heydrich - signed, and I had to
     deliver that to Globocnik."

The argument put forward here that in the Warthe District
some special conditions existed, is utterly unfounded. The
Accused was active in that area as early as 1939, with the
authorization of the Head of Section IVD4. When he was first
questioned about his activities in this Section and was
still unaware of how many documents we had in our
possession, he said to Inspector Less that IVD4 must be a
mistake, that there had never been such a Section (T/37,
page 1514):

     "L.   IVD4?
     E.   No, no,{[sic]} das hiess es, glaube ich, nie, das
     hiess es nie" (I believe it was never called that,
     never, it was never called that).

He repeated his argument that it was a typing mistake to
Inspector Less at the bottom of page 1646:

"Dieses IVD4-2 ist selbstverstendlich ein Tip-Fehler." This
is of course a typing mistake, he is saying. And only when
he was shown further documents, did he begin to remember.

Justice Silberg:  Was it IVD4 from 1 January 1940 until 1
March 1941?

Attorney General:  Yes, from the beginning of 1940.

The Accused's first version of events is thus utterly false.
He was involved with this deportation operation for months,
and was specially appointed to deal with this as early as 21
December 1939, as proven by Heydrich's letter, T/170.

In a meeting on 30 January 1940, which dealt with
deportations,  he was already a participant. Together with
him there were senior figures of the reegime, headed by
Heydrich and Minister Seyss-Inquart, and commanders of the
Operations Units then operating in Poland. All of these are
mentioned in the Judgment in Paragraphs 73 and 74, and there
is no need to elaborate.

Counsel for the Defence indicated Slovakia as a country
where the Accused apparently did not intervene. There
Ambassador Ludin allegedly acted as he saw fit. It is not my
intention to clear Ludin of all guilt. He is a murderer. But
we cannot ignore the large number of documents submitted in
this connection. Paragraph 104 of the Judgment mentions some
of these.

The Appellant here completely ignores his admissions
concerning his visits to Slovakia, the pressure he brought
to bear on the Slovak Government, the negotiations he
conducted about the deportations. I would simply refer here
to one secondary episode which sheds its own light on the
affair, the episode of Fritz Fiala, the Slovakian journalist
who worked for the Nazis, and the deceptive and mendacious
tactics adopted in respect of Slovak Jewry and even in
respect of the Slovak Government in this matter.

T/1107 is a detailed report by Wisliceny about his employing
Fritz Fiala as a journalist who was sent to Auschwitz,
ostensibly on a visit, in order to publish a reassuring
article to the effect that things were fine in Auschwitz and
that no murders are carried out there and there is nothing
to fear. I do not know whether Fiala was or was not in
Auschwitz, but we know what he published from T/1119.
Auschwitz is described as a rest home. All the Jews declare
- according to Fiala - that they are treated fairly, and in
all respects humanely, and if there is anything that they
see as unfair, it is that not all European Jewry is here
yet. And one of the Jews with whom I spoke - adds Fiala -
put it this way: I must tell you frankly that we can easily
come to terms with our life, and I, who was previously in
Palestine, now state that our life here differs only for the
better from how it was before, and that we are freed from
the feverish competition I encountered there.

These are the stories which journalist Fritz Fiala published
in the Slovak press. He was hired to do this by Eichmann.

President:  What is the link between this and the Accused?

Attorney General:  I will get to that in a moment. First of
all he hired him to do this - Wisliceny testifies to this.
But when the Slovak Government wants to visit Auschwitz, and
when there is panic, then Eichmann writes: What panic? Look
at Fiala's articles, everything is fine.

T/1108 is Eichmann's letter to the Foreign Ministry, in
reply to which the Slovak Prime Minister, Dr. Tuka, insisted
on representatives of the Slovak Government visiting the
camps to which Slovak Jewry had been deported.

President:  In this exhibit does he mention Fiala?

Attorney General:  Yes. He says: Such a visit was made
recently by a Slovak, by the journalist Fiala. He published
his report in the newspaper Der Grenzbote  , it can be read,
there is no need for any visit. There are postcards which
were sent from Auschwitz to their relatives. There is no
cause for any panic.

President:  He suggests to them a visit to Terezin instead
of visiting Auschwitz.

Attorney General:  Yes.

President:  What is interesting here is that the
letters...for example when he wants to inform Wisliceny, he
does not write to Wisliceny, but to von Thadden, to the
Foreign Ministry.

Attorney General:  Yes, because when Wisliceny is attached
to an embassy abroad, he has to go through normal channels,
through the Attaches' group, or through an appropriate group
in the Foreign Ministry. This is what he must do, of course.

When a new operation was to be carried out in Slovakia,
Eichmann announced in a letter to the Foreign Ministry,
T/1110, that he was sending Wisliceny and that he had
already provided him with all the requisite instructions.
And in order to eliminate all the unjustified worries of the
Slovak Government about the fate of its subjects who had
been transported, he suggests, as the President indicated,
that they should visit Terezin (T/1112).

Another chapter of which Counsel for the Defence wanted to
make use is the chapter of Killinger in Romania. The truth
is that Eichmann's Section planned the expulsion of Romanian
Jewry which was due to be implemented on 10 September 1942.

President:  First of all he opposed this. The Romanians
wanted to start deporting Jews, and he opposed it.

Attorney General:  He said: "I am not ready yet, the time
will come." He also opposed early action in Hungary. He
said: "Your turn will come." But their turn came, and the
lot fell on Romanian Jewry. And this was fixed for 10
September 1942.

We know this from documents T/1021 to T/1023. T/1021 is a
letter sent by his Section to the Foreign Ministry
concerning a deportation scheduled for that date. T/1023 is
a telegram from Rintelen, an official of the German Embassy
in Bucharest, to the Foreign Ministry. We can see from this
that the Accused informed Himmler that all the Jews were to
be deported.

President:  What does the telegram say?

Attorney General:  It quotes here what Eichmann told Himmler
in this matter. He informed the Foreign Ministry that only
able_bodied individuals were to be deported, he informed
Himmler that non-able-bodied persons would also be deported.

Justice Sussman:  Where does it say that?

Attorney General:  Both in T/1023 and also in T/1021.

Justice Sussman:  But T/1023 does not refer to the

Attorney General:  In T/37 on page 1737 he admits that he
drafted document T/1021. He was asked about this letter: who
drafted this letter, and Eichmann says: "I drafted it, I
dictated it (ich habe das abdiktiert), this is natural
because it says IVB4 and apart from that it went to Luther."
The same thing is to be found in T/37 page 2222, where he is
asked who was this Richter who dealt with these matters, he
says Richter was my man in Bucharest.

President:  I do not understand. My colleague asked you a
question concerning exhibit T/1023, which is a telegram from
Rintelen to the Foreign Ministry.

Attorney General:  And there Rintelen bases himself on
T/1021. And this is how he starts.

Justice Agranat:  The connection between the two cannot be

Attorney General:  Perhaps you would read the first lines of T/1023.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© 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.