Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-06-02 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 In its Judgment, the Court doubts the truth of the testimonies of Mr. and Mrs. Brand on the subject of the so- called ten per cent clause, which was most important. Thus, the other witnesses, too, might have committed reasonable mistakes which may be put down to many psychological factors. The time which has elapsed makes it difficult to distinguish between truth and untruth. The Accused too, in the beginning, had to find his way, and he may have been mistaken in some matters. However, it cannot be assumed, generally, that his testimony was false in every instance. As to the Accused's position in a number of territories, I wish to comment on the Attorney General's statements as follows: The Generalgouvernement It is striking that the Accused, in whom allegedly most extensive powers had been vested, is not mentioned at all in the voluminous diary of Governor General Frank. Judge Carmel, who was examined as a witness, also stated that Eichmann's name is not mentioned at all in this documentary evidence. This ought to provide food for thought. Is it reasonable to assume that the Accused was really the decisive personality in the matter of the persecution of the Jews? The diary has been submitted to the Court, T/253. The testimony of the witness, Judge Carmel, was given in Session 24 (Vol. I, pp. 391-396). Furthermore, the Attorney General selected France as an example of the Accused's activity. However, he did not refer to the document filed by the Defence together with the Grounds of Appeal for the purpose of elucidation. It is true that it transpires from this document that the Accused transmitted instructions, but it was only at the order of the Commander of the Security Police and the SD, Dr. Knochen, that the arrest of the Argentinian Jews was carried out. Everything done by the Accused in France was only for the purpose of the technical implementation of the deportation. The settling of technical questions was, therefore, also the purpose of the Accused's journey to Paris which has been mentioned in this connection. There, the Accused transmitted the instructions on the spot. The deportations had already been ordered, and this was the specific reason for his journey. For the same reason, too, the Section Heads were ordered to come to Berlin in order to receive technical instructions. It is sufficiently proved by documentary evidence who was the person responsible for the deportations in France. The accusation made against the Accused, that he ought not to have carried out these deportations, is laid at the door of the wrong person. The accusation should be addressed to the military commander, General Freiherr von Stuelpnagel, who, at first, demanded the deportation of 1,000 Jews. Furthermore, it ought to be addressed to Ambassador Abetz and his Counsellor at the Embassy, Zeitschel, who intervened in Berlin. It ought to be addressed to Himmler and his Higher SS and Police Leader in France, Oberg, and in the end to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD, Dr.Knochen, who was entrusted with the implementation of the orders. Justice Silberg Dr. Servatius, Dr. Knochen was Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Paris, isn't that correct? Dr. Servatius: He was Commander of the Security Police and the SD, attached to the military commander in France. Justice Silberg: Now, would you please look at the exhibit attached to the Grounds of Appeal. Dr. Servatius: I do not have this exhibit before me, but I am familiar with it. Justice Silberg: Well, you will find that the first cable quoted in this exhibit was written by Eichmann. It reads: "...and to all Commanders of the Security Police and the SD." That means that Eichmann issued an order to the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD, and that afterwards this Commander issued the order or the instruction. You quote three exhibits in this document: the first exhibit T/25(1), then T/25(2) and T/25(3). Is that correct? Dr. Servatius: Yes, these are the documents. Justice Silberg Now you will see that exhibit T/25(1), signed by Eichmann, is directed to "all the Commanders of the the Security Police and the SD." Is that correct or not? That is the first document. The second document, marked T/25(2), was issued by the Commander of the Security Police and the SD, and one obtains the distinct impression that Knochen carried out Eichmann's order. Both documents, it is true, were issued on the same date, but from the arrangement within the exhibit itself, it appears that the order was given, at first, by Eichmann to Knochen and to all the others, and that in the second document Knochen executed the order and gave instructions to round up the Argentinian nationals. Attorney General: Eichmann's order is dated 27 January, and Knochen's order 28 January. This is not the same date, so that Knochen executed the order one day later. Justice Silberg: But I quoted the cable. The cable itself is dated 28 January. Attorney General: This is the date of the stamp at the top of the document; but the date of the cable itself is 27 January. Justice Silberg: I have quoted the cable. The cable reads: registered 28 January. Attorney General: But the date of the cable is 27 January. Justice Silberg: Then it is even more convincing. Dr. Servatius: May I explain something in this respect: the fact is that the Accused, according to the order given to him, passes on the instructions to his subordinates; however the implementation - and that is the point in issue - the order is issued by the Commander of the Security Police, and Eichmann was not entitled to cause anything to be done in France on his own initiative, without an order being issued which set the entire operation in motion. In my opinion, it contradicts every concept of organization to hold the officers of the administrative apparatus responsible for carrying out the instructions of those who issue the orders, through the intermediary of that apparatus. President: The learned Attorney General did not argue otherwise. What the Attorney General argued is that, outside Germany, the Appellant gave the instructions and the locally competent authorities carried them out. This was his argument throughout. He never alleged that the Appellant in person came to Poland in order to make arrangements for the deportation. He never alleged that the appellant came to France in person in order to make arrangements for the deportation, for the evacuation. Dr. Servatius: That is correct. But the Attorney General: also argued that the Accused, on his own initiative, caused the issue of the orders in such a way. Actually, these were deportation orders which were transmitted, or which had already been passed on to the offices through other channels. I now come to Hungary. In Hungary, too, the Accused was not empowered to cause anything to be done without the involvement of the commanders. Reich Plenipotentiary Veesenmayer, when examined as a witness, with good reason claims to be unable to remember that he had ever been in that position. The Higher SS and Police Leader General Winkelmann likewise claims that he no longer remembers that, according to official instructions of the Embassy, he was at the same time in charge of Jewish affairs. Winkelmann states as a witness: "Occasionally I heard from Eichmann about measures against the Jews, and this set me thinking." The actual functions of Winkelmann and Veesenmayer in deporting the Jews is shown distinctly by the documentary evidence. In my opinion, it is impossible, in view of these documents, to saddle the Accused with the responsibility for the deportations from Hungary. It has been alleged that the Accused collaborated with the Hungarian Gendarmerie. In this respect, I refer to the note of Reich Plenipotentiary Veesenmayer to the Hungarian Government, dated 19 May 1944, exhibit N/93. It states there: The German Security Police will assist the Hungarian Gendarmerie, in an advisory capacity, in the rounding-up of the Jews. The Commander of the Security Police is Geschke, and Winkelmann is his superior. The Accused could not induce the Hungarians, of his own will, to carry out deportations. Deportations were a political matter of the highest import, which could be ordered only by the Reich Plenipotentiary, together with Winkelmann. This became distinctly evident when the Accused's commando was dissolved and he returned to Berlin. It is shown by repeated consultations between Winkelmann and the Hungarians. No delay was caused to these negotiations. It was only for the purpose of carrying out what had been agreed upon, that Winkelmann urgently requested the Accused's return. It has been proposed that the Accused's position be viewed in a particular light by singling out certain details and connecting him with them. In so doing, a distorted picture is created by linking them together. I have already commented on this. Now some further remarks. First of all regarding the Operations Units. It has been suggested that the Accused's involvement with the Operations Units can be concluded from his attendance on the occasion of the first briefing of the commanders of these Units. However, the witness Blume who was mentioned in that connection by the Attorney General, exhibit T/306, stated that during the period of May-June 1939 numerous meetings had taken place during which the commandos were informed of the scope of their functions. But the Accused attended the first meeting only. However, it cannot be assumed that already during this first meeting the non- official secret order of extermination was revealed. President: Do you mean May-June 1941? Dr. Servatius: Yes, that must be 1941. As to the compilation of the reports of the Operations Units with which the Accused has been charged, it appears from Noske's affidavit, T/307, that Eichmann did not deal with summarizing these reports. In any case, exhibit T/102 should be decisive in proving the lack of the Accused's involvement with the Operations Units. According to that document, a special commando staff had been established in the RSHA. The document is a letter, dated 21 October 1941, from Group IID of the RSHA to all Section Heads and units . Regarding the October-November 1944 foot march from Budapest, the following has to be added: In the Attorney General's description of the Accused's responsibility, it is striking that the report of the Embassy Secretary, Dr. Breslauer, has not been mentioned. This report of an eye-witness, already mentioned by me, does not fit the description of the Prosecution. No evidential value can be attributed, in this connection, to the report in the so-called Sassen Document. Even where the Accused made some corrections, this cannot be construed as an approval of the remaining text. The text was basically so inaccurate that minor corrections were not sufficient to put it right. The Accused rewrote entire pages containing corrections. However, these were not produced. Justice Silberg: Dr. Servatius, what was your comment on the issue of the march, regarding the Accused's responsibility for the march, what have you to say about that? Dr. Servatius: I have already explained that the march was decided upon by Winkelmann and Veesenmayer, and that later on Eichmann joined in the operation. It was carried out by the Arrow Cross and the Hungarians. Regarding the Wallenberg affair: 0It was only at the present stage that the Attorney General dwelt in particular upon the threat to murder Legation Secretary Wallenberg. Up to then, it seemed that he disregarded it as not being capable of proof. In my opinion, it is in fact not capable of proof. The contents of exhibits T/1243 and T/1244 should be submitted to a more accurate scrutiny and then the following facts will be ascertained without much effort: According to the letter from the Foreign Ministry, the threat of murder was made by the Head of the SS Commando for Jewish Affairs. This officer, according to the explanation of the Attorney General, was the Higher SS and Police Leader, that is to say, Winkelmann. The threat was delivered to a clerk in the Embassy by a Mr. Eichmann. Therefore, this messenger Eichmann was not known to the Embassy as the notorious persecutor of the Jews. This, however, must have been so, as the Embassy had to handle Jewish affairs regularly, and as far as they were concerned, the person in authority was SS Commander Winkelmann. It therefore becomes apparent that the responsible person must have been Winkelmann. Justice Silberg: Dr. Servatius, it seems to me that you are mistaken. It reads here: "The Commander of the SS Commando for the Solution of the Jewish Question." Winkelmann never had such a title. Now, as for the words "by a Mr. Eichmann" - that is to say that the reference is to some other Eichmann - Veesenmayer knows perfectly well who is the person in question, and he states, in his reply: "SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann." After all, it is Veesenmayer who replies to that letter. Dr. Servatius: The situation is as follows: the commander of the Commando is Winkelmann, for Winkelmann is responsible for Jewish affairs in the Embassy. In his testimony as a witness he has stated that he had never heard about this matter, and that he had heard about Eichmann only occasionally and had had his own thoughts on this subject. Moreover, it can hardly be assumed that the Accused Eichmann went to the Embassy and delivered his message to a clerk. The second document comes from Grell and he expresses his opinion without having heard the Accused. He thinks that there are just complaints against Wallenberg's behaviour.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor