Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-072-03 Last-Modified: 1999/06/08 Attorney General: May I be permitted to mention briefly two documents which have already been submitted - T/217 and T/218. T/218 is the report by Hoess clarifying the matter of the operation for eliminating the traces. And T/217 is what Hoess writes about Blobel, who was given orders by Eichmann to visit the extermination installations at Kulmhof, on the visit to Kulmhof and on the employment of Kommando 1005 in eliminating the traces. Kulmhof was the extermination camp of Chelmno. The Polish Government Commission's report on Auschwitz is our No. 1376. I submitted a German translation of it, when I submitted one photograph of the official translation, which was identified. I shall give Dr. Servatius the extra copy I have in German. Judge Raveh: Do you have a Hebrew translation? Attorney General: We did not prepare this translation because it was itself a translation - we found the German translation. If the Court will permit us, we shall request from Poland or from Germany two more booklets in German and shall produce them to the Court. Presiding Judge: We ask you to do so, if possible. The report in Polish is marked T/1358. Attorney General: The Court will find in this Polish Government report, a detailed list of the various articles of clothing left on the spot after the evacuation - after the covering up of the traces. Presiding Judge: How was this German translation marked? It was submitted yesterday, it was T/1329. Attorney General: Then I would merely ask for it to be noted in the record that T/1329 is the German translation of the document that has just been submitted. The Court will find on page 62 of the Polish version, in the extract "Robbery of the victims' property," that "The extent of the robbery may be learned from the fact that, within the Auschwitz camp area, there were thirty- five warehouses for sorting and packing the personal effects. Before the evacuation, the Germans burned down twenty-nine warehouses, together with the personal effects stored in them. In the six remaining warehouses, there were found 348,820 sets of men's suits, 836,255 sets of women's wear, 5,525 pairs of women's shoes, 38,000 pairs of men's shoes, 13,964 rugs, and so forth." I mention the details because we also mentioned them in the charge sheet. Our next document is No.4. This is the report of the two young men who fled to Slovakia, which has already been mentioned by the witness Freudiger. The document has been certified by an affidavit from Oscar Yeshayahu Karmil, previously Krasnansky, who now lives in Cologne. He received this report, recorded what the men had to say and, according to what he himself says, wrote the introduction. And, in his own words: "Already in the autumn of 1942, I sent the detailed evidence of a young man who managed to escape from the area of Lublin. In the summer of 1943, I sent a comprehensive report by a survivor - one of the very few of those from the extermination camp in Treblinka who remained alive. "These testimonies ought to be found amongst the documents that were forwarded constantly at that time to the rescue mission in Istanbul and to Nathan Schwalb in Geneva." Presiding Judge: When did Mr. Karmil receive these statements? Attorney General: At the time of the young men's escape. Presiding Judge: In 1943? Attorney General: In 1944. Presiding Judge: Where? Attorney General: In Bratislava, I believe. Presiding Judge: And Mr. Karmil lives in Cologne? Attorney General: Yes. My reply was inaccurate, Your Honour. He obtained them in Slovakia, about one hundred kilometres to the east of Zilina, in a place where the men were hidden until they recovered their strength and papers were arranged for them. He writes this in paragraph C of his affidavit. Presiding Judge: Is there information as to what was the subsequent fate of the two young men? Attorney General: We heard yesterday from the witness, Mrs. Vera Alexander, that Dr. Vrba lives in London, and the other one is apparently also alive. Fredi Wetzler is the second one. At any rate, if we have the authentication of the person who took the statement, we believe that this authentication should be sufficient for the purpose of admitting the document. I understand that there is no objection - Defence Counsel actually says that he is interested in having the document submitted. Presiding Judge: Very well, but let us hear from him whether that is the case. Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge. This document is, perhaps, the one document submitted so far concerning the camps which contains a measure of accuracy. It states here, specifically and in detail, how many transports arrived, and what were the numbers of prisoners detained in the camp. Thereafter, on the basis of this, one arrives at the figure which I have already mentioned. Notwithstanding that, there appears on the last page a table of figures which deviates from the total reached in the body of the document. Here we have different figures. The number given is higher than the number of people who were put to death in the gas chambers in Birkenau from April 1942 to April 1944, and it is not clear who drew up the table which appears on this last page, and on what authority these figures which, as I have said, contradict the total of the numbers in the body of the document were arrived at. Hence, in my opinion, it is of importance to hear the evidence of these two men and to examine them on the question how they arrived at this total and these figures. I have gone over the document, I have studied it. It mentions there a total of 125,000 within the document itself, and afterwards it states that, apart from this number, additional people were also killed by gassing in Birkenau. And perhaps it would be possible to learn something, through this method of research and determination of the figures, about other camps as well. From this, it should also be possible to deduce a conclusion as to whether people were exterminated elsewhere, or not. Presiding Judge: What is your attitude to the admission of this document in evidence? This is apparently not so simple, Mr. Hausner. Attorney General: Certainly, if there is an objection, I shall not submit the document. For me, it is not essential. I thought that out of fairness to Defence Counsel, it would be required. If I have anything in my possession, I bring it to the notice of the Court. If Defence Counsel does not want it, I shall not submit it. Presiding Judge: Let us hear the final attitude of Defence Counsel. My question was: What is your attitude to the submission of this document? Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the submission of this document, except for the last page, which is a separate document. It also appears elsewhere as a document by itself. And in this document, on this last page, a total is given which is six times the number which the young men mention within the body of the document. Presiding Judge: This is a complete document, and is it your contention that the last page belongs to this document? Attorney General: This is a complete document, and the authentication applies to the whole document, including these pages. I am not prepared to remove these two pages from the document. Presiding Judge: Two pages or one? Attorney General: One page. That is the one before the last. The last page is a sketch. Judge Halevi: Is it not possible to obtain an affidavit from the person who compiled this report, Dr. Vrba? Attorney General: There is such an affidavit from him. Judge Halevi: This is an affidavit of the person who received the report, but what about the person who drew up the document? Presiding Judge: I should, first of all, want to hear the reply of Dr. Servatius. We have now heard that the Attorney General is prepared to submit the document either as a whole, or not at all. I think it is his right not to submit it, if he does not wish to do so. Dr. Servatius: Then let him utilize his right not to submit the document, since he will not be able to reconcile the differences. Attorney General: If it so pleases him, the document will not be submitted. The next document is our No. 116. This was the document known as L 022 at the International Military Tribunal, and it is a confirmation from the archives of the United States, the State Department, which states that according to a conservative estimate, conforming to data which were received in the United States, on the basis of the reports of the two young Slovakian men and a Polish major, there were exterminated in Birkenau, between April 1942 and April 1944, 1,765,000 souls. This is a document which the American prosecution submitted at Nuremberg. Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what about this document? Dr. Servatius: It is obvious that these are the same two young Slovakian men who submitted their report here. Presiding Judge: But a Polish major associated himself with them - I see that here. Dr. Servatius: The existence of the Polish major cannot serve to multiply the figure by six. That is a matter which needs further elucidation. In my opinion, there is no probative value to this document, since it contains an estimate from an anonymous source which was not capable of better consideration than the testimony of these two young Slovakians who arrived at a different numerical total. Attorney General: With the Court's permission, I am not called upon to explain alleged discrepancies contained in a document which has not been submitted. But I want to say, since there has been so much talk about these contradictions, that, in actual fact, there is no discrepancy. If Defence Counsel would kindly examine the report, the numbers appearing therein refer to people who were given numbers at Auschwitz and, after receiving their tattoo marks, were taken away to be exterminated, whereas, at the end, there appears the total number of people who were taken away to be exterminated, and who had not undergone any process of classification and registration. Hence, there is no discrepancy at all. But if Defence Counsel objects to the submission of document 4, I shall not submit it. That is still his right. Presiding Judge: Regarding this last point, it seems to me that it follows the previous document. Someone here has to adopt a stand. It is based on the report of the two Slovakians. Attorney General: Certainly. Presiding Judge: Now that we know, from your remarks, that you have a more direct testimony on the statements of the Slovakians, I do not think - I have not yet discussed this with my fellow judges - it seems to me that we are not able to accept this source, which is still further removed. Attorney General: This is a document emanating from the War Refugee Board in Washington. Presiding Judge: The heading above consists of two items: "Auszug eines Berichtes des Kriegsfluechtlings-komitees, Washington, D.C., etc." (Extract from a Report of the War Refugee Board, Washington, D.C., etc.) "Report consists of two accounts of escaped concentration camp inmates - two young Slovakian Jews and a Polish major." Attorney General: This is an independent document of the War Refugee Board of the United States which on the basis of sources it discloses, arrived at this total of those exterminated at Birkenau. This document, at all events, is entitled to stand by itself, as it did at Nuremberg. I apply for it to be admitted. Presiding Judge: The fact that it was submitted at Nuremberg, with all due respect to Nuremberg, does not give it added weight. Either it is admissible or it is not admissible according to our law. You have something which is nearer the source. Of course, if you want to take this back, if you want to clarify the matter further with Dr. Servatius, by all means do so. After all, we are not playing a game of hide-and-seek. Attorney General: Certainly not. I, in fact, said at the outset that I wanted to submit the report, but I am not prepared now to bring these two men from abroad to testify on this report. I am ready - should Defence Counsel so desire - to clarify with the people who drew up the report the factors comprising this calculation in their testimony, but I am not prepared to bring them here to give evidence. I am not prepared to involve the State in these unnecessary expenses. Presiding Judge: That is correct. Attorney General: I do not need it, and I am not going to do it. Presiding Judge: This apparently requires a little further elucidation between you. Something somewhat more useful may emerge from that than this argument. Attorney General: As the Court pleases. Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you say? Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, if what we are talking about here is exclusively concerned with the criminal proceedings against Adolf Eichmann... Presiding Judge: Yes, this discussion relates to the criminal proceedings against Adolf Eichmann. Dr. Servatius: But the discussion also concerns a historical matter. This is a question of history. There is an issue here of a correct authentication, the proper assessment of the number of victims, and that is an important matter. Therefore, I assume, there is definitely room for hearing these two young men, in order to deal with the problem: How did they arrive at their numerical conclusions, and how did they reach the numerical totals on that last page? Judge Halevi: Attorney General, Mr. Hausner, perhaps the discrepancy which Defence Counsel contends with can be cleared up. You say there is no discrepancy. You have an explanation; that is clear, we understand that. The explanation is that the lesser numbers are based upon the tattooed marks, whereas the total on the last page is the total of all of them. Why should it be impossible to accept an affidavit from one of those who compiled the report that this, in fact, is the explanation. Perhaps that would clear up the issue? Attorney General: Certainly, I am quite ready to try to secure this. I do not want it to become a condition for the admission of the document. I ask the Court to accept the document. If Defence Counsel objects to the submission of the document, and the Court accepts his view, then I understand that it does not wish to admit the document - and I shall not submit it. Judge Halevi: But, Mr. Hausner, as Dr. Servatius has said, an exact determination, as far as possible, of the number of victims at Auschwitz is very important. Attorney General: Undoubtedly. Judge Halevi: Why not make one small further effort?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor