Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-109-02 Last-Modified: 1999/06/14 Presiding Judge: No, Mr. Attorney General, do you have any comments on these documents? I think that you, too, did not have an opportunity to look at them until yesterday. Attorney General: What I said yesterday was correct. The telegram referred to there is the same telegram about which Judge Raveh asked, and consequently the reply given was quite correct, and I have nothing to add. Presiding Judge: Letter or telegram? Attorney General: Express letter. Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, are there any further Defence witnesses or documents which you wish to submit as part of the case for the Defence? Dr. Servatius: Yes, on the Veesenmayer statement I wish to submit two more documents which were referred to in the statement. The following documents were referred to during the examination. I shall indicate them with the N or T number. Document No. 675 is N/73. Then, document No. 871 is N/89, document No. 812 is T/1235, document No. 1021 is T/1145, document No. 372 is N/71. Then, documents Nos. 797 and 666 are still missing. I submit these two documents now. Presiding Judge: I mark document No. 666 of Bureau 06 as exhibit N/106. Attorney General: I assume that, in order to submit document No. 666, Counsel for the Defence requires a Decision under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. I do not object to such permission being given to Counsel for the Defence, only that everything should be done properly. Presiding Judge: In that case, Dr. Servatius, you are asking for such a Decision, are you not? Dr. Servatius: If the Court deems it necessary, I would so apply. Presiding Judge: Is anything known about Mr. Geza Lakatos? Is he alive, or is he dead? Dr. Servatius: I cannot say anything about that. Presiding Judge: Decision No. 97 We permit the submission of the sworn affidavit by Geza Lakatos as an exhibit in these proceedings. The Attorney General does not object, and as I have already said, the statement is marked exhibit N/106. Document No. 797 is marked exhibit N/107. Dr. Servatius, I gather from the Clerk of Court that T/1235, the document shown to Veesenmayer, was Bureau 06 document No. 212 and not 812. The T number was correct, and you erred apparently only in the Bureau 06 number. Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, yesterday I submitted a sworn affidavit by witness van Taalingen-Dols, the Dutch woman lawyer. However, this did not include the pages referred to from the Dutch text of the book, Der strijd om een mensen leven. I have had the copies made here and now submit them together with the book. This has already received an N number. Presiding Judge: I mark these passages N/105(a); the book itself was marked exhibit N/105. Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I return again to the appendices to Krumey's statement on the Lidice children. Presiding Judge: Yes. Dr. Servatius: I have already said that I was only contesting the first document, which appears as a copy - at the top it says "Authenticated Copy," and then in Polish it says "Opis" (copy), and below it says, "...No special care is required." What is striking is the following: For every single document there is a statement in writing authenticating completeness and accuracy, and every time it says, as far as I can make out the Polish here, "This photocopy is complete and accurate," and a typewritten page, and then for every sheet there is a declaration to this effect by the Ministry...the Ministry of Justice, the Polish Ministry of Justice. Presiding Judge: No, I believe it is the Czech ministry, Dr. Servatius, not the Polish one. Dr. Servatius: Yes, I see that too - it comes from Prague. Presiding Judge: Yes. Dr. Servatius: I only looked at the language and ascertained that it was a Slav language. So what is striking is that, precisely in the case of this important first document, there is no such statement of authentication. Consequently I would ask for this document not to be admitted in evidence, or to act accordingly. Presiding Judge: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Attorney General? Attorney General: First, as regards the translation: We have always translated "Sonderbehandlung" as "special treatment." Here the words "besondere Fuersorge" appear, so that the translation should be different, "special care." Judge Halevi: This distinction should have been made already yesterday. This was not properly defined yesterday in the translation. Attorney General: Your Honour, this document was submitted during Krumey's examination, and any objection or comment should have been made when the document was submitted to the witness, to Krumey. The document now reached us as a part of Krumey's statement, and it is impossible to make comments here, or to make objections which were not made there. The proper place for such a comment as to the evidentiary weight of the document is perhaps yet in the final submission. I do not say that that would be out of place, but an application to reject the document is no longer in order. I am not aware of Counsel for the Defence - who was present at Krumey's examination - having made any such objection to this passage. Presiding Judge: He could also have indicated such objection with the request that the question be passed on to the Court here for decision. Attorney General: Yes, he could have done so, but he did not in fact do so. As far as I know, Krumey was also not asked to comment on that passage, so that I do not think that now is the time and place for any comments in that regard. Judge Raveh: Which passage is being referred to? Attorney General: I understand that Counsel for the Defence refers to the words, "eine besondere Fuersorge is nicht erforderlich." That appears in the document. Judge Raveh: He reacts to that in his evidence on page 8. Attorney General: That is not the point. He was not asked there whether the document is genuine or not - that is the problem. That is how I understand Counsel for the Defence. Whether this passage was a later addition, whether the document is a true copy or not - about that Krumey was not asked. Judge Raveh: Do you know who showed the document to the witness? Attorney General: That is what I asked my colleague, Mr. Bach, to check. I can only say that, to the best of my knowledge, this document was not available to my representative when he examined Krumey, so that the document cannot have come from us. Presiding Judge: Anything else, Dr. Servatius? Dr. Servatius: This document was not submitted by the Defence. Presumably the witness himself had the document in his possession. I do not know where else it could have come from. I assume that it was produced because it says there that the children were to be sent on via the Polish camps there. This supports the case for the Defence, but the last sentence, "No special care is required," is to its detriment. Apparently, it was then not known that all the other documents were authenticated by special certification of the ministry, while this document does not have this, and presumably no one knew enough Czech to see that at the top there it says "opis" again. Presiding Judge: Perhaps someone can help us out here. Opis, that means copy, does it not? In Polish it is "odpis" is it not? Attorney General: I do not know what it is in Czech. Presiding Judge: It is something similar. Perhaps Dr. Robinson can assist us here. There is another word, or something, in the first line. Dr. Robinson File number. Attorney General: Dr. Tabor, who studied in Czechoslovakia, also states that "opis" is Czech and means copy. Presiding Judge: Decision No. 98 It is not clear by whom the document in question was shown to witness Krumey. It is not impossible that it was submitted by the witness Krumey himself. However, we do not find that the representative of the Defence raised any objection when this document was submitted. For this reason, this document is admitted in evidence, without, however, at this stage expressing any opinion on the evidentiary weight of the document. Dr. Servatius, do you have any further matters to raise? Dr. Servatius: Yes. In his examination, the Accused referred to various documents from Poliakov's book, viz. with regard to the question of special treatment he referred to various matters. I submit these passages as evidence for the record. This is from Poliakov (Red), pages 299-302. It is from the book, The Third Reich and its Servants. Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/108. Dr. Servatius: I also wished to submit material from volume II of the German edition of the proceedings against the main war criminals, namely Keitel's statements about the extermination of the Jews. On page 494 witness Lahousen is being examined, and he states the following in reply to questioning by Colonel Amann, the American prosecutor - Presiding Judge: So is this Lahousen or Keitel? Dr. Servatius: About Keitel. Lahousen is testifying about what Keitel said to him in conference, what he heard. Attorney General: I understand that if I find other passages in this statement, I shall be entitled to refer to these other passages. For the moment I am not familiar with any of Lahousen's statement, and therefore I do not know whether all of the relevant passages are reproduced here. Presiding Judge: In that case, Dr. Servatius, you will not object to Lahousen's statement being submitted in its entirety, and you will draw our attention to those passages which are of interest to you? Dr. Servatius: I agree to that. However, I have only photocopied these passages here, and I assume it will be sufficient if I just give the other page numbers. Presiding Judge: Yes, that is perfectly all right. Dr. Servatius: Colonel Amann asks witness Lahousen: "In order to ensure that the record can be understood properly, which particular measures did Keitel say had already been agreed upon? "Lahousen: According to the presentation of the then Chief of the Army Supreme Command, there had already been agreement on the bombing of Warsaw, the shooting of the ethnic categories and groups in Poland indicated by me. "Colonel Amann: Which were these? "Lahousen: Yes, these were primarily the Polish intelligentsia, nobility and clergy, and of course the Jews." That will suffice. I would also like to add the next question. "Colonel Amann: What, if anything, was said about possible co-operation with a Ukrainian group? "Lahousen: Yes, by the then Chief of the Army Supreme Command who was passing on a directive which he had evidently received from Ribbentrop, because he announced it in conjunction with the political plan of Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop - Canaris was instructed to create a movement of insurrection in the Galician Ukraine, the purpose of which was to exterminate the Jews and Poles." That is the end of my submissions. Presiding Judge: [To the Clerk of Court, Mr. Bodenheimer] The third volume as well, please. I see that Lahousen's statement in the Blue Series starts on page 509, second volume and continues in the third volume - I do not think it continues over to the fourth volume, but it does continue to the third volume, so I mark this testimony in its entirety N/109, and the passage submitted by Dr. Servatius is marked N/109a. I gather from you then, Dr. Servatius, that the Accused has no further Defence witnesses or documents which he wishes to submit in his defence. Dr. Servatius: No, that concludes my case for the Defence. Presiding Judge: Very well. I thank you, and that then concludes the case for the Defence. Attorney General: With the permission of the Court, first I have two items of evidence which I cannot submit as rebutting evidence, but I wish to notify the Court that they are before me, and the reason why I am informing the Court of this, is so that the Court can consider the position and decide whether it wishes to exercise its power and admit them as evidence for the Court. I have an affidavit by a Dr. Rudolf Vrba, which was received only yesterday, in conjunction with our document No. 4, and which we tried to submit. This is the report about Auschwitz which was drawn up already in 1944. Presiding Judge: An affidavit by Dr. Vrba? Attorney General: Yes, Dr. Vrba's statement given on 18 July 1961 in London, which was received here only just now. In this statement Dr. Vrba describes his duties in Auschwitz; one of his duties was in the records department, how the number of victims listed in document No. 4 was arrived at - document No. 4 which we wished to submit and which, as the Court will remember, was contested by the Defence. Dr. Vrba describes here why the figure given by him is correct. He indicates his method of calculation, and also possible errors, not more than plus minus ten per cent, as well as his calculation for the total number of victims at Auschwitz, and arrives at a figure of two and a half million. According to the rules of evidence, I could only have submitted this document if it were something completely unexpected and unknown to me. However, I am not claiming that this is so, because I knew that Dr. Vrba was alive. But I tried to submit the report in the same way that we submitted the other documents on this subject. But when an objection was made, I said, at the suggestion of one of the judges, Dr. Raveh, that I would contact Dr. Vrba, and this is now the result of my approach to Dr. Vrba. To the extent that it is of interest to establish the figures - and I believe that this is of interest - this document is a valuable and important one; it explains one of the documents which was submitted at Nuremberg, because the last pages of document No. 4 were submitted as a document at the Nuremberg Trial. Presiding Judge: Which document? Attorney General: The two pages showing the calculations. Presiding Judge: But these two pages are not now before the Court. Attorney General: No, but in this document there is a precise description of them. Presiding Judge: In this affidavit?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor