Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Written-Defence-Summaries-03 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 SECOND COUNT OF INDICTMENT Crime against the Jewish People I. Argument for the Prosecution (a) Subjecting the Jews to living conditions which were bound to bring about physical extermination, during the period 1939-1945. 1. and 2. Employment in forced labour camps, ghettoization. Means of Proof: 1. Testimony of Lichtman, 28 April 1961, Session 20 2. Testimony of Pachter, 1 May 1961, Session 21 3. Testimony of Zabludowicz, 1 May 1961, Session 21 4. Testimony of Beisky, 1 May 1961, Session 21 5. Testimony of Wells, 1 May 1961, Session 22 6. Testimony of Ross, 2 May 1961, Session 23 7. Testimony of Shiloh, 2 May 1961, Session 24 8. Testimony of Buzminsky, 2 May 1961, Session 24 9. Testimony of Lubetkin-Zuckerman, 3 May 1961, Session 25 10. Testimony of Zuckerman, 3 May 1961, Session 25 11. Testimony of Auerbach, 3 May 1961, Session 26 12. Testimony of Masia, 4 May 1961, Session 27 13. Testimony of Dworzecki, 4 May 1961, Session 27 14. Testimony of Karasik, 4 May 1961, Session 28 15. Testimony of Peretz, 4 May 1961, Session 28 16. Testimony of Karstadt, 5 May 1961, Session 29 17. Testimony of Aviel, 5 May 1961, Session 29 18. Testimony of Neumann, 8 May 1961, Session 30 19. Testimony of Ansbacher, 12 May 1961, Session 38 20. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45 He testifies that in the Theresienstadt Ghetto he saw a number of SS officers, one of whom was pointed out to him as being the Accused. He no longer remembers whether the Accused - as alleged - or the Commandant of the camp, Rahm, selected a certain number of inmates for deportation to Auschwitz by ticking off their names on a list. 21. Testimony of Rosenberg, 24 May 1961, Session 51 22. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52 He testifies about the arrests in Budapest, the Kistarcsa camp under Hungarian command; Novak, Hunsche and Lemeke are said to have frequently attended arriving and departing transports. 23. Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53 3. and 4. Detention in transit camps, mass deportations and transport under inhuman conditions. Means of Proof: 24. T/447-1 - Document 696 25. T/447-2 - Document 695 26. T/447-3 - Document 752 27. T/447-4 - Document 691 28. T/447-5 - Document 692 29. T/447-6 - Document 690 30. T/447-7 - Document 271 31. T/447-8 - Document 257 32. T/447-9 - Document 256 33. T/447-10 - Document 244 34. T/447-11 - Document 453 35. T/447-12 - Document 275 36. T/447-13 - Document 276 37. T/447-14 - Document 273 38. T/447-15 - Document 250 39. T/455 - Document 37 40. T/457 - Document 272 41. T/258 - Document 254 42. T/459 - Document 258 43. T/460 - Document 259 44. T/447 - Document 276 45. T/545 - Document 590 46. T/558 - Document 592 47. T/557 - Document 603 48. T/561 - Document 602 49. T/563 - Document 1352 50. T/540 - Document 623 51. T/541 - Document 621 II. Argument for the Defence As to 1. and 2.: None of the witnesses 1-19 could testify about any act of the Accused or about actions which were carried out at the orders of the Accused or his Section. The dispatch to the forced labour camps, the ghettoization, and the herding together into transit camps and places of concentration were not within the Accused's competence. Some witnesses mentioned names of those responsible for specific actions. For instance, the witness Karasik testified that the man responsible for a specific action in Poland had been sentenced and executed. As submitted under Count I, the Accused was not one of those who planned the entire Final Solution. Therefore he cannot be held responsible for those specific acts for which no elements of the offence were proved against him. The witness Diamant, who alleged that he had heard that the Accused was the SS leader whom he saw in Theresienstadt, could not confirm that the person said to be the Accused carried out the selection for Auschwitz. Means of Proof: 1. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45 The witnesses Brody and Szenes, who alleged that they had seen subordinates of the Accused (Novak and Hunsche) in the Kistarcsa camp, were not able to testify about the competence of those men. 2. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52 Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53 In addition, Novak denies in his evidence that he had ever anything to do with the Kistarcsa camp. 3. Testimony of Novak (XII) As to 3. and 4.: Rounding-up and the concentration in the East were carried out by the local offices (see the items of evidence of the Prosecution under 1. and 2.) and in the West through the BdS and their emissaries (see document T/258). 4. Testimony of the Accused before the Police, Vol. I, pp. 402-404. 5. T/447, 1 - 15. If the Accused's Section urged acceleration of the transports, that was not done of its own accord, but because it received directions accordingly. Means of proof: 6. N/12 - Document 3 7. T/544 - Document 1356 III. Submission for the Defence As to 1. and 2: The criminal responsibility of the Accused extends only to the point to which he carried out the tasks he was ordered to fulfil. His participation in the total plan has not been proved; therefore, insofar as he did not commit acts which constitute elements of the offence, or did not take part in an act as per one of the formulations set out in the sub_sections of Section 23 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, he cannot be found guilty. Neither does his presence in Theresienstadt, which has not been proved beyond doubt by the evidence of the witness Diamant, suffice to prove a criminal act or complicity in it. The same applies to the presence of his subordinates Novak and Hunsche. As to 3. and 4.: The rounding-up and the deportations were executed on orders from above. The Accused's Section took part in those deportations, but only in regard to the technical implementation of the transports. The rounding-up of the persons to be deported was carried out by the local office under directions from the Reichsfuehrer-SS. The Inspector of Concentration Camps determined which were to be the reception camps. The participation of the Accused, and therefore his responsibility, were thus limited to the implementation of the transportation.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor