Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-04-03 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 Attorney General: We have a number of statements. There is a whole file of Wisliceny's. There are two statements in prison in Bratislava, there are statements to the investigators of the American Prosecutor's Office, and there is his testimony at his trial. But all you have to do is to look at the document, and the mystery will be solved. Eichmann writes in various letters concerning the branches in foreign countries, "meine Dienststelle" (my office). This is what he writes about Paris on T/491, this is how he expresses himself about Oslo in T/593, and this is how he expresses himself about The Hague in T/552. President: Are those letters? Attorney General: Either letters or telegrams in which he calls the foreign branches "meine Dienststelle." President: In other words, these exhibits are signed by him? Attorney General: Yes, by Eichmann. I would also point out that the famous Bulgarian agreement between the Commissioner for Jewish Affairs in Bulgaria, Belev, and the German Plenipotentiary, Dannecker, as he is designated in that agreement (T/983), under which 20,000 Jews were put into quarantine just like animals who have been infected with some maligant disease are quarantined. That agreement also was only drawn up on the basis of Eichmann's initiative and approval. Dannecker reported on that agreement (in T/932) that this was done following his telephone conversation with Eichmann. After he signed, he was gratified by what had been accomplished, and Dannecker sent a copy of the agreement to Berlin together with a circular, and announced that this had been arranged following his telephone conversation with Eichmann. He promised that Belev would take care of providing Jews of good financial standing as well as those with connections in Bulgarian Government circles (T/939). I shall now reply to several detailed arguments by the Defence submitted during the pleadings here. The fact that the Accused signed all the documents with the initials i.A., im Auftrage (by order), proves nothing whatsoever. According to the 1936 Gestapo rule Department Chiefs, such as Mueller, were to sign documents with the initials i.V., in Vertretung (on behalf of), and others were to sign i.A. This is T/94, page 6. These are the instructions of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Head of the German Police dated 9 July 1936 concerning office procedures for correspondence. Justice Silberg: What is the substantive difference between these two ways of signing? Attorney General: A more senior official acts as a representative of the Chief of Department, and a more junior official acts, as it were, under the orders of the Chief of Department. Justice Silberg: Following a special, individual order? Attorney General: I would not put it that way. It is as if it is specified that "Yours faithfully" has to be written, he has no right to sign any other way. He admitted this (Session 91, Vol. IV, p. 1610). He was asked: "Q. As far as I understand these directives, you could not sign in any other way than with the addition of the letters i.A.' Is that correct? "A. Yes, that is correct." In T/681, for example, concerning the destruction of the Jewish communities in Germany, an ordinance signed by Eichmann, with the address "Reich Ministry of the Interior" he also signs im Auftrage." And when I questioned him about this in Session 92, page 1612, he testified that he had by now forgotten on behalf of whom he signed that letter. There is no disagreement that the Nuremberg Laws were wicked and victimizing laws, and there is no need to call any expert to this effect. Nor is there any disagreement about the fact that the infamous Regulation 11 created a military legal basis for the theft of Jewish property. I also understand that there is no disagreement about the fact that German law never permitted any extermination; at least my argument is that the criminal responsibility of the Army and SS for the implementation of illegal acts has not been lifted. We submitted here T/1402 and T/1402(a), which prove that Section 47 of the German Military Criminal Law was not rescinded during the time the Nazis were in power. The provisions of the Section are similar in principle to the provisions of Paragraph 19 in our Criminal Code Ordinance. Justice Agranat: According to German law, is it necessary to prove that he actually knew the order was illegal? Attorney General: This is similar to the provisions of Section 19. Justice Agranat: I understood that according to Section 19 the test is an objective one; for the German law is it necessary to prove that he actually knew the order was illegal? Justice Silberg: It says "offensichtlich" (obviously). Justice Agranat: One way or the other, do not spend too much time on this, Mr. Hausner. Attorney General: Thank you. In any case, there is no disagreement that whether or not he should have known, he knew without a shadow of a doubt, given all the tactics for deceiving, misleading and camouflaging, that he was doing something illegal in terms of his own law too. Justice Silberg: That is subjective. Attorney General: May I ask the Court to release me from having to interpret Nazi Military Law. In testimony taken in this trial, von Thadden spoke about the Foreign Ministry's dealing with Jews who were foreign subjects. We have heard a great deal here about the role of the Foreign Ministry in the extermination, and I am the last one to say that they did not co-operate or that they did not do everything in their power to despatch Jews to their deaths. But in the contacts between the Foreign Ministry and the RSHA, the Foreign Ministry was in a weaker position, as von Thadden says on page 8 of his testimony. On page 9, in the middle, he speaks about the exceptions which he asked of Eichmann from time to time, and this is what he says: "I do not know whether the Accused obtained these positive exceptions by intervening personally. Eichmann spoke in very negative terms about requests for approval of exceptions. I remember that when I approached Eichmann about approving an exception, he said my attitude was `weak-kneed.' Eichmann did not mince his words." The case of Professor Meyers, on which Counsel for the Defence wishes to base himself, proves better than any other that Eichmann was able to take initiatives and to act in these matters. In T/534, dated December 1942, a letter from the Accused's Section to the Foreign Ministry, permission is refused to Professor Meyers to emigrate to Switzerland, even in return for a ransom, because he is an intellectual. In T/535 it becomes clear that the matter has moved to Eichmann's province, several days later Eichmann again writes to the Foreign Ministry. This is Eichmann's letter to the Foreign Ministry. Prior to this Guenther signed (T/534), and then there was another application and a request to reconsider, and Eichmann announces, in T/535, that he cannot allow the emigration of Professor Meyers, not even in return for 150,000 Swiss Francs, given his professional status. This was at the end of 1942. Mrs. Van Taalingen-Dols began to deal with this, as I indicated yestereday, in 1943 as we know from N/45(a), after the intervention of Dutch circles. She travelled to Berlin, she managed to be received by Guenther, and achieved half of what she had asked for: Meyers would not be allowed to emigrate to Switzerland, but a definite promise was given, on the spot, that he would be sent to Theresienstadt and not to the East. And in order not to jeopardize what she had thus achieved, Mrs. Van Taalingen-Dols dropped her application for Professor Meyers to be allowed to emigrate. Justice Agranat: This was after letter T/535? Attorney General: Yes, that was half a year after the letter. And here we have clear-cut proof that the Accused's Section could determine as it saw fit who would go to the "Propaganda Lager" of Terezin from where there was some chance of being saved, and who would be immediately deported to the East, which was certain death. What has been stated here concerning Eichmann's position in the Generalgouvernement in Poland is unfounded. The Judgment bases its findings on the evidentiary material which was submitted, and added the following comments: "At Wannsee it was decided that the handling of the Final Solution would be concentrated in the hands of Heydrich." President: I have a note here from Session 95, Vol. IV, page 1662, where the Appellant is asked if he knew that it was illegal. Attorney General: He said that he did not worry about this and the question should be asked of his superiors. I will come to that passage. President: This is Paragraph 221 in the Judgment, where the Court clearly finds on the basis of his answer that he admitted that at the time he knew that this was something illegal. Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour, I was going to come to that in another section, but I will be pleased to deal with it now. The examination begins on page 1661, where I asked him: "In your eyes, was someone who was involved with the extermination of the Jews a criminal?" And the answer: "He was an unhappy man." "Q. Was he a criminal? `Yes' or `no'? "A. I would not venture to answer this question, as I was never put or placed in such a position. "Q. You saw Hoess doing this in Auschwitz. At that time did you consider him to be a criminal, a murderer? "A. I told him that what he was ordered to do I could never do. "Q. But that is not my question. My question is whether at heart you saw him as a murderer... "A. That is a question which affects me very personally, and if I did not express this then, I have no intention of articulating this today either, because what my inner life tells me is something which I have to carry with me on my own. "Q. How did you regard Hoess when you saw him as a murderer of Jews, how did you regard him, as a criminal or not? "A. I pitied him and felt sorry for him. "Q. Did you regard him as a criminal or not? "A. I shall not reveal my innermost feelings. "Q. In other words, Hoess was not a criminal in your eyes? "A. No, I am not saying that either. "Q. In your police interrogation you said that if the Reichsfuehrer had told you that your father was a traitor, you would have shot him with your own hands. Is that true? "A. If he was a traitor, probably. "Q. No, if the Reichsfuehrer had told you, would you have shot him, your own father? "A. I would then assume that he would have had to prove it to me. "Q. Was it proved to you that the Jews had to be exterminated? "A. I did not exterminate them. However, I would like to state here in this context that I am not trying to evade anything in this respect either, and it is my intention to ask for permission after the trial to put these matters down in the form of a book, say, in which I can express myself freely, and I am prepared to call a spade a spade, to serve as a deterrent example for today's generation and that of the future. After that the Presiding Judge addressed the Accused, saying, "I am telling you that it is your duty to say everything which you would have written in your book - to call a spade a spade. That is your duty, just as you would have done in the book." The Accused replied: "Very well, then. Having been asked by you, Your Honour, to give a clear answer here, I must state that I consider this murder, this extermination of the Jews, to be one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind." President: That is apparently what they base themselves on when they say that he knew and admitted that he knew that this was illegal. Your quotation, Mr. Hausner, was the reply to the Presiding Judge. In reply to Judge Halevi's question the Accused said: "I wish to state that I myself already at that time did not consider this violent solution to be justified, already then I considered this to be a monstrous deed, where I regrettably, bound as I was by my oath of loyalty, had in my sector to deal with matters relating to transport aspects..." The finding in Paragraph 221 of the Judgment would appear to be based on this reply, where he admits that he knew that this was against the law. Attorney General: He said that this was one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind. President: My question related to what is said about Section 47(2). Attorney General: If I may continue concerning the Generalgouvernement. At Wannsee it was decided that Eichmann would be the responsible Specialist Officer. The handling of the Final Solution was concentrated in the hands of Heydrich. Furthermore: one of the aims of the Wannsee Conference was to hitch also the Generalgouvernement to Heydrich's wagon because Frank was not satisfied with the Gestapo regime and wanted to solve the Jewish Question in his area as he saw fit. With this in mind, he invited his representatives to Wannsee. This is discussed in the Judgment on the basis of Frank's diary, T/253, which reflects the struggle for the upper hand in dealing with the extermination of the Jews. Frank complains from time to time that he does not have a free hand in this matter, that the Majdanek camp is not under his control and that the uprooting of the population is being carried out without his knowledge. The Court can find all of this on pages 4, 11, 12- 15, 18, 30, 31 and 33 in the extracts from Frank's diary. Justice Silberg: Mueller stated that the Generalgouvernement would welcome it if a start were made on the Final Solution in the territory of the Generalgouvernement. Attorney General: After the Wannsee Conference, Frank announced at a meeting of his Government that from then on, the ghettos were to be dismantled, the able-bodied Jews would be put to work, and the others would be moved to the East. This is on page 19 of the exhibit. As we know from Wisliceny, T/85 page 8, Eichmann paid particular attention to the extermination operation in Poland from the summer of 1941 onwards. In the Police interrogation, T/37 page 3116, there is reference to the dismantling of the ghettos. Inspector Less asked: What happened in respect of dismantling the ghettos and moving the inhabitants to concentration camps? Eichmann replied that this was done on the basis of an instruction from the Reichsfuehrer-SS and that this went through him. It is true that from other areas we have more evidence than what survived from the Generalgouvernement area, but what there is is definitely sufficient for the District Court to have made its findings. The traces of Eichmann's and his Section's actions are extremely clear here. References to his action in connection with the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto are to be found in the documents to which I have already referred, T/267, T/268, where he was interested in how death certificates were to be issued for the Jews of the Ghetto. And when the German Foreign Ministry expressed interest in the atrocities perpetrated in the Warthe District, Section IVB4 replied that there should be no compassion for the Jews whose fate was what they deserved, and where trees were being felled, chips were falling. This is T/245. In his letter to the German Foreign Ministry, T/347, Eichmann announced that Gershon Willner, from the Generalgouvernement, an Argentinian national, had died. This happened after a Foreign Ministry representative in the Generalgouvernement had approached the Head Office in Berlin in respect of this matter, T/346.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor