Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-04-06 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 President: I suggest that for the sake of clarity, we should distinguish between these and give each of them a name. There is a handwritten memorandum, let us call this the memorandum. Then there is the typed memorandum, let us call this the typescript. After that there is a draft, this is dated 25 October 1941. Attorney General: I am speaking of the shortest document, the undated letter NO 997. President: Who is the person who wrote the letter? Attorney General: If I might crave the indulgence of the Court, I hope things will be explained in a moment. There is a sentence here which begins: "I have no worries about your proposal concerning the Jewish Question." This is marked at the top NO 997. Justice Sussman: NO stands for "number." Attorney General: No. "NO" is "Nazi Organization," this was the abbreviation at the Nuremberg Trials. And NG stands for "Nazi Government." President: Perhaps I can make a compromise suggestion. I gather that you prefer, Mr. Hausner, not to call this a first draft and a second draft, because you do not agree that the second draft is an elaboration. Let us call it Draft A and Draft B. If that is the case, there is a handwritten memorandum, a typescript of the memorandum, Draft A and Draft B. Attorney General: I am referring to Draft A. And the transcript of Brack's examination is to be found in Vol. 1 of the Green Series, Trials of War Criminals, pages 886-887. He is asked: "Is the name Eichmann, Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, familiar to you? "A. Yes. I know the name now. "Q. You did not know him before? That is, during the war? "A. No, not to my knowledge. "Q. Did you know anything about his activities during the war from your own knowledge, not what you heard now? "A. I cannot remember ever having heard the name Eichmann before." And here the letter is read out. "Q. Did you receive a copy of this letter? "A. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is? "Q. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But that is the date I told you. Did you receive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack? "A. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that letter, nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel. "Q. Did you have a conference with Eichmann on this problem, on the solution of the Jewish question? "A. I already said that I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I remember the name Wetzel." Now it was the turn of what we call Draft B. President: This testimony shows nothing whatsoever. Attorney General: It will in a moment. On page 888 it says: "Q. I want to put to you Document NO-365" (his numbers are different from ours) "which will be Prosecution Exhibit 507 for identification, Your Honors. This is a draft from the Reich Ministry for Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 25 October 1941." And here we have what we call Draft B: "Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct examination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the Jews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion for the extermination program? "Q. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave." I examined Eichmann on his links with Brack in another connection. This was in Session 98, Vol. IV, page 1706. Eichmann relates how he was once summoned to appear at the Reich Chancellery to see Brack, and was extremely surprised that Brack asked him, Eichmann, for the extermination programmes that Brack dealt with - the extermination of the insane - asked Eichmann to spare for Brack several of the trains that he had managed to obtain. And in the Sassen Document Eichmann writes the following: "Here I am sitting in this shop - the shop is after all the most important in the Reich, and here is this avuncular figure asking me whether he can have a couple of trains. And he is being very friendly to me because he wants to beat up a few idiots." I asked him if that was correct. He said, "Whether the conversation was literally like that, I do not know, but the gist was like that." These documents are dated October 1941. This was a fateful month. As Eichmann put it (Session 98, Vol. IV, p. 1705) he made a visit to Himmler's headquarters in Kiev, reported to Himmler on the scope of Jewish emigration, and immediately after this report Himmler prohibited emigration from anywhere in the Reich. The wall of death had already been erected round European Jewry, and the problem was how to exterminate them. There was some report or other from the Commissioner in Ostland, which was referred to in both Draft A and Draft B, dated 4 October 1941. We do not know what it was. There are two reactions to this from Wetzel: one which is undated, Draft A, sending a note of a conversation between himself and Brack and Eichmann and asking for appropriate steps to be taken. After this there is the draft dated 25 October 1941, which is based on the same report, and completes a previous letter of 18 October 1941. This is what it says there. We do not know what the letter of 18 October 1941 was. This may be Draft A. Justice Silberg: Draft A? That is impossible. Attorney General: I will explain why in just a moment. Because in Draft B things are specified. In the meanwhile matters had advanced and it was clear that it was not yet feasible to carry out gassings. The installations had to be supplied and erected. And in Draft B it says that it would be best to do this on the spot, not to bring them from the Reich. In Draft B there is a reference to requiring the assistance of the chemist Kallmeyer, whom Brack is prepared to make available for this purpose. Reference is also made to the need for operating safety precautions. It says that Eichmann agrees to the operation. Further down in Draft B there is mention of the Reich Jews being deported by Eichmann to Minsk, Riga and Lodz. This is not mentioned in Draft A. We know about these deportations from other sources, that Eichmann did indeed carry them out, and therefore what is ascribed to Eichmann in Draft B in this passage is not hidden even by himself. The letter, Draft B, finishes with a statement that it is impossible to continue with public shootings as in Vilna, because this is no longer workable. It is our argument that these are two letters, both of them were found in an official repository, one follows the other, both were exhibits at Nuremberg, and Draft B explains the development which had taken place in the meanwhile. Justice Silberg: In the meanwhile means the seven days between 18 October and 25 October? Attorney General: Yes. It is perfectly possible, but I cannot prove it, that Draft A is the letter of 18 October. Justice Silberg: Now, the letters were written by Rosenberg, through Wetzel, to Lohse. Is that correct? Attorney General: Yes, both of them. And they are both based on the report by Lohse dated 4 October 1941. Justice Silberg: So what advantage do you derive, Mr. Hausner, from the fact that these are two things... Attorney General: No advantage, Your Honour, I simply want to mention the facts. The fact that in the handwritten memorandum Eichmann's name is illegible does not mean anything. His name is extremely clear in the memorandum... Justice Silberg: Are you saying, Mr. Hausner, that this is legible or that this is not handwritten, in the memorandum? Attorney General: In the handwritten memorandum it is difficult to identify the name. President: Is it there but impossible to identify, or is it not there at all? The Judgment says that it is not there at all. Attorney General: Your Honour, I maintain that something is here and that it is impossible to identify it. That much can be seen. But in the typed memorandum it says explicitly: Eichmann. Justice Silberg: That is correct, but in the typed memorandum it says... Attorney General: It says a great many things. Justice Silberg: The Court finds that the name is not mentioned, even Wetzel's name is not mentioned. The Court states: In the memorandum it says that a conversation took place between Wetzel, Brack, and the person who is handling the Solution of the Jewish Question. The place earmarked for the name of that person who is handling the affair, the Sachbearbeiter ( Official in Charge), is left blank. It should also be noted that the name of Wetzel himself is not filled in there. In other words, the Court finds that there is no name here. And you are asking us, Mr. Hausner, to find that there is a name in the memorandum also, but that it cannot be identified. Attorney General: In my argument, I accept the Court's finding that there is no name there. Justice Agranat: I gather that you are primarily relying on Draft A and Draft B, Mr. Hausner, as well as on Eichmann's testimony in conjunction with what he said in the Sassen Document... Attorney General: What he said in the Police interrogation first and foremost, that if that is what is written, then that is correct. President: Except that in his opinion this is a result of an order from above. Attorney General: An order from above. I am prepared to accept this version. Justice Agranat: Did he say that what appeared in the Sassen Document was correct? Attorney General: The reference here is to the statement to the Police. Justice Agranat: Are you basing yourself, Mr. Hausner, on that part of Draft B which refers to the transports which he actually carried out at that time? Does this prove the authenticity of this document? Attorney General: Naturally, because it also refers to Eichmann's operations which are not subject to controversy, something which does not appear anywhere in Draft A. Justice Silberg: What is your argument, Mr. Attorney General, in respect of Draft B? Where did you get it from - from Yad Vashem? Attorney General: No, I believe this is one of the NOs which we received from the Nuremberg documents. Justice Silberg: But here it does not say NO. NO appears only on Draft A. Attorney General: It says it here too. This was submitted at Nuremberg. Justice Silberg: Does that indicate where you got this from? What I want to know is whether a document like this was submitted at Nuremberg. Dr. Servatius claimed that NO 997, i.e. Draft A, is typed on a special typewriter with large spaces. Draft B is typed on a different typewriter. Now, my question is whether you submitted to the trial a photocopy of Draft B as submitted at Nuremberg, or whether this is already a transcript? Attorney General: No, no. We did not have the documents retyped. We photocopied the Nuremberg document and submitted it in that form. And it was submitted at Nuremberg. It is in Volume 1 of the Green Series. Justice Silberg: And how was it submitted at Nuremberg, as a photograph from some German office or as a transcript? Attorney General: I cannot answer this at the moment. I assume that what we currently have is how it was submitted at Nuremberg. Justice Silberg: But Dr. Servatius explains that one draft is typed on one typewriter and a second draft is typed on another typewriter. You received many documents from Nuremberg. Can you identify the kind of typeface? Attorney General: You mean whether this is identical with other findings? If Your Honour requires me to compare the output of different typewriters, we can do so. Justice Agranat: What is the reference in T/37 to which you were making, Mr. Hausner? Attorney General: In the Judgment it is Paragraph 167. The reference is to page 2313 in T/37. When these documents were submitted to him, to the Accused, when he made his Statement to Inspector Less, the Accused said: "Yes, to this I can only say - it is all described with accuracy... I cannot raise any doubts here as to it being so." Afterwards, the Accused returns to the same subject of his own accord and says (p. 2339): "There is no doubt that Wetzel came to me on this matter. This I cannot at all explain in any other way, after reading the report - that I brought the matter up through Gruppenfuehrer Mueller - but I cannot say that Gruppenfuehrer Mueller decided in this matter - to the Head of the Security Police and the SD, and after this I informed Wetzel of the attitude taken by the Head of the Security Police and SD. It makes sense only in this way." This is what Eichmann said in his Statement to the Police. The Court did not accept Eichmann's excuses. It did not believe what he said here in his testimony. It held that the letters had been in an official repository. It accepted our arguments concerning the evidential weight of documents held in such a repository. May I direct the Court to the legal material which we submitted concerning various problems raised in the Lower Court. We submitted this material. This is on pages 42-44 of the legal material. President: Are the final arguments in writing? Attorney General: Apart from this we submitted a folder containing the main legal authorities which we submitted. This is before the Court. President: What is its title? Attorney General: Legal material that we submitted for our final argument. And the file is called: "Factual Material, Links between Items of Evidence and their Evidentiary Weight for Various Purposes." Justice Silberg: What do you mean, Mr. Hausner, by "Legal Material"? Attorney General: What we put down in writing concerning all the legal problems which came up in the proceedings, and instead of reading out all the citations we typed them up in a file. I would ask the Court simply to refer to pages 42, 43, 44 at the end - official documents as evidence. I would direct the Court to these legal references and I would ask that it apply the principles which apply to documents which were placed in official repositories. Eichmann's actions in the gas business are known to us, as I have already indicated, both from what Hoess said and also from the Gerstein documents. President: We said that during the arguments there would also be your respose to the matter of calling witnesses. Would you please comment on this? Justice Silberg: Do you not remember the passage, Mr. Hausner, where it said that he could not speak on the telephone and he could not accept confirmation on oath because proceedings were pending against him. How can he accept this?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor