Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Written-Defence-Summaries-04 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 THIRD COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT Causing physical and mental harm I. Argument for the Prosecution: Crimes against the Jewish People Para. III a-c: General description of the facts (a) Statement (see para. I) (b) Bodily harm (c) Ghetto and concentration camp Facts in detail: Para III d 1. Rounding-up en masse Means of Proof: 1. T/713 - Document 1275 2. T/717 - Document 1276 3. T/720 - Document 1277 4. T/730 - Document 1278 5. T/737 - Document 1279 6. T/742 - Document 1280 7. T/664 - Document 1281 8. T/765 - Document 1282 9. T/724 - Document 1283 10. T/753 - Document 1284 11. T/718 - Document 1285 12. T/721 - Document 1286 13. T/783 - Document 1287 14. T/739 - Document 1288 15. T/738 - Document 1289 16. T/740 - Document 1290 17. T/741 - Document 1291 18. T/750 - Document 1292 19. T/650 - Document 1293 20. T/752 - Document 1294 2. Crystal Night III d (2) Means of Proof: 21. T/37/124 - Document 108 22. T/137 - Document 69 23. T/136 - Document 72 24. T/113 - Document 1503 25. T/138 - Document 85 26. T/151 - Document 91 27. T/140 - Document 89 3. Social and economic boycott. III d (3) (a) Marking Means of Proof: 28. T/682 - Document 197 29. T/814 - Document 1150 30. T/209 - Document 1064 31. T/684 - Document 948 32. T/685 - Document 949 33. T/819 - Document 1154 34. T/751 - Document 1027 35. T/405 - Document 457 36. T/406 - Document 1259 37. T/511 - Document 1344 38. T/413 - Document 444 39. T/414 - Document 1358 40. T/529 - Document 1359 41. T/415 - Document 1360 42. T/955 - Document 997 43. T/961 - Document 425 44. T/962 - Document 237 45. T/970 - Document 1003 46. T/1156 - Document 785 47. T/1226 - Document 870 48. T/1253 - Document 1367 49. T/1250 - Document 1186 50. T/1410 - Document 168 4. Nuremberg Laws. III d (4) Means of Proof: 51. T/678 - Document 910 52. T/267 - Document 940 53. T/271 - Document 9 54. T/766 - Document 932 55. T/767 - Document 174 56. T/762 - Document 15 57. T/310 - Document 788 58. T/761 - Document 535 59. T/772 - Document 230 60. T/773 - Document 933 61. T/603 - Document 302 62. T/775 - Document 103 63. T/774 - Document 729 64. T/779 - Document 107 65. T/781 - Document 906 66. T/784 - Document 537 5. III e: Intention to exterminate the Jewish People (Cf. Exposition in the oral argument) II. Argument for the Defence As to 1. (III d (1)) The arrest and deportation were carried out by the local police headquarters (Stapo(leit)stellen). Means of Proof: 1. T/717 - Document 1276; T/720 - Document 1277 The Accused's Section in the Head Office for Reich Security was brought up to date as regards the deportation. Means of Proof: 2. T/730 - Document 1278 The class of persons to be seized was determined on a legal basis. The Accused had no influence on creating this order, nor were the measures of the deportation ordered by him. They emanated from the highest governmental authorities and were only transmitted through the Accused's Section. Means of Proof: 3. T/185 - Document 74 Record of Proceedings of the Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1941. [This should read "1942".] Here the deportations were discussed by the competent central authorities, at Hitler's direction. Means of Proof: 4. T/179 - Document 461 The superiors of the Accused intervened also in details of the deportation. Means of Proof: 5. T/742 - Document 1280 The Accused attempted to act, within his competence, as correctly as possible. Means of Proof: 6. T/713 - Document 1275 As to 2. III d (2) Crystal Night The Accused did not take part in the planning or the execution of the Crystal Night. Neither his Section nor his name is mentioned in the text of any of the documents produced by the Prosecution. Only one document contains a written note with his name. Means of Proof: 7. T/37-124 - Document 108 The Accused testified on that credibly that he got to know of the action only when it was already in progress. At the beginning of his activities in Vienna, he re-activated the Jewish Religious Community and the Palestine Office, in order to promote emigration. The destruction of equipment within the building of the Jewish Community ran contrary to his intentions. In order to counteract excesses, the Accused, on 10 November 1938, posted an SS guard in the building of the Religious Community. Means of Proof: 8. T/154 - Document 783 The Crystal Night action had begun in Austria already before the Security Police and the Gestapo were informed of it. The Police offices in Vienna - the seat of the Accused - were notified already on 9 November, at 11 p.m. On 10 November, at 4 a.m., the Police offices received orders from their superiors to arrest wealthy Jews. Immediately after the Crystal Night, the foreign exchange investigation office gave instructions that Jews were to be allowed to draw only limited sums from their bank accounts. Only the Jewish Religious Community, which furthered emigration of Jews with the help of the Accused, was allowed to dispose freely of its assets. Means of Proof: 9. T/151 - Document 91 That the measures of the Crystal Night ran counter to the plans of the Accused is also shown by the following: Means of Proof: 10. T/140 - Document 89 As to 3. III d (3) The social and economic boycott against the Jews was carried out primarily under a large number of emergency decrees. The marking of the Jews was based on the Police Decree for Marking the Jews, of 1 September 1941, Official Gazette I, p. 547. Means of Proof: 11. T/635 - Police Decree on marking of Jews The Accused did not plan this marking, nor did he have any say in the implementation of this decree. In spite of Hitler's negative decision at first, on 14 August 1941 the Ministry of the Interior had no objection to marking the Jews in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Means of Proof: 12. T/831 - Document 503 13. T/209 - Document 1064 14. T/685 - Document 949 15. T/685 - Document 949, page 2 16. T/751 - Document 1027 The marking of Greek Jews was carried out by the authority of the Commander of Salonika--Aegaeis of 6 February 1943, signed Merten. Means of Proof: 17. T/916 (should read T/960) - Document 424 In the Western areas (France, Belgium, the Netherlands), the question of marking also depended on co-operation among the local authorities. Dannecker and Lages were able to carry out the marking by agreement with the diplomatic and military authorities. Means of Proof: 18. T/414 - Document 1358 Concerning questions of anti-Jewish propaganda, the Accused was not competent. These were dealt with at the highest levels of authority, or by the experts in charge. Means of Proof: 19. T/1253 - Document 1367 20. T/1410 - Document 168 As to 4. III d (4) Nuremberg Laws The Accused is blamed for having attempted, in the implementation of the Nuremberg Laws, to equate the status of Jews of foreign nationality with that of German Jews. The Accused did not possess any power to give instructions of his own on this subject and did not develop any initiative of his own. Means of Proof: 21. T/678 - Document 910 22. T/267 - Document 940 23. T/271 - Document 9 Since foreign missions intervened repeatedly on behalf of Jews of foreign nationality, Mueller and Luther agreed on a general arrangement. Mueller dictated to the jurist Hunsche, in the presence of the Accused, the outline of the draft to be prepared (see the heading of T/271). This draft is shown in the above document T/271. Means of Proof: 24. T/761 - Document 535 Guidelines of 5 March 1943 for the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality. Letterhead: Reich Minister of the Interior; signed: per pro Dr. Kaltenbrunner. This decree was the result of an agreement on the draft by the Foreign Ministry. For the Eastern Territories Kaltenbrunner issued another decree without consulting the Accused and without informing the Foreign Ministry. 25. T/310 - Document 788 26. T/774 - Document 729 27. T/97 - Document 920 III. Submission for the Defence As to 1. III d (1) Participation of the Accused in the actions imputed to him has been proved only insofar - and that is also admitted by him - as he transmitted orders for deportation by his superiors to the authority executing them. He did not initiate those measures, nor did he plan them. As to 2. III d (2) It has been shown that the organization of the Crystal Night ran counter to the plans of the Accused and to the fulfilment of his task: promoting emigration. The Accused did not take part in the planning or the implementation. As to 3. III d (3) The organization of the social and economic boycott was based on legislation. The Accused did not take part in planning or implementing the actions imputed to him. As to 4. III d (4) The implementaion of the Nuremberg Laws took place at first by means of legislative measures (executive decree). It has not been proved that, in executing the Nuremberg Laws, the Accused attempted, of his own accord, to subject also the foreign Jews to the German legislation concerning the Jews.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor