Appeal Pleading 02-01, Eichmann Adolf


15 February 1962
re: Criminal Appeal 336/61
Adolf Eichmann versus The Attorney General

In my capacity as Counsel for the Defence I hereby submit
the following arguments supplementary to the pleadings dated
31 January 1962


I hereby make application to allow the hearing of the
witnesses whose names appear below and to issue an official

I. Witnesses from Israel

1. Shioni [sic – should be Shimoni] (Israel), already
summoned as a witness in the Court of First Instance but not
examined. Address in the Court records.

2. Thoar [sic – should be Tohar] (Israel), already summoned
in the Court of First Instance. Address in the Court

3. Minister of Justice of the State of Israel, Dr. Dov Josef
[sic – should be Joseph], Jerusalem.

4. Joel Brand, Tel Aviv, Israel, examined in the Court of
First Instance, address in the Court records.

5. Shaim Barlasz [sic – should be Chaim Barlas]

1944 Jewish Agency main representative in Constantinople

6. Benjamin Yaakov Griffel, 1944 Head of the Aguda [sic –
should be Agudat] Israel in Constantinople

7. Venia Pommeranz
1944 with the Jewish Agency in Constantinople

8. Ehud Avriel
1944 with the Jewish Agency in Constantinople

9. Menachem Bader
1944 in Constantinople with the Va’ada Ezra ve-Hatsala.

10. Moshe Sharet [sic – should be Sharett]
1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative

11. Zvi Yechieli
1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative

12. Reuven Zaslany
1944 in Aleppo, Jewish Agency representative

13. Samu Hirschmann
1944 in Cairo

14. Shaim [sic – should be Chaim] Weizmann

1944 President of the Jewish Agency, Tel Aviv
15. Secretary Itkin
1944 at the office of President Weizmann, Tel Aviv

The Witnesses are to testify as follows:

(a) The Witnesses under (1) and (2) (Shioni and Thoar) that
they carried out the abduction of the Accused from Argentina
on official orders and were commended by the Government for
their actions.

Their examination is relevant because the evidence show that
the abduction was an illegal Act of State. This fact should
have been taken into account before the Court of First
Instance and have led to the dismissal of the indictment.

(b) The Witness under (3) (Minister of Justice Dov Josef)
that the Argentinian Government did not abandon legal action
by the Argentinian State in respect of the violation of the
law caused by the abduction of the Accused;

that the Argentinian Government made enquiries concerning
the kidnappers who were present in the State of Israel and
applications to that effect were made to the Government of
Israel. The examination is relevant in the light of the fact
that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance states that
the violation of the law was settled by agreement between
the States of Argentina and Israel.

(c) The Witnesses under (4) to (9) (Brand, Barlasz, Griffel,
Pommeranz, Avriel, Bader) that the representative of the
Hungarian Jews, Joel Brand, told them in Constantinople in
1944 that the Accused had made an offer to him, after a
promise of a provisional agreement by the Jewish
representation in Constantinople for the supply of 10,000
lorries, to allow 100,000 Jews to leave immediately for
foreign countries;

that until then the deportation of the Jews from Hungary
would continue, but that the deportees would be taken to

that he did not tell them that the Accused had promised that
he would put an end to the gassings in the Auschwitz gas

(d) The Witnesses under (10) to (12) (Sharet, Yechieli,
Zaslany) that Joel Brand made the same report to (10) Moshe
Sharet in the presence of an English officer in Aleppo as he
made to the Jewish Agency meeting in Constantinople.

(e) The Witness under (13) (Hirschmann) that Joel Brand gave
him the same information when he was in detention in Cairo
in 1944 as he gave to Witnesses (1) to (10).

(f) The Witnesses under (4), (14) and (15) (Brand, Weizmann,
Itkin) that in 1944 Joel Brand submitted a memorandum to
them about the offer made by the Accused, which inter alia
contained the same information as was reported by him to the
Witnesses (1) to (11) above;

that this memorandum still exists in the Presidential Office
of Witness Weizmann.

The examination of the Witnesses is relevant in respect of
the Court’s assumption that the witness Joel Brand erred in
his statement concerning the “advance performance” of the
departure of 100,000 Jews.

This clarification is important to the Accused because the
promise made by him, contrary to the Court’s assumption that
the Accused prevented the halting of the persecution of the
Jews, indicates the contrary.

II. Documents in Israel

16. Admission of the memorandum referred to under I (f),
which was submitted by Joel Brand to the Witness under (12)
Chaim Weizmann, as is offered for proof under I (f).

The admission is relevant for the same reason as the
testimony of the Witnesses listed under I.

The examination of the Witnesses referred to under I can be
dispensed with if the memorandum is admitted.

17. Admission of the book written by the Accused between the
Judgment and sentence concerning his official activities and
his mental approach to the events which form the subject of
the indictment.

If the Defence should not be able to submit this document
because it is withheld by the police authorities or the
State Attorney’s Office, an application is hereby made for
the document to be admitted through official channels.

III. Witnesses from the Federal Republic of Germany

18. Expert Dr. Seraphim, Lecturer at the University of

The Witness can testify that according to his findings as a
historian of the Nazi period in Germany

(a) applications for transfers from one post to another were
not allowed as a matter of principle and involved the risk
of disciplinary penalties.

(b) that any open refusal to obey orders was punished by
death, and that therefore no resistance was offered to
unlawful orders.

The examination of the Witnesses is relevant, inter alia, as
against the statement made by Witness Six, who was examined
in the Court of First Instance and stated that if the
Accused had refused to obey orders, he would not have risked
life and limb.

IV. Further examination of the Accused

I hereby apply

19. for the requested examination of the Accused as witness,
in order to supplement his statements in the Court of First
Instance, with particular reference to clarifying the points
listed in B below.

The examination is relevant having regard to the fact that
the Accused, because of the great quantity of material
presented to him, was unable to recognize fully the
significance and weight of various facts which were decisive
for the convistion in the Court of First Instance, and was
therefore unable to comment on them when interrogated.

Facts to be elucidated

Observations on the Judgment of the Court of First Instance
in the order of the Paragraphs of the Judgment

I. Paragraphs 1 to 55 – Competence: No observations.

II. Paragraphs 56 to 57 – Persecution of the Jews in

1. On Paragraph 61 – (a) The District Court’s assumption
that Wisliceny was one of Eichmann’s main assistants is
erroneous. Wisliceny was one of the main assistants of the
Police Attache in Slovakia and of the Senior Commander of
the Security Police in Greece. The reason why Wisliceny was
not promoted was because he was not married, and chances of
promotion depended on this, and not because the Accused was
promoted over his head.

(b) It is not correct that the Accused himself spread the
rumour that he was born in Sarona. This was an inaccurate
report that appeared in a Paris newspaper.

2. On Paragraph 62 (in conjunction with Paragraph 76) –

Concerning the keywords for the memorandum for solving the
Jewish Question (Madagascar Plan)

The extract from the document does not correctly reflect the
content of the document;

Points (b) and (c) have been omitted, dealing with the
clearing of youth education (sic) and making land available.

The document indicates the Accused’s efforts to achieve the
best possible solution relative to the political realities.

The only points quoted in the Judgment do not show the
Accused’s attitude and aim.

3. On Paragraph 63 – (a) Running the Vienna and Prague
Central Offices

The Accused did not run these Offices. They were run by the
Inspector of the Security Police in Vienna, and the Senior
Commander of the Security Police in Prague. The Accused was
subordinate to them and had to carry out their orders.

(b) The Accused’s brusque behaviour

The statements of Witness Dr. Meyer and Witness
Lindenstrauss give the impression of being later figments of
their imagination.

The fact that the emigration was combined with the
confiscation of assets was the consequence of official
policy, which was laid down in the form of legal measures.

The clearing office organized by the Accused in order to
comply with the requirements for emigration made life easier
for those concerned. Until then they had to apply to a large
number of offices in order to deal with matters, and they
complained about their treatment there.

The Accused’s comments in a private letter to Hagen that he
would “keep these gentlemen here on the run” is a common
expression in the barrack square, which has become so
hackneyed that it has lost any meaning as a manner of

On the other hand, it is a fact that the Accused saw to it
that the Jews in concentration camps were able to leave the
camps and emigrate.

The Accused’s actual attitude is shown by the memorandum
drawn up at the time by Dr. Loewenherz, the Director of the
Vienna Jewish Community Office, dated 19 December 1939. He
complained to the Accused about the brusque attitude he
encountered in other offices. It would have been unthinkable
for such a complaint to have been made to the Accused if Dr.
Loewenherz thought that he was the person who actually
wanted such conditions to prevail.

04. On Paragraph 64 – Atmosphere of terror in Vienna

(a) No responsibility on the part of the Accused can be
ascertained for the degrading treatment of a rabbi who was
forced to sweep the street in his prayer shawl.

(b) Witness Fleischmann may be mistaken concerning the
identity of the person who is supposed to have stated that
other ways and measures would have to be found to get the
Jews to disappear if emigration did not increase.

There was no need for the Accused to make such a threat,
because after the Crystal Night pogrom the Jews themselves
were pressing more urgently for emigration.

The difficulties were to be found not in the Jews’ lack of
desire to emigrate, but in obtaining permission to immigrate
to other countries and to obtain the necessary
Vorzeigegelder (sums of money needed to obtain the entry
permit to the country of immigration) in foreign exchange.
On the contrary, the Accused carried out actions towards
fulfilling that aim.

(c) Dr. Loewenherz’s later general report dating from 1961
contains a description which contradicts his above-mentioned
note of 19 December 1939. The report ignores the note.

(d) Remarks to the delegation of Berlin Jews in Vienna

The expression chosen here, “Konzertlager,” was taboo in the
offices of the authorities; its use here by the witness
shows that the witness is depicting impressions on his part
which might have changed subsequently.

(e) Financial measures

(1) The rapid financial settling of economic affairs served
to facilitate the technical aspect and was one of the
Accused’s organizational contributions. However, the actual
measures were not his doing. The decisive factor was the
foreign-exchange legislation and the arrangements of the
Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Reich Ministry of
the Interior, the Reich Commissioner for Reunification and
other bodies.

(2) The money received, particularly foreign currency, did
not go to the Emigration Fund, as the Judgment assumes, but
to the Vienna Jewish Community (cf. Defence documents).

(3) The measures concerning public property were taken by
the Moratorium Commissioner under the Reich Commissioner for
Reunification (Defence documents).

(4) Dr. Loewenherz’ regular contemporary reports indicate
how the resources were disposed of. Dr. Loewenherz’ general
report, drawn up later, ignores these earlier reports.

5. On Paragraph 65 – Re-activation of the Jewish
organizations in Vienna
(1) The pressure on the Jews was applied not by the Accused,
but by the policy of the leaders of the State and the Party.

Had the Accused not taken action at the time and allowed
everything to proceed unhindered, no Jew would have been
able to leave any concentration camp and emigrate, and the
income of foreign currency would have been confiscated by
the Reichsbank.

The activation of the organizations accrued to the advantage
of the Jews not only seen retrospectively in vuew of the
extermination, but also from the contemporary viewpoint.

(2) Witnesses Cohn and Meyer are mistaken concerning the
Accused’s presence in Berlin in March 1939:

(a) Dr. Loewenherz’ memorandum dated 19 December 1939 showed
that it was not until December 1939 that the Accused came to
the Berlin Central Office.

(b) Documentation proves that in October 1939 the Accused’s
predecessor, Lischka, signed on behalf of the Central

But, experience shows that no departmental head will allow
some other person, seven months before giving up his post,
to carry out official duties in his office in his stead.

6. On Paragraph 66 – Move to Prague

(1) The Accused did not move to Prague together with his
superior, Stahlecker, but received instructions to go to
Prague a considerable time after this, and only after
Stahlecker had been appointed Senior Commander.

(2) The pressure to emigrate was not exercised here by the
Accused, but was based on the relevant legislation for the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. These laws are
available with the Government of Czechoslovakia.

Application for evidence:

An application is hereby made to admit these laws and
regulations as evidence.

7. On Paragraph 67 – The Accused’s efficiency and
outstanding performance

The proposal for promotion referred to here is not only a
standard commendation of the person being considered for
promotion, but also appears to contain factual inaccuracies.

(1) The Accused was never “in charge of the Central Office”
and cannot have distinguished himself as such.

(2) The securing of huge assets was a result not of the
Accused’s initiative, but of the laws and regulations of the

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15