Appeal Session 03-09, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: On the 20th of the month there was the
first meeting conducted by Krumey and Wisliceny. We shall
talk about this when we get to the Hungarian chapter.

Had Eichmann only been carrying out orders and only doing
what he was told to do, he would not have had to do anything
with the Kistarcsa matter. Horthy stopped the deportations.
He had a perfect excuse to wait until good relations were re-
established and co-operation was restored, and he would get
the Jews again. But he does not remain silent. If Horthy is
not going to allow it, then he is going to use a ruse, and
he will smuggle the train out himself.

President: How do you explain that after Horthy did what he
did, that the Appellant or his representative Novak had the
power to force the Hungarians to give them trucks and carry
out the deportations?

Attorney General: The Hungarian gendarmerie actually
followed the orders of Eichmann’s unit. You will see this in
the Hungarians’ own reports, showing that they were actually
tools of the Sondereinsatzkommando (Special Operations
Unit), and the personal friendship which is praised there,
between Eichmann, Endre and Baky, was doubtless also a
factor in their activities, the “Arrow Cross” men – although
they were not yet in power – were doubtless of considerable

President: Was Ferenczy already in Budapest at the time?

Attorney General: Ferenczy was in Budapest at that time.

We heard from Freudiger that a member of the Judenrat, Janos
Gabor, was afraid to appear before Eichmann after the first
deportation was foiled. In Session 52, Vol. III, page 950,
there is the story of how Eichmann told him off for daring
to interfere with the deportation operation. Freudiger says:

“I said that Janos Gabor was a liaison officer before
he was appointed to be a member of the second
executive, but after he was appointed as a member, he
continued in that role, and day after day he used to go
to the Majestic Hotel in order to deal with current
matters. He came back and said that he had spoken to
Eichmann and had received a telling-off – it was
something awful. Eichmann shouted at him and said:
`What is this – you people are interfering in my
affairs, you are here to assist us and not to meddle in
our business.’ He said that Eichmann was very nervous,
and after that there were days when he did not want to
go to the Schwabenberg any more, and he said that
Eichmann had shouted at him in such a way that he was
afraid to go.”

Justice Silberg: Is it true that on 9 July Horthy stopped
the deportations, and the Germans accepted this and gave in?

Attorney General: There was political pressure.

Justice Silberg: Apart from Kistarcsa, did they carry out

Attorney General: Kistarcsa was a deportation carried out
using a ruse. Afterwards they waited until things resumed.

President: When did the Appellant’s unit leave Budapest
because it had nothing to do?

Attorney General: In August.

President: Horthy’s order had an effect, and the foreign
forces stopped the deportations in July. Did the
deportations to Auschwitz continue until July?

Attorney General: Yes.

President: And then in August the Appellant’s unit left

Attorney General: What he said was: If that is the case, I
have nothing to do, I will disband the unit.

Justice Silberg: It was on 28 September that Eichmann’s
unit was disbanded. They stayed on for about a week.

Justice Agranat: They returned in October.

President: It is unclear when they left.

Justice Silberg: At the beginning of October.

Attorney General: They left before that.

Justice Silberg: In Paragraph 114 of the Judgment it says:
Himmler’s order to stop all additional transports of Jews
arrived the following night [after 24 August 1944]. From the
evidence before us, it is difficult to know what induced
Himmler to take this step… Eichmann’s Special Commando was
disbanded on 28 September 1944, but the Accused and his men
were instructed to remain in Budapest for another week…”

They returned in October.

President: Horthy intervened as early as July. At the same
time there were also negotiations on allowing several
thousand people to emigrate. There were meetings about this,
negotiations were held. The deportations were stopped at the
end of July. But the Reich authorities wanted something in
return for the permission for 8,700 families to emigrate.
This apparently was the subject of the negotiations from
July to September.

Attorney General: Yes. In August there was a discuusion
about a major operation that was to be implemented by
municipal officials, by chimney sweeps and postmen, to pick
up the Jews, concentrate them on an island and then deport
them. There was a disagreement as to whether this would be
carried out on 20 August or 25 August, and Eichmann wanted
it to be earlier.

President: Correct. There is a document about this, where
he asked for the evacuation to be carried out earlier.

Attorney General: I shall discuss the Hungarian chapter as
a whole. I referred to the Kistarcsa matter as an example of
the Appellant’s outstanding zeal for utterly destroying and
exterminating, without his being able to argue that he was
instructed to do this. He had no such instructions. On the
contrary, if he had wished to wait for instructions, he
could have sat with folded arms and waited. The victims of
Kistarcsa are victims of his outstanding wickedness and
treachery, which were not at all required of him.

The way in which he dealt with the children of mixed
marriages is a further example of fanatical extremism.
During the War Hitler was prepared, following the advice of
Keitl, the Army Commander_in-Chief, to ignore the problem of
the offspring of mixed marriages and spouses of mixed
marriages, because there were people going home who were
only one-eighth Jewish, they would go home from the front,
they were soldiers, and they would go home to parents who
were to be deported and put to death. This created problems
in the Army. So the top echelons said that they would solve
this problem after the War.

T/526 is a report by a man called Wimmer.

President: The one who was in Holland? In the Judgment he
is called Schirrer.

Attorney General: I am talking about T/526.

President: Is that about Loesener?

Attorney General: Yes. It is from the Reich Representation
in The Hague, and it reports on various attitudes concerning
a problem which was particularly acute in Holland, and it
contrasts two approaches: the approach of Hitler, which was
a compromise position supported by Loesener from the
Interior Ministry, and the position of Reischauer of the
Party Secretariat, together with Eichmann. When Eichmann is
described in that document, it says that he is from the
RSHA, that he arranged the deportation of the Jews from
Vienna, Prague and Stettin to the Generalgouvernement. In
T/693 Loesener stated after the War…

President: When was this, when did he make his statement?

Attorney General: On 24 February 1948.

President: Where did he make a statement, and before whom?

Attorney General: This document was submitted in the
Foreign Ministry Trial, the Wilhelmstrasse Prozess , and he
made a statement to one of the American prosecution
investigating officers. In the same document, he also refers
to the Accused together with Reischauer as the most
fanatical and extreme men. On page 4 he says:

“Also besonders fanatische und boesartige Judenhasser, mit
denen ich viel zu tun hatte, benenne ich den spaeteren
stellvertretenden Reichsaerztefuehrer Dr. Blome,
Oberregierungsrat Dr. Reischauer, (Parteikanzlei Muenchen),
Minsterialrat Sommer (Parteikanzlei), zuletzt Praesident des
Reichsverwaltungsgerichtes, Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Eichmann
(Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Abteilung Kurfuerstenstrasse,
Berlin) und Regierungsrat Neifeind
(Reichssicherheitshauptamt Berlin)” (As particularly
fanatical and vicious Jewhaters with whom I had much to do,
I will mention Dr. Blome who was later Deputy Leader of the
Reich Physicians, Senior Government Cousellor Dr. Reischauer
(Party Secretariat, Munich), Ministerial Counsellor Sommer
(Party Secretariat), in the end President of the Reich
Administrative Court, Haupsturmbannfuehrer Eichmann (RSHA,
Section Kurfuerstenstrasse, Berlin), and Government
Counsellor Neifeind (RSHA, Berlin).

Justice Agranat: What is the meaning of the phrase,
“Eichmann is also extremely in favour of the new
arrangement?” What is the new arrangement?

Attorney General: Sterilization.

Justice Silberg: The option of sterilization, either
sterilization or extermination.

Attorney General: Yes.

In Session 106 I questioned the Accused about these two
documents. At first he was evasive and claimed that
Loesener’s comments were made after the War and were not

President: Which page is this on?

Attorney General: I will give you the page reference in one
moment, Your Honour.

Justice Sussman In T/526, Mr. Attorney General, it does not
give the name of the man, but there is a reference to a
conversation with Loesener. The person who is giving the
report is not indicated. There is no signature here.

President: In the judgment he is called Schirrer or

Attorney General: We will give this in a moment.

The treatment at that time – I shall get to this in the
chapter on sterilization – the treatment then was in
connection with the sterilization of the children of mixed
marriages, so that in future generations there would be no
hint of the Jews. This was the plan.

Justice Sussman But this document does not deal with

President: There was one tendency towards sterilizing, and
another tendency towards exterminating.

Justice Witkon In the Judgment it says Stiller.

President: But where did they take the name Stiller from in
the Judgment?

Attorney General: We will check on this in a moment.

I should now like to turn to the examination in Session 100,
not 106, Vol. IV, page 1735. I asked Eichmann:

“Do you know that Hitler himself, for the duration of
the War, was prepared to turn a blind eye in the case
of soldiers of mixed blood returning from the front,
for whom it was difficult to meet their parents?

“A. Yes, I have read that here.

“Q. And Reischauer expressed the view that measures
should be undertaken even against such people of mixed

“A. That would indeed be entirely in keeping with his
attitude, yes.

“Q. What was your position?

“Q. As I was not a lawyer, my position was of no
interest. But my personal attitude was the opposite of

“Q. To whom did you express it, and when?

“A. That was my personal position; officially I could
not express it, because I was not in fact present at
these meetings, being a non-lawyer. When I was present,
it was not up to me to express any professional

I when I showed him Loesener’s document, later in this
examination, he said that this was said after the War, and
this was definitely not binding. He accuses the jurists and
Loesener. I tried to submit to the Court Loesener’s report,
which was published after the end of the proceedings in the
District Court. But Counsel for the Defence objected to
this, and so the report was not submitted. I would not have
referred to this had the Accused himself not claimed in his
argument on the sentence that in the meanwhile he had
learned of Loesener’s report, and Loesener was trying to
clear his own name while he, Eichmann, had done nothing
extreme in respect of the offspring of mixed marriages.

President: I did not understand the end of your comment,
Mr. Hausner.

Attorney General: There is a report by Loesener…

President: Where he is trying to clear himself. What does
he say about Eichmann?

Attorney General: There is a report which is not before the
Court, and therefore I cannot quote from it. I wished to
submit it.

President: You said something about Dr. Servatius which was
not clear.

Attorney General: Not about Dr. Servatius. The Accused
himself, when in arguing about the sentence, said: In the
meanwhile I have learned that Loesener is also casting
aspersions at me, and he was no less guilty than I was.

Justice Agranat: Mr. Attorney General, you cannot make use
of this report, since it is not before the Court.

Attorney General: But if the Accused referred to it, I wish
to explain to the Court what the meaning of this reference
is when he talks about Loesener’s report.

Dr. Grueber, the Pastor, testified in Session 41, Vol. II,
page 739, that he would receive help specifically from Dr.
Loesener in dealing with things of this nature.

The writer Josef Klepper lived in a mixed marriage in
Germany. His wife and child were destined to be deported. He
was a well_known author. We submitted his diary,
authenticated by his sister, T/1135. On 8 December 1942,
Jochen Klepper wrote in his diary:

“I went to see Frick (that was the German Interior
Minister), he still remembers everything. He is one of
the most important Ministers, and in the War he is in
charge of the entire civilian population. He still
stands by what he promised in October 1941. He will get
Renate out of Germany. But here in Germany he cannot
protect her. Nobody can.”

President: Is Renate his wife?

Attorney General: Yes. Then it talks about the action of
one of the men from his Ministry, Darger.

“9 December 1942, Wednesday. In the afternoon I saw Eichmann
from the Security Service, after Ministerialrat Darger
prepared everything in the morning. Eichmann: I cannot give
you a final yes, but I think that it will be arranged.
Klepper adds: ‘When the Lord brought back those that
returned to Zion, We were like unto them that dream.’

“10 December 1942, Thursday (afternoon) negotiations
with the Security Service. Now we die – oh, that too
was decreed by God – tonight we go to our death

Klepper, his wife and daughter committed suicide.

Does the Court wish me to go on to a new section?

President: No, we shall adjourn now.

[The Session ended at 13:50]

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15