Appeal Session 04-08, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: Perhaps the Court would turn to Paragraph
160 in the Judgment:

“Sievers requests the Accused `to create suitable
conditions in Auschwitz’ for carrying out the
examinations in accordance with Himmler’s instructions,
and the Accused replies that he needs to have a letter
from Himmler or from his personal staff. On 2 November
1942, Sievers again approaches Brandt and supplies him
with a draft for such a letter from Brandt to Section

After this a conversation took place between Sievers and
Guenther on 28 April 1943 and “on 21 June 1943, Sievers
informs the Accused’s Section that the research work in
Auschwitz has been completed and that the people examined
(79 Jews, 30 Jewesses, two Poles, and four other persons)
are to be transferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp.

In August 1943, about eighty detainees were sent from
Auschwitz to Natzweiler.” And here the circle is complete.

President: Is this in the same letter, T/1366?

Attorney General: Paragraph 160 refers to all the exhibits:
T/1362, T/1363, T/1364, T/1367, T/1366 and T/1370.

The evidence on the Lidice children is set out in the
Judgment and I shall not engage in polemics here with
Counsel for the Defence over an Israeli Court’s competence
to try crimes against humanity.

President: I wish to make a comment at this juncture. When
the learned Counsel for the Defence dealt with the Lidice
children, I asked him a question and I see that in certain
circles my question has been misunderstood. I asked, “Does
the theory of the difference of blood between races still
exist?” The only reason why I asked my question was because
of a misunderstanding, and had I understood in the first
place I would not have asked it. I would like this to be

Justice Silberg: I understand that he is not attacking the
finding in terms of national law, he is attacking the
finding under international law, and to the extent that the
Attorney General endorses the District Court’s assumption
that there must be some link between the offender and the
State trying him – he must reply to that point.

Attorney General: Earlier I argued that in the case of
crimes which are universal – any state has the authority to
try these, any state is competent to try such crimes even if
those crimes have been perpetrated against persons who were
not its nationals.

The killling of the Jews of Belgrade and Eichmann’s
conversaion with Rademacher about this, or the “minor
incident” as Counsel for the Defence calls this, cost the
lives of 7,500 people. In his Police interrogation Eichmann
admitted that he told Rademacher “to shoot.” Rademacher
testified on oath that this is what Eichmann told him. Is
the Appellant now going to complain that his denial to the
Court was not believed?

President: Is there really something like this in T/37?

Attorney General: Yes, certainly, on page 2356. This is
also referred to in the Judgment:

“…I did not myself give the order to kill by shooting,
but, as all those matters, I handled this one in the service
channels, and the order by my superiors was at the time in
fact: To kill by shooting.”

Counsel for the Defence tells you: look at the Department’s
organization chart. In other words, because it does not say
in the RSHA hierarchical chart that Eichmann has to give the
order to shoot Jews in Belgrade, this shows that he did not
give that order. And this, according to his argument, is
more convincing proof than Rademacher’s memorandum drawn up
at that time, than Rademacher’s words in his testimony, and
even than the Accused’s own admission in his Police
interrogation. But, Your Honours, none of the events of the
extermination is included in the RSHA’s hierarchical chart.
Nowhere does it say there: extermination of Jews. There are
references to Jewish matters. All of the extermination was a
special assignment, assigned to the Chief of the Security
Police and the SD, and carried out by the man whom he
appointed, Adolf Eichmann. This is also how it is phrased in
Goering’s letter of appointment to Heydrich.

Heydrich raises the essence of the problem as early as June
1940, when he wrote to Ribbentrop (T/173) that there are
already so many Jews, something like three and a quarter
million, in the area under German control and some
Endloesung (Final Solution) must be found. And he requests a
discussion with him, with Heydrich, about this matter. We
know that the discussion took place, the plan took on shape.
After that came Heydrich’s official appointment, and the
matter of the shooting of Serbian Jews was in fact only a
minor incident in the larger scheme of the extermination as
a whole. But it was the Accused’s bad luck that a reference
to this also appeared in writing.

Even at this stage in the Appeal the Accused wishes to
benefit from the fact that he expelled Austrian Jewry, and
thereby, he says, saved them from death. This is after he
has unreservedly admitted before the Court that he was not
at all thinking of saving them, that in 1938 he had not the
faintest idea of the extermination, and it is obvious that
he therefore pursued with the utmost severity and resolution
the Reich’s policy concerning the Jews at every single
stage. At that time the talk was of expulsions. He carried
out expulsions but did not think he was saving Jews (Session
90, Vol. IV, p. 1591). But he expelled them and extracted
their assets from them using every type of terror tactic he

From the memorandum of his conversation with Loewenherz,
T/797, we gather that Eichmann announced on 11 December
1939: a particular house must be vacated by 15 January. All
the residents must leave by then. If not – they will be
transferred to Buchenwald.

From the memorandum he drew up for himself, T/111, we know
what his plan was at the time.

President: Is T/111 a memorandum that he was required to
submit, containing the beginnings of the Madagascar plan?

Attorney General: That is how we understand this. The Jews
must be slowly ruined and expelled. When I asked him what
this meant, he told me, in Session 90, page 1589: “The rich
Jew had to finance the emigration of the poor Jew,” and on
page 1590, he admitted that the Jews who were expelled at
that time from Austria never saw a penny of their money, and
every Jew who emigrated from Austria enriched the German
Reich. Consequently the words of praise and commendation
which his superior showered on him in order to have him
promoted were indeed deserved by him, Eichmann. He himself
expressed similar words of praise for help in purging
Austria from Jews in respect of another man whose promotion
he suggested, a man called Kraus (T/1431).

Justice Silberg: Dr. Servatius indicates on page 9 of the
German original that there would appear to be a
contradiction between one affidavit by Dr. Loewenherz, his
affidavit of 19 December 1939, and his affidavit of 1961.
What is the 1961 affidavit?

Attorney General: The Defence is in error here. Loewenherz
did not write any reports in 1961. Loewenherz wrote his
major Report, T/154, immediately after the War, and he
simply authenticated it a few days before his death in 1960.

Justice Agranat: What do you mean by he “authenticated” it?

Attorney General: He was abroad, and an emissary from the
Embassy went to him, he was old and sick, we have an
affidavit about this, I believe it is T/35, the affidavit of
the Israeli Consul.

Loewenherz was commanded by Eichmann to draw up all the
reports about the talks between them and to give him a copy
of every such memorandum that was kept at the Community
Offices. Everything that Loewenherz wrote went through
Eichmann’s office. And in all these memoranda we can see the
humiliation, the oppression and the tortures inflicted on
that Jewish leader in Vienna.

Justice Silberg: If you would look, Mr. Hausner, at Dr.
Servatius’ arguments on page 9, as grounds for the Appeal.

Attorney General: I am aware of what he writes. Counsel for
the Defence is in error. T/154 to which he is referring, and
he thinks that it was drawn up in 1961, was not drawn up
then. Lowenherz drew it up immediately after the War.
Furthermore: Eichmann was interrogated by the Police in many
sittings concerning this Report, and confirmed that it was
largely correct.

Justice Agranat: What is the short report?

Attorney General: These were the interim reports about
meetings or instructions that Lowenherz would receive from
time to time.

Justice Agranat: What is the designation of the long

Attorney General: T/154 is the long report.

Justice Agranat: What is the designation of the ongoing
reports that Eichmann ordered Lowenherz to submit to him?

Attorney General: We have a large number of reports. The
Court will find them all, from T/144, T/145, T/147, T/148,

President: Mr. Hausner, I would like to ask Dr. Servatius
if he could briefly explain what he meant when he drafted
this ground for appeal.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, when I referred to the short
reports – I meant the reports which were drawn up at the
time of the events by Dr. Lowenherz. In one of them it says
that he has to complain about the attitude to the Jews in
other offices and that in this connection he is contacting
Eichmann. I also referred to the report in which there is a
mention of drawing money, as if Eichmann was drawing on
monies and property of the Jewish Communities which had been
confided to his care. That is what I had to say about the
short reports. While in respect of the long essay, which I
believe is 70 pages long, I argued that it was drawn up
close to his death and that – this is what I was arguing –
because of his age he obviously could not have written it on
his own but would have had to be assisted by others.

President: Thank you very much, Dr. Servatius.

Justice Silberg: Dr. Servatius: has referred to the date of
19 December 1939. This can relate only to exhibit T/798.
This is a memorandum concerning – an aide-memoire about Dr.
Lowenherz’ visit to Eichmann and it contains no exchange of
letters concerning any details.

Dr. Servatius: I did not say that this involved any
bilateral correspondence; I referred to unilateral reports
by Dr. Lowenherz, in which he reports chapter by chapter on
what occurred.

Justice Silberg: These are not notifications – this is a
memorandum about Dr. Lowenherz’ visit to Eichmann. He has
written up an aide-memoire about Dr. Lowenherz’ visit.

Dr. Servatius: Yes, these are memoranda that he was ordered
to draw up. It can be seen that these are not worded for
personal use, but that he had to present them.

Attorney General: The Report was not drawn up in 1961, that
was simply when it was authenticated.

President: What do you mean by authenticated?

Attorney General: He was asked to confirm that Report, and
this document bears the date of 1961.

The more important thing is that Eichmann was questioned
about this Report in T/37, pages 2728-2877, and he confirms
the correctness of every single detail with the exception of
one matter, which was entirely without significance. At one
point Eichmann says that Lowenherz “war ein korrekter Mensch
gewesen” (had been correct in his behaviour), and he has to
confirm the accuracy of his words. At a certain point he is
even upset that Lowenherz ascribes something to him. This is
the only thing where he disagrees with him (page 2877). And
he says something in connection with the “Red Paradise”
Exhibition held in Berlin. He says that he was not the one
responsible for this, but Mueller. This is the only thing
which Eichmann denies out of Lowenherz’ long report.

President: When you say that this was authenticated in
1960, how was it authenticated?

Attorney General: Our Consul, Zidon, went to him and asked
him to authenticate it.

President: What did he do? How did he authenticate it? Did
he add a signature of some kind, and what did he do?

Attorney General: If I might direct the Court’s attention
to T/30. This is the statement by Consul Zidon, who states:

“On 23 October 1960 I visited the home of Dr. Lowenherz
in New York and showed him a booklet entitled `Report
on the Vienna Community,’ which is appended to this
statement, and after examining it in my presence he
told me that he was very familiar with its content,
since he also had a copy in his possession, and he
confirmed that the booklet reflects the events as they
occurred. At the same meeting I gave Dr. Lowenherz a
sheet of paper containing a number of questions drawn
up by the Bureau 06 investigators, and I asked him to
reply to them. Dr. Lowenherz asked me to leave the
questions with him and to allow him to prepare his
replies after refreshing his memory, something which
would take him several days because of his illness. I
accepted his suggestion and it was agreed that he would
notify me of the date of our next meeting. On the same
occasion Dr. Lowenherz gave me three files containing
documents and told me that these were original copies
of documents of the Jewish Community of Vienna dating
back to the years under Nazi domination; and he asked
me to make sure that they reached Israel.

“On 24 October 1960 I passed on these three files as I
had received them by diplomatic mail to Bureau 06,
Israel Police. The day following my meeting with Dr.
Lowenherz Mrs. Lowenherz, Dr. Josef Lowenherz’ wife,
informed me that following a heart attack her husband
was extremely ill, and after that his situation
deteriorated steadily until his death – and I had no
opportunity to obtain a sworn statement from him.”

President: Do I understand rightly that a booklet which was
drawn up immediately after the War is appended to T/30, and
it is in this sense that it was authenticated? And in
addition to this he passed on three files?

Attorney General: Yes. In addition to this Eichmann was
questioned, and he denied just one detail from Lowenherz’

Justice Silberg: How did you obtain this memorandum, the
aide-memoire by Dr. Lowenherz about Eichmann’s visit? How
did it come before the Court?

Attorney General: It was in the files which Lowenherz gave
Bureau 06 and we submitted it together with Zidon’s

I would simply add that according to Fleischmann’s
testimony, after each meeting with Eichmann Lowenherz would
return broken and crushed (Session 17, Vol. I, p. 261) and
that it is strange to hear here about the favours that
Eichmann did for the Jews of Vienna, that out of the
goodness of his heart he is supposed to have released their
money. In order to complete the picture it should be added
that he first confiscated the money, seized all the
Community’s property, and then gave permission to use
certain sums for the most pressing needs, normally to
finance expulsions.

The expulsion of the Jews of Baden to Vichy France was not
an act of grace on Eichmann’s part. At the same time, in
October 1940, the deportations to Nisko were halted because
after the Schneidemuehl and Stettin deportatons in March
1941 Goring issued instructions, in the wake of the scandal
raised by Frank about this, to halt the deportations to the
area of the Generalgouvernement (T/383). This is Goring’s
instruction of 23 March 1940.

We know about Goring’s opposition to continuing the
deportations to the Generalgouvernement from the Accused
himself (T/37 page 125).

Consequently, the only way Eichmann had of getting rid of
the Jews from the Altreich, or from Austria, was to drive
them into France. And he did not do this to save their lives
or to do them any favours.
The Stettin deportations were carried out by him, and all of
the proof before the Court is outlined in Paragraph 75 of
the Judgment. He also admitted this in Session 98, Vol. IV,
page 1697, after his usual evasions, he admitted that he had
also played a role in this deportation. I have already
referred to the Dutch doument in which Eichmann was
identified as the person responsible for the deportation
from Stettin. That is the document to which I referred
yesterday, T/526. Perhaps at this juncture, since the
question arose yesterday, I could say something about this
document. It was submitted in Session 34, Vol. II, page 623.
Stiller was a senior official with the Commissioner General
for Internal Affairs and Trade – Dr. Wimmer, in the original
document Stiller’s signature in pencil can be seen, and this
is how we referred to it, but the original document was not
submitted at the time. Instead, with the Court’s permission,
a copy was submitted.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15