Attorney General: I shall submit the declaration of
Wisliceny, the testimony of Wisliceny, to the Court. But
there is a special request in respect of each document, and
possibly a different reasoning. At this moment I am dealing
with the sworn statements of Wisliceny and Brookhart.
Dr. Servatius: I have some reservations, Your Honours, and I
object to this deviation from the procedure according to
section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment)
Law. I object to the admission of the affidavits attributed
to Wisliceny. In the files before me, there is a document
No. 584, which is a declaration signed by Smith A. Brookhart
on the 19 September 1960 and relating to the evidence which
Brookhart took from Wisliceny on 14 November 1945. I do not
wish to read the document, but merely to point out its
contents. It is said that Wisliceny gave the contents of
this declaration after many interrogation sessions; it is
said that Wisliceny was a cooperative witness, that there
was hostility between him and Eichmann, but that this fact
had no influence. The affidavit that they want to submit
here is signed by Brookhart and was written a few days after
the evidence of Wisliceny in November. The date of his
evidence in November was 14 November 1945. And this is
document No. 856.
Presiding Judge: Did Wisliceny give evidence in the trial of
the main War Criminals?
Dr. Servatius: Yes. This evidence which is before me, and
marked with the number 856, includes a few days of
interrogation, apparently a few days, as well, of
interrogation that did not take place in the Court. They
contain 83 pages in English. But here it emerges from the
following words, that the affidavit which they want to
submit here, is a shortened version of that evidence, but it
has been phrased in its shortened version to the detriment
of the Accused.
Presiding Judge: Does document No. 856 contain both the
evidence and the statements in the interrogation? Perhaps we
may see this document merely for the sake of understanding
Dr. Servatius: I am talking of pages 13 and 14 in the
document, in the testimony of Wisliceny, who gave evidence
concerning the status of the Accused who was subject to the
orders of his superiors. These words were expunged from what
was submitted here.
Presiding Judge: For the sake of understanding the point,
document No. 856 contains statements in reply to the
interrogator and does not contain Wisliceny’s evidence in
Court. Have I understood this correctly?
Dr. Servatius The statement does not include the
testimonies in Court. This emerges from the protocol.
Presiding Judge: This is not an affidavit – this is a
statement in the interrogation by Brookhart. Is document No.
584 the one that you, Mr. Hausner, wish to submit?
Attorney General: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you maintain that
document No. 584 is a shortened version of document No. 856?
Dr. Servatius: Yes, it has been shortened, and to the
I have another reason for my reservation. In this evidence
before the Court, document No. 856, they ask the Accused
[Wisliceny] if he was in need of protection for the members
of his family because of dangers arising out of the fact
that he had come to testify. And then he gave some such
list. Evidently such protection was promised to him. This
matter does not arise out of the protocol recorded in the
Court, but it derives therefrom.
Presiding Judge: And this does not appear in what the
Attorney General wishes to submit now?
Dr. Servatius No, this is found in the document containing
the evidence in document No. 856. This also emerges from the
first declaration of the Officer Brookhart to the effect
that there were many meetings and exchanges.
Presiding Judge: Would it be possible to settle this
argument by submitting document No. 856 together with what
you wish to submit?
Attorney General: Certainly – this was the next one we
intended to submit after document No. 584.
Presiding Judge: Will this satisfy you, Dr. Servatius?
Dr. Servatius: No. I request that the affidavit, which in
my opinion was drawn up for a definite purpose and
retrospectively, should not be submitted.
Presiding Judge: Are you able, Mr. Hausner, to forego the
submission of the first document seeing that it is included
in the second document?
Attorney General: It is included, but I do not waive the
sworn declaration which Mr. Smith W. Brookhart made on 19
Presiding Judge: Do you, Dr. Servatius, object to the
submission of Brookhart’s affidavit?
Dr. Servatius: As far as I see, Mr. Brookhart’s relates
only to the affidavit of Mr. Wisliceny.
Attorney General: This is not exact.
Presiding Judge: What are you interested in?
Attorney General: I am only interested in two sentences (He
reads from document No. 584, beginning with the third
section) “For a period of several weeks in November December
1945, and January 1946, I interrogated Dieter Wisliceny on
numerous occasions, and on 3 January 1946 presented him as a
witness to the International Tribunal.”
Presiding Judge: How is this marked? Are these sentences
marked by numbers?
Attorney General: There is no numbering here. It is in the
third section, and I am prepared to draw a line under these
Judge Raveh: This section in fact, relates to the period
before he gave his evidence.
Attorney General: Before he gave his evidence.
Judge Raveh: The evidence in Court?
Presiding Judge: And the second one?
Attorney General: This one as well.
Judge Halevi: Until January?
Attorney General: Until January 1946.
Judge Halevi: The evidence was given in November?
Attorney General: On 3 January 1946.
Judge Halevi: We were told that document No. 856 was dated
Attorney General: 1945, before the evidence. The factual
position is that document No. 856 contains interrogations on
Judge Halevi: Beginning from 14 November?
Attorney General: After and before 29 November 1945. Now Mr.
Brookhart goes on to say….
Judge Raveh: On what day did he testify?
Attorney General: 3 January 1946.
Presiding Judge: Here you are not in agreement with each
other. Dr. Servatius says that it was on 14 November 1945,
that he gave evidence. Perhaps his testimony continued for
Attorney General: To the best of my knowledge, and so Mr.
Brookhart swore in his affidavit, Wisliceny gave evidence
before the International Military Tribunal on 3 January
1946, and before that he was interrogated. His evidence is
in my possession; this too, I wish to submit – all his
evidence at the International Military Tribunal.
Judge Raveh: Does Wisliceny’s affidavit bear a date?
Attorney General: November 1945.
Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius said that the affidavit was
made some days after the evidence.
Attorney General: The affidavit was made on 29 November
Judge Raveh: Before his evidence was given.
Attorney General: Before his evidence was given.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, are you sure about the date
of the evidence in Court of Wisliceny?
Dr. Servatius: I took the dates from the documents that
were placed at my disposal by the prosecution.
Presiding Judge: From what document did you take this date?
Attorney General: Document No. 29.
Presiding Judge: What is written there?
Attorney General: Zeugenaussage des Dieter Wisliceny vor dem
I.M.G. Nuremberg am 3.1.1946 (The evidence of Dieter
Wisliceny before the International Military Tribunal on 3
Presiding Judge: This was not evidence in Court?
Dr. Servatius We are talking of the affidavit 584 of 29
Presiding Judge: But you agree with the Attorney General
that the evidence in Court was given in January 1946. In
order that there should be no misunderstanding, was this
oral evidence in Court, sworn evidence in Court, the
evidence before the judges in Court?
Dr. Servatius The affidavit here relates to the edited and
shortened version, where remarks dealing with the Accused
were excluded. I base myself upon document Nos. 845 and 856
dated 14 November, which is a longer document and which
includes the question of the protection for the members of
the family to which I referred. Further, at the end of the
affidavit, I must state, there is the date 21 March 1946, so
that there are several documents together in document No.
856. It speaks of the fact that he volunteered his services,
he was happy and of good cheer. It seems to me that certain
favours were granted here. And this entirely colours his
statements. For also after he had been found guilty, he made
many statements – how, for example, to find the Accused.
And, therefore, I object to all these declarations of
Wisliceny. I do not object to his evidence before the Court.
Attorney General: This matter involves a slightly longer
discussion, if the Court is prepared to listen. The matters
are not so simple.
Presiding Judge: Perhaps, nevertheless, there is still hope
of finishing this much more quickly. I brought you to the
stage where you agree to forego the submission of the
shorter document, as it has now been called, since it is
contained in the longer document which Dr. Servatius wishes
Attorney General: He now says he only wants the evidence
before the International Military Tribunal. This is also not
the lengthy document.
Presiding Judge: Evidently, in that case, I did not
understand. The lengthy document is No. 856. Dr. Servatius,
do you agree to the submission of document No. 856 or not to
Dr. Servatius This is not evidence before a Court. I have
not yet been able to study it in detail, for I dealt only
with documents which were supposed to be submitted here to
Attorney General: Already last week we passed on a
notification and a list of all the documents in the
“Personal File,” but we have no objection to Defence
Counsel’s obtaining additional assistance.
Presiding Judge: If that is so, please check this by
tomorrow morning, and possibly this matter can be settled by
then. And now you say that from the shorter document you
want the affidavit of Brookhart and from it you want to read
Attorney General: I want to read the affidavit of Brookhart
in its entirety.
Presiding Judge: Would you not begin reading and marking the
lines of this affidavit?
Attorney General: But I want the Court to admit the whole
affidavit and not merely the two sections. It is impossible
to cut this document up.
Presiding Judge: It should be possible.
Attorney General: I want to submit the entire affidavit,
which was made on 19 September 1960, and the whole of it is
important. I have emphasized two sections. Of these,
incidentally, the Court has so far allowed me to quote only
Presiding Judge: What was its content?
Attorney General: Mr. Smith W. Brookhart took the statement
of Dieter Wisliceny, that Dieter Wisliceny examined each one
of the pages of the statements, that the statement was
marked with the number A-II and is contained in the eighth
volume of “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression” which was
compiled by the “Office of the United States Chief of
Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality” and which
was printed as an official publication of the United States
Government Printing Office on pages 606-621.
Presiding Judge: At any rate, Mr. Hausner, those portions
relating to the affidavit of Wisliceny or to the
interrogation of Wisliceny attached to this affidavit and
whose submission you waived, as I understood, those
portions, too, are not required by you any more?
Attorney General: They are required by me, since they relate
not only to this affidavit alone, but to all the 856
statements. Consequently I require the whole of it.
Presiding Judge: Very well.
Attorney General: I have not yet read it in its entirety. If
the Court will permit me, I shall read to the end:
“The affidavit was taken in the course of my official
duties as a member of the Interrogation Division of the
Office of United States Chief of Counsel and was part
of the preparation of the case for the prosecution
against the defendants on trial before the
International Military Tribunal. Dieter Wisliceny was a
completely cooperative witness. He had a good
understanding of the English language and prepared the
appendix A-II in every detail in his own handwriting,
showing places, dates, name of concentration camp, the
number of people in forced labor, the number executed
or died, those that remained alive and the source of
his information. It was my impression that Wisliceny
was completely sincere, honest and in every was a
creditable witness. While it is apparent from his
statement that Wisliceny’s association with Eichmann
came to an end at a certain time, there was nothing in
his testimony or his affidavit to indicate that he
sought to unjustifiably implicate Eichmann or to seek
revenge of any kind. He appeared to make every effort
to recite the facts as he knew them or to relate
information that had come to his attention on all
matters on which he was interrogated.”
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, the fact that this was now
read before the Court does not mean that it has been
submitted. I asked Mr. Hausner to give us an idea of the
contents of the document. Perhaps you would be able to give
us a precis?
Attorney General: Every sentence here is important.
Presiding Judge: But it has not yet been submitted. For the
present we merely want to get an idea.
Attorney General: The idea that I can give is exactly what
Mr. Brookhart says and there is not a superfluous word in
what he says.
Presiding Judge: Nevertheless, stop at this point and
perhaps you can in the meantime check how it happened that
there are here two sets of records of the interrogation of
Attorney General: This I can tell you right away.
Presiding Judge: If that is so, please tell us.
Attorney General: The interrogation of Wisliceny was
protracted since on each occasion he was examined on a
particular episode and consequently the interrogation was
extended over a period of several weeks. This affidavit,
too, which I requested to submit, includes various episodes,
a few relating to the Accused, a few relating to Wisliceny
himself and to his activities. I wanted at this stage to
draw the Court’s attention only to 11 of the 32 paragraphs
since the others are not important to me, at this stage, for
the purpose of the personal file. They will be important at
Presiding Judge: I understand. But at the same time, this
selection was also submitted to Mr. Brookhart, and he gave
his affidavit on this selection.
Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour.
Presiding Judge: I think we shall adjourn the discussion
now, so that Dr. Servatius may be able once again to examine
document No. 856, and tomorrow we shall decide on this
Attorney General: I should also want to plead, if the Court
will be ready to hear me.
Dr. Servatius: Yes.
Presiding Judge: We adjourn now, and will resume tomorrow
at 9 o’clock in the morning.