Session 036-02, Eichmann Adolf

State Attorney Bach: This is the difficulty we face.
Because sometimes these matters are connected with other
testimonies and with documents connected with the same
events. But we shall endeavour to put this material before
the Court in summary form.

Here I should only like to draw your attention to two points
in von Thadden’s affidavit. First, when he describes Best’s
efforts prior to the operation, he reports that “the
specialist in Eichmann’s local office explained to me
ironically that the Foreign Ministry will be made to change
its attitude soon enough.” And the second point: After the
event, Guenther talked to him full of indignation, saying
that Eichmann had already reported to the Reichsfuehrer, and
that he was going to ask for the head of the saboteur. He
relates the methods of the sabotage, the doors which were
not broken down, etc. This was marked T/37(25), and the
statement of the accused refers to it on page 3059.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/584.

State Attorney Bach: Now I should like to ask the Court to
accept another affidavit, this one from Dr. Mildner. Our
number is 251. This affidavit, too, was shown to the
Accused and was given No. T/37(129).

Presiding Judge: Is Dr. Mildner still alive?

State Attorney Bach: But his whereabouts are unknown.
Rumour has it that he is hiding in South America, but his
address is not known. I understand that Counsel for the
Defence does not know it either. But there is no doubt that
we regard him as a criminal under the Nazi and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law.

Judge Raveh: When was this statement made?

State Attorney Bach: On 22 June 1945.

Judge Raveh: Was he in prison then?

State Attorney Bach: I think so, but this is not evident
from the document. He made the statement in Freising before
an investigating officer, a Lieutenant Colonel. But he made
it apparently as a witness, not as an accused under
interrogation. We have here the stamp of the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. This document was submitted
and marked Exhibit No. 1503. It is actually a statement in
Mildner’s handwriting which he wrote and handed to this
investigating officer. And here he explains what motivated
him to take the action already mentioned in a letter, i.e.,
to ask the Reichsfuehrer-SS to cancel the operation and not
to deport the Jews of Denmark, because of certain political
reasons. He describes the arrival in Denmark of a special
unit, the “Sonderkommando Eichmann” headed by Guenther,
which took certain steps in connection with the Danish Jews.
In the end he speaks of the investigation and the reaction
of the Head Office for Reich Security about the failure of
the operation.

Again, Your Honours, if we take into account that this
declaration was made in 1945, i.e. sixteen years ago, when
the events were much fresher in the mind than they are
today, if we take into account that the Accused reacted to
the declaration, which was shown to him, and noted his
remarks on it, and taking into account also that in the
documents I have submitted corroboration is to be found for
all the facts related by Dr. Mildner – the Court will surely
come to the conclusion that this declaration has probative
value. Of course, the Court will only be able to decide on
the weight of this evidence at the end of the trial. I
therefore request you to accept this document, too, as

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you wish to say anything
in this matter?

Dr. Servatius: Under the circumstances, I have no objection
to the submission of the document, but I should be grateful
if two sentences in it were to be given special emphasis.

Presiding Judge: Very well, after it has been submitted, we
can do this. I understand that you do not know Dr.
Mildner’s address either.

Dr. Servatius: It is not known to me.

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 22

We accept Dr. Mildner’s statement for the reasons given in
our Decision No. 7. This document is marked T/585.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I request that three more
sentences be read into the record?

Presiding Judge: Yes, you may read them after Mr. Bach has
mentioned the passages in which he is interested.

State Attorney Bach: I can save the Court time. I
explained in my argument why this document should be
admissible, and I have nothing to add to that.

Presiding Judge: So, Dr. Servatius you may go ahead.

Dr. Servatius: On page 2 of the document it says: “Dr. Best
declared to me: Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop knew, of
course, of Hitler’s intention to destroy the Jews of Europe.
He had given an expose before Hitler about the Jewish
Question in Denmark and had requested that the Jews be
removed from Denmark.”

Then it says at the end of the document, in the last
sentence: “Ribbentrop has introduced the measures against
the Jews and is responsible for them.”

State Attorney Bach: On page 6 there is a passage which
says that Reichsfuehrer Himmler sent the “Sonderkommando
Eichmann” there, in order to carry out the operation. In
the Accused’s statement referring to this affidavit we have
his remarks, starting on page 1749. I should like to draw
your attention to two paragraphs: One on page 1752, in which
he says that he was himself in Copenhagen when the
difficulties started there, as he puts it, he went there
himself. Then, on page 1754, when Inspector Less asks him:
“What is ‘Sonderkommando’ and why ‘Sonderaktion’?” he says:

“No, it was no special operation, but an evacuation
operation – a normal – in itself a normal evacuation
operation, but it was actually not worthwhile. I said
already, it was not worthwhile at all.”

Our next document is our No. 757. This now is the reply
from Best to Hencke’s letter, containing his excuses. In
this document there is again corroboration of the affidavits
I have submitted. He explains why it was decided not to
break into the apartments. He thought that, in any case,
the Jews were not there; he thought the Germans would be
accused of theft if some of the Jewish property were
missing. And finally he says that actually the task he was
given had been to clean Denmark of Jews, and he had achieved
this. Denmark was “judenrein,” there were no more Jews
there. By the way, I should like to add that, in spite of
all the criticism against them, Best and Dr. Mildner were
not prosecuted, and to the best of my knowledge, they are
alive in spite of the difficulties they caused, in spite of
their resistance to the will of their superiors.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/586.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1077. It is
a report by Dr. Best about a meeting with SS-
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Copenhagen on 3 November
1943. Here there is apparently a certain concession by the
Accused: From now on Jews over the age of 60 will no longer
be deported. And those in Theresienstadt, too, will stay
there. And I draw attention to some handwritten remarks in
the margin of the document. One remark refers to a woman
aged 102. In the next document we shall see that this is
the same 102-year-old woman Texiere of whom the witness
Melchior said yesterday that she was a friend of his
grandmother’s, and here it says that this woman of 102 may
remain in Denmark. Then there is another marginal remark,
from the Foreign Ministry, which received Best’s letter.

Presiding Judge: Has this been translated?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. It says here: “Jewess aged 102
and Jewess aged 84 may remain in Denmark.” And further:
“Eichmann has informed me that Jews over 60, who are already
in Germany, stay…” Nevertheless, Your Honours, it seemed
surprising that they agree to let the 102-year-old woman
stay. It was strange – until we saw the next document.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/587.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1078, and it
is signed by Wagner of the Foreign Ministry. It refers to
the previous letter and says again that, in order to avoid
all misunderstanding, it is clear that only those over 60
who will be caught in future may stay, and not those who are
now in Germany. And as for the woman of 102, he says: “The
Jewess Texiere, aged 102, may remain in Denmark. As
Eichmann informs me, it is not known where she is at
present; it seems that she is hiding in Denmark.”

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/588.

State Attorney Bach: As the last document in connection
with the chapter on Denmark, I ask you to accept a final
report by the Danish government, dated 25 October 1945,
about the acts of the Germans against Danish citizens in
Denmark. This document was submitted at the Nuremberg
Trials and published in I.M.G., Vol. 38, on pages 600, 629,
633 and 634. As already stated by the Court in Decision No.
12, this is, of course, only evidence concerning the fate of
the Jews in Denmark in general, and there is no direct
evidence here about the activity of the Accused or of his

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/589.

State Attorney Bach: With the permission of the Court, I
shall now pass on to the chapter of the holocaust of the
Jews of Norway. I should like to start on this subject by
submitting two documents. The originals of these two
documents are in East Germany in the archives of the
Ausschuss fuer Deutsche Einheit (Commission for German
Unity), the Official Document Centre of the German
Democratic Republic for the Investigation and Detection of
Nazi Crimes.

Photostatic copies of these documents were handed to us here
by Professor Kaul who saw the original documents himself.
The photocopies were made here at his request, and he
confirmed this in a sworn statement. Therefore, I should
like to submit first of all the sworn declaration by Prof.
Kaul and then the two documents concerned. The declaration
is marked with our No. 1635.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/590.

State Attorney Bach: The first of the documents is No.
1622, and it is actually composed of a number of papers
concerning the same event. They are instructions concerning
the deportation of Jews from Norway to Auschwitz by boat.
The Court will see that the first document is a confirmation
of the delivery of 230 Jews* {*According to the document:
532 Jews (302 men and 230 women).} in Stettin. On the
second page there is a telegram sent by the Commander of the
Security Police, Oslo, IVB4, and signed by a
Sturmbannfuehrer named Reinhard, who announces that the ship
“Donau” has left Oslo harbour with 532 Jewish prisoners on

Presiding Judge: This is not our second document. The
second document is a receipt from the Commander of

State Attorney Bach: Do you have perhaps the original in
your hand, Your Honour. I have before me a typewritten copy
where two documents appear on the same page. After that
there is an additional document, confirmation in Auschwitz
that 532 Jews have arrived. And here is a document from the
same Reinhard, who is to take these Jews to Auschwitz,
saying that the journey will take about three days.
And now comes the main document – a long one. It is a
telegram from Guenther, who gives the orders for this
operation and decides who is to be deported, including
Norwegian nationals. The Jews are to be searched, among
other things for weapons and poison. He asks to see to it
that the Jews shall lose their Norwegian citizenship after
leaving Norwegian territory, and that the Norwegian
Government will not raise any more claims with regard to
individual Jews. He makes it clear that a return to Norway
of the deported Jews is out of the question “in even one
single case.” He states that the forthcoming transport to
Auschwitz is the one to which this consignment of Jews has
to be attached. He points out that this opportunity of
transporting Jews by ship has to be taken advantage of.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/591.

State Attorney Bach: The second document is our No. 1621.
It also contains two documents, one from Wagner in
connection with the movement of a ship which is due to
arrive in Stettin. The second and main document is signed
by the Accused, and in it he states that on 26 February
1943, 160 Jews from Norway will arrive in Stettin. In an
addendum for the Headquarters of the State Police in Berlin
he writes: “I ask you to include these Jews in the transport
to Auschwitz envisaged for 1.3.43. These Jews are to be
listed separately.”

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/592.

State Attorney Bach: At this point, Your Honours, I should
like to call the witness, Mrs. Henrietta Samuel.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew, Madam?

Witness Samuel German. I should like to give evidence on
affirmation. I am Observant.

Witness affirms.

State Attorney Bach: Mrs. Samuel, you were born in Berlin?

Witness Samuel I was born in Berlin.

Q. Did you come to Norway in 1930 together with your late
husband, Rabbi Samuel?

A. Yes.

Q. What appointment was your late husband given in Norway?

A. My husband was called to Oslo as Rabbi in the year 1930.

Q. Was he in fact appointed Chief Rabbi for Norway?

A. He was called as Rabbi for Norway, and in the course of
his tenure he officiated as Chief Rabbi.

Q. How many Jews were living in Oslo when the Germans
entered Norway in April 1940?

A. At that time there were 1,700 Jews in Norway.

Q. Do you know how many lived in Oslo at that time?

A. n Oslo there lived about 1,200.

Q. What was the situation of the Jews in Norway just before
the entry of the Germans?

A. The Jews had a free, unhampered life in Norway and felt
at home there. They lived in good economic circumstances.
There was no anti-Semitism.

Q. What was the situation of the Jews from 1940 until the
beginning of 1942 during the German occupation?

A. At the beginning of the German occupation, from 1940 to
1942, the Jews lived in the illusion that in Norway, the
country of Henrik Wergeland and Fridtjof Nansen, Hitler’s
Jewish laws could not be applied.

Q. What was the first anti-Jewish measure you experienced?

A. At the beginning of 1942, all Jews had to have their
identity cards be stamped with “Jude.” Some time later, the
Jews had to hand over their radio sets. However, a month
later, the Norwegian non-Jews also had to hand in their
radios, with the exception only of the members of the
Quisling’s Norwegian Nazi Party; they were allowed to keep
their radio sets.

Q. Mrs. Samuel, when did you first meet the Gestapo

A. In Trondheim, the northernmost Jewish community in the
world, there were about 500 Jews. The first Jewish victims
died there.

Q. Can you tell us briefly in what circumstances this

A. There was a curfew. One Jew returned home a little late
and was shot dead in the street.

Q. When was your late husband first arrested by the Germans?

A. Shortly after this Trondheim affair it started in Oslo;
all Jews named Bernstein – they were looking for a spy by
the name of Bernstein – had to report to the police. The
physician Dr. Paul Bernstein was arrested, while the others
named Bernstein were sent home. During the summer, Dr. Paul
Bernstein lived in Nersnes, a small village on the Oslo
Fjord, and the result was that all the Jewish families who
spent that summer in Nersnes on the Oslo Fjord had to report
to the Gestapo when they returned home, among them my late

Q. How many times was your late husband arrested after this

A. My husband, together with the twelve men from Nersnes,
had to report to the Gestapo five or six times. Once my
husband came home and told me he had received hints that he
should disappear.

Q. Who gave him the hint?

A. One of the Gestapo officials.

Q. And did he listen to this suggestion, to this

A. My husband said to me, as he had already repeatedly said
in 1940: “I, as Rabbi, shall not leave my community in this
dangerous hour.”

Q. What happened then?

A. The men in Oslo, among them my late husband, were again
called to the Gestapo on 2 September 1942, and did not come
home again.

Q. Does this mean all the Jewish men in Oslo?

A. No. On 2 September,it involved only the men from

Q. Did you find out where your husband was when he did not

A. The underground movement saw to it that the twelve
families concerned were informed on the same day.

Q. And did they inform you where your husband was?

A. The men were taken to Grini, the Norwegian concentration
camp near Oslo.

Q. Did you try to see him there?

A. All my efforts to get a visiting permit through the
Gestapo were in vain. So were the requests of the Jewish
Community to let the Rabbi officiate at least on Rosh
Hashana and Yom Kippur.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/01