Session 044-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 44
3 Sivan 5721 (18 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the forty-fourth Session of the
trial open.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court.
When I submitted Exhibit T/649, Mr. Moritz Henschel’s notes,
it turned out that one of the pages of the copy was somewhat
difficult to read, and I promised to provide the Court with
cleaner copies. I have photographed the document again and
now hand three photostatic copies to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now I shall complete the
documentation on the German chapter. I understand that in
the meantime Counsel for the Defence has looked at our
document No. 455, the affidavit given in Nuremberg by Rudolf
Hermann Emil Brandt. I request a decision from the Court to
accept this affidavit in accordance with Section 15. The
affidavit was given under oath in Nuremberg on 10 December
1946. Brandt was sentenced at the Doctor’s Trial, in Case
No. 1 of the Subsequent Trials; he was sentenced to death
and hanged. He had belonged to the headquarters of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. In this deposition, he gives
details about sterilization experiments carried out in
concentration camps. He refers to three earlier depositions
given by him on 30 August 1946, which are of no interest to
us. In this affidavit, he describes the experiments
connected with the name of Adolf Pokorny, experiments which
were made with a North-American plant known in German under
the name of “Schweigrohr.” For some time they believed that
it would be possible to grow this plant, apparently a
tropical one, in Germany, too, and it seems that they wanted
to use it for sterilization on a large scale. Here he
describes the experiments and the negotiations connected
with this matter. It seems to me that this evidence is
highly relevant.

Presiding Judge: Is the Accused mentioned in it?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Accused is not mentioned here,
but there are other things in connection with sterilization
where the Accused is mentioned, some of which have already
been submitted to the Court. The Court will well remember
at least one Session at which methods of sterilization were
mentioned. These experiments were, of course, brought to
the attention of the Accused, and it is out of the question
that sterilizations are discussed as a method in the field
of activity of the Accused without also taking into account
what went on in Germany in this field from the scientific
point of view.

Presiding Judge: Is this not described in the judgment of
the Doctors’ Trial?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the Doctors’ Trial there is, of
course, a full description of all these subjects. The
sterilization experiments were, after all, one of the main
subjects at the Doctors’ Trial. But, of course, you do not
have that trial before you, and I have to select from it
what I think is relevant for our proceedings.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your position?

Dr. Servatius: My position is that this matter is dealt
with in the judgment of the doctors, and I am of the opinion
that the document is not relevant. But if it will be
submitted – I have no objection to it.

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 34

We allow the submission of the affidavit by Brandt in
accordance with our authority under Section 15 of the Nazis
and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950.

This document will be marked T/816.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I direct the attention of the Court
to two passages in the affidavit which particularly concern
the matter before us. They are paragraphs 6 and 7. In
paragraph 6, Glauberg is mentioned. This is Dr. Glauberg
who committed suicide in the end, after the War. And it
says here that in Auschwitz concentration camp he performed
large-scale experiments on Jewish women and Gypsy women for
the purpose of sterilization, and that he used mainly the
method of injecting certain solutions which he was trying

In paragraph 7, the name of Dr. Schumann is mentioned, a
doctor who has apparently not been found to this day, who
carried out experiments of sterilization by means of X-rays
on men in Auschwitz. The Court will hear viva voce evidence
from witnesses about such experiments later in the trial.

And now, with your permission, we shall continue the
Austrian file, on which we started yesterday. I proceed to
Prosecution document No. 1152. This is a minute, again by
Dr. Loewenherz, dated 29 December 1941, about a meeting with
Brunner. The main point in this document seems to me to be
a prohibition by Brunner, whereby the term
“Evakuierungstransporte” (evacuation transports) is no
longer to be used and the term “Abwanderungstransporte”
(emigration transports) is substituted for it.

Presiding Judge: Where is this to be found?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2, paragraphs 5 and 7.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/817.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now go on to document No. 1153, a
minute about the meeting* {*This was a telephone
conversation} in January 1942. Dr. Eppstein of the Reich
Association of the Jews in Germany has informed Loewenherz
by telephone that Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther has approved the
sending out of a circular letter concerning the wool
collection, whereby all fur articles, all footwear and
woollen garments, insofar as they are not absolutely needed
for personal use, have to be handed over. Offences against
the obligation to hand over these articles are punishable,
or rather, severest punishment is threatened for it.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/818.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1154, a
minute by Dr. Loewenherz on a meeting with Brunner in Vienna
on 1 April 1942. Brunner informs Loewenherz that persons
who are Jews, or who are regarded as Jews, in accordance
with Paragraph 5, Article 1, of the Reich Citizenship Law
must be made to wear the Jewish Star. Here the obligation
to affix the Jewish Star to the outside of the entrance door
of (Jewish) homes comes into force for Austria, too.**
{**According to the document: Persons who are obliged to
wear the Jewish Star must now also mark their dwellings with
the Jewish Star.}

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/819.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to Prosecution document
No. 1155, a letter from Dr. Loewenherz to the Gestapo in
Vienna, dated 4 April 1942. He repeats the instructions
received from the Reich Governor in Vienna concerning the
obligation to wear the Jewish Star. In the second passage,
he expressly mentions the exemptions from these
instructions. In the end – and to this I should like to
draw your attention – he says that orders have been given
“to refrain from publication; notice has to be given to the
Jewish population through posting in the Jewish offices and
institutions, and through word of mouth.”*** {***The
document actually refers to a prohibition to use municipal
tramlines.} By the way, I made a mistake – this letter is
signed by Dr. Murmelstein and not by Loewenherz.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/820.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1156 is a minute about
a meeting in the office of the Accused, dated 1 June 1942.
He says that he appeared before the Accused together with
Murmelstein, Eppstein, Menschel, Kozower, Kreindler and
Lilienthal, and that Messrs. Weidmann and Friedmann from
Prague were also present at Section IVB4. Then he relates
what we already heard from Moritz Henschel’s notes, about
the attack on the exhibition “The Soviet Paradise” in

In paragraph 2 he says that, at the interview with
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, he reported about conditions
in Vienna, and about the estimated number of Jews over 65
years of age who were designated to be taken to
Theresienstadt for permanent residence; and that Eichmann
informed Loewenherz on the same occasion that the total
evacuation of all Jews from the Old Reich, from Austria, and
from the Protectorate was to be expected, and that Jews
under 65 would emigrate to the East, while those over that
age would be taken for permanent residence to

In the middle of page 2 we find that “For the purpose of
financing the upkeep of the Jewish population settled in
Theresienstadt, funds have to be mobilized from the three
organizations (the Reich Association of the Jews in Berlin,
and the Jewish Religious Communities of Vienna and of

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/821.

State Attorney Bar-Or: From this document, it clearly
appears, so it seems to me, that there were two meetings on
that day. The first one, which is also mentioned by
Henschel, under the chairmanship of Mueller, and there the
killing of the 250 hostages was made known; and afterwards
the meeting with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about
internal matters.

Presiding Judge: This is apparent from the title.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I wanted to emphasize it.

I should like to revert to T/154, a report by Loewenherz,
which has already been submitted. I do not intend to read
additional passages from it, but I wish to point out that
the Court will, in fact, find in it what is contained in the
records of the Community about the chapter with which we are
dealing at the moment. Here the Court will find, in summary
form, the course of events up to the closing of the
Community’s offices in Vienna.

I shall therefore proceed to document No. 1157, a minute by
Loewenherz of 22 June 1942. Again a meeting with Brunner.
I should like to read paragraphs 6 and 7. Hauptsturmfuehrer
Brunner repeats his instructions that demand to hand over
dogs, birds, etc. must not be published in the Information
Bulletin. And now paragraph 7: “Letters from the Red Cross
in Geneva about the place of residence of Jews must not be
answered, in view of the fact that the German Red Cross is
very busy with forwarding the mail of prisoners of war.
Private enquiries from abroad concerning the whereabouts of
Jewish emigrants are not to be answered.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/822.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1158, a
minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 24 July
1942. In paragraph 2 it says that “with respect to the
refunding of the amounts advanced by the Jewish Community
for the emigration transports, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann has decided that repayment will be made only at the
end; as hitherto, the Community has to enter separately all
expenses connected with the emigration, and to present a
bill for every five transports to the Central Office for
Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/823.

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1159 is a minute by Dr.
Loewenherz about a meeting he had with Brunner on 5 November
1942. And here Brunner informs him that, as of 31 October
1942, the Jewish Religious Community is to be regarded as
dissolved. It is transformed into an institution to be
called “Council of Elders of the Jews in Vienna,” and the
draft regulations of the Community are to be changed
This follows organically after the dissolution of the
Community and, of course, after the settling of the
Community’s accounts in the way we know already from these

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/824.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now on to document No. 1160, a
minute by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner, dated
2 December 1942. Here we find, in paragraph 5, instructions
for the transfer of the assets of the Jewish Religious
Community of Vienna to the Emigration Fund for Bohemia and
Moravia. We shall come across this special fund again when
we deal with matters of the Protectorate; the Fund was, in
fact, intended not only for the Protectorate. Here it is
clear, at any rate, that the assets were to be transferred
to Prague.

I move on to paragraph 14. Here Loewenherz is asked, in
fact is instructed by Brunner, to write to the Jewish
Religious Community in Budapest, in order to find out how
many Jews have immigrated into Hungary since 1 January 1941,
and to ask the Community for the names and dates of birth of
these immigrants. The reason to be given: These data are
needed, in order to bring the tax register and the card
index up to date.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/825.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 927, a
letter from the Accused to von Thadden at the Foreign
Ministry, dated 23 August 1943, about the stateless Jew Karl
Israel Klinger. I draw the attention of the Court only to
the last sentences on page 2, where the Accused says: “Since
Karl Israel Klinger has been informed by his uncle Rudolf
Israel Klinger about different occurrences in the various
offices, there is an imminent danger that he will pass on
what he knows to foreign authorities, and that in this way
he will seriously endanger state security. For this reason
I ask that extradition procedures be initiated against the
above-mentioned without delay.”

Eichman, in fact, asks the Foreign Ministry to have this Jew
extradited to the Reich.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/826.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In our document No. 928, we shall
find von Thadden’s reply on this matter. It is his letter
of 3 September 1943, and he simply informs the Accused that
the existing rules of extradition between the Reich and
Hungary do not apply to persons who are said to have
committed offences of the kind he describes, and he asks
Eichmann to give him additional information which would
justify the request for extradition to the Hungarians.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/827.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have thus completed the chapter on
Austria, and I go on to the Protectorate of Bohemia and
Moravia. The Court has before it the volume of weekly
reports of the Jewish Community of Prague, and I should like
to draw your attention to some additional ones among them.

Presiding Judge: What have we already received?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have submitted weekly reports
about the period up to Nisko.

Presiding Judge: How were they marked?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I believe that each weekly report
was marked separately. Here I have No. T/163 which refers
to the weekly report of 16 February 1940. I think they were
all numbered T/163. I believe that the Court numbered the
volume from which I submitted…

Presiding Judge: We have marked two volumes: T/162 and

State Attorney Bar-Or: So here I submit additional volumes
from the archives of the Community of Prague which cover the
period of the War itself, and from these I should like to
submit some weekly reports to the extent that they concern
our subject. Three volumes altogether.

Presiding Judge: We shall mark them T/828, T/829 and T/830.

State Attorney Bar-Or: First our document No. 1331, taken
from these volumes, which is the report for the week ending
16 February 1940. It is page 89 in the original, which
begins on page 77. I read from page 89: “In the week under
review, an order by the Reich Protector was published about
the exclusion of the Jews from the economy of the

Presiding Judge: What is the heading of what you have just

Last-Modified: 1999/06/02