Q. And did you report to the committee about this?
A. Certainly. The committee was already waiting up there on
tenterhooks for my return.
Q. In the meantime, those men of the counter-espionage of
whom you spoke at first were arrested, and Kasztner as well?
A. Yes, Kasztner was put under arrest for one night and came
back the next day, also I…
Q. What did you have to do?
A. I had to go up to the Schwabenberg, to the Melinda Hotel.
Q. Were you summoned again to Eichmann a few days later?
A. I don’t remember whether I was summoned or whether I went
on my own. At that time the concentration of Jews was
already proceeding on a mass scale, and we were receiving
frightful news. The committee wanted to have concrete
details, not proposals for the following years, but we
wanted guarantees for no atrocities in Hungary, no
concentrations, no ghettos. I was to secure the release of
persons under arrest; the community wanted me to obtain the
release of individuals, namely relatives of members of the
Jewish Council who were to be freed.
Q. And so you came to the office, had to wait a long time,
and were at long last granted admittance?
A. Yes. There was a swarm of officers with him.
Q. Who were they?
A. I can’t give the names of all of them, but certainly
Becher, Klages and Eichmann were present, as well as Novak
and Hunsche. I also saw Dannecker there at that time.
Q. What did Eichmann say?
A. Eichmann shouted at me: “What are you still doing here?”
The others were astonished at my presence. I then said that
I had not yet received my papers, and he said that I would
be getting them soon; I should go across to Krumey. I don’t
remember precisely whether it was in this or the next
conversation that I complained about the news, the frightful
news that we had from the ghetto, to which he gave me this
heinous reply: “I’ve just been travelling around the entire
country and have seen only waggons loaded with bread for
delivery to your Jews.” He also told me that I was to bring
my wife to him and show her to him. He did not want to have
anything to do with anyone if I was not there; I was to
return quickly. My wife was to maintain contact; if she
received news from me, it was to be conveyed to him
Q. And then?
A. That was approximately the third Session – I went over to
Krumey – I beseeched Krumey – I was going away, and my
mother and my sisters, my wife and children…
Q. Did you bring your wife to Eichmann?
A. I brought my wife to Eichmann the next time.
Q. Did you get the papers from Krumey?
A. Before everything else, he inscribed my wife and my
children, my sisters and my mother, in these immunity papers
which he had…
Q. Can you identify the man in the photograph? (Exhibit
A. That is Franz Novak.
Q. When did the last meeting between you and Eichmann take
A. My last meeting with Eichmann took place on 15 May 1944.
Eichmann told me then that he had no more time; I must
travel immediately. That very day he was about to begin the
deportations, twelve thousand daily, he said, he would
deport from that day onwards.
Q. Deportation to where?
A. He did not say. But later on he said in a somewhat
oblique way…He said that he could no longer wait; I should
hurry and return quickly. He could hold back the people for
eight to fourteen days, and they would not be sent directly
to Auschwitz, but to Austria or Slovakia. However, he could
not hold them back for a longer period, I would have to be
back with my answer before that.
Q. What else did he say?
A. That the adults and youths could indeed work, but the
aged and children would have to go…
Presiding Judge: Who could work, and who was to go? I
believe there was a mistake here.
Witness Brand: The young and strong could remain; the aged
and the children had to go… The decision was in my hands.
Attorney General: Did he tell you where you could travel to?
Witness Brand: That had already been discussed. He told me
that Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey would bring me to the
airplane. I was to go across to him, he would tell me. He
told me several times that I must hurry. He again repeated
that on my return, he would blow up the installations in
Auschwitz and give the first ten per cent.
Q. Did you receive a letter of accreditation – credentials –
from the Rescue Committee?
A. No. I received a letter from all the Zionist parties,
without exception, from the Revisionists to the Hashomer
Hatzair, etc. Not exactly a letter of recommendation, it
requested: “Do what Joel Brand says.” I received it from
the Jewish Council.
Presiding Judge: Where is the original of this letter?
Witness Brand: I do not have the original; at that time I
passed it on. I don’t know what became of it.
Q. To whom did you pass it on?
A. To the Jewish Agency in Constantinople, or perhaps the
English have it; I don’t know. Moreover, when I think about
it thoroughly, it is possible that it was returned to me,
and that I even have it in a safe…
Q. All right…And moreover, did you receive a letter from
the Zionist parties?
A. From all the Zionist parties except my own, I had to
write that letter myself.
Attorney General: Mr. Brand, if we may return to the
Presiding Judge: I mark this Exhibit T/1174.
Attorney General: Let us return for a moment to the meeting
with Eichmann at which Mrs. Brand was present; was that the
Witness Brand: Yes.
Q. I have perhaps not asked what occurred at that meeting.
A. Eichmann told my wife that she was not to leave Budapest,
that she and the children were to remain near him. I do not
know whether or not he used the word “hostage”; in any case,
what he wished to say was clear. She was also to report to
him every day and convey to him any kind of news received
Presiding Judge: Again, an error has apparently slipped
in… That is No. T/1175 and not T/1174 as I said
Attorney General: On 18 May, did Krumey take you in his car
to the Vienna airport?
Witness Brand: No, it was on 16 May, in the afternoon; by
18 May, I had already taken off.
Q. Did Krumey say anything to you before your departure?
A. Yes. He accompanied me through the barriers and brought
me to the foot of the steps to the airplane. Then he told
me that I should spread the word and recount abroad that not
only were there officers like Eichmann in the SS, but also
decent ones as, for example, Wisliceny and he himself, and
he perhaps named others; these would make every effort to
fulfil the offer and do everything to save the Jews.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, I believe we must break off
the Session now.
Attorney General: It won’t last much longer; I shall soon
terminate my questions.
Presiding Judge: But we have arrived at the right place for
Attorney General: I should only like to inform the Court
that I wish to present several documents from the archives
of the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot. It would be expedient
to submit these documents before the testimony is concluded,
since they perhaps comprise material for the cross-
examination. But that will require some time, since I also
have to read out a few passages.
Presiding Judge: Therefore that will require some time. Mr.
Brand, you will therefore continue your testimony tomorrow.
You are free for today.
There are still a few matters at present. Mr. Bodenheimer,
you will submit documents T/1171, T/1172 and T/1173 to
representatives of both parties for inspection until
Now I must return to the matter of the questionnaires, since
time is running very short. There are several points here.
First of all, Dr. Servatius, have you an answer regarding
Hoettl and Huppenkothen?
Dr. Servatius: No, I have not yet received any answer. If,
however, I do not receive their telegraphic assent by this
evening, then I shall assume that they will decline to
appear here. I gather from press reports that these
witnesses have encountered some difficulties in their
Presiding Judge: Does that mean, therefore, that the
questionnaires for the witnesses will be ready for dispatch
to them, if no other communication from Dr. Servatius is
received by tomorrow morning?
Dr. Servatius: I would so request.
Presiding Judge: Hence we expect, Mr. Attorney General, your
questions for the questionnaires.
Attorney General: I still request deferment for a day or
two, since we had assumed that the witnesses would perhaps
appear here, and consequently we did not devote time to
working on these questions.
Presiding Judge: That is really not in order. I have
serious misgivings that we are encountering delays. Please
hand them in by noon tomorrow.
Attorney General: By tomorrow evening.
Presiding Judge: All right. Now what about the matter of
Kappler in Italy? What is being done in this matter?
Attorney General: I assumed that the Court would administer
the questionnaire in accordance with the usual form.
Presiding Judge: The question of representation of the two
sides still remains here.
Attorney General: As far as we are concerned, apparently we
will only be represented indirectly, and we shall have to
Presiding Judge: Do you want anything on that to be included
in our Letter of Request to Italy, or will you see to that
Attorney General: We shall see to it ourselves.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what about your
Dr. Servatius: As soon as a date is set for a hearing in
Rome, I shall give power of attorney to an Italian
Presiding Judge: You do not require that something on that
be included in our request to the Italian Ministry of
Justice, do I understand that correctly?
Dr. Servatius: Yes, it depends only on my being informed in
time about the time and the place of the examination.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, I assume that you are in
contact with our embassy in Rome.
Attorney General: As soon as the material is dispatched from
here, we shall be in touch, and Dr. Servatius will be
Presiding Judge: [to Dr. Servatius] Is that satisfactory to
Dr. Servatius: Yes, thank you.
Presiding Judge: We have already received the Defence
Counsel’s questions for Hoettl and Huppenkothen.
Attorney General: But it would be good to know whether this
is the end of the matter, or whether we must still make
preparations for additional witnesses. Dr. Servatius has
not yet said his last word on this question.
Presiding Judge: Well, you, likewise, have not said your
last word on what you intend to say.
Attorney General: I can already tell the Court that I would
like to submit a document, an expert opinion of Professor
Serafim of Goettingen University, which was submitted to the
Ulm District Court in the proceedings which I cited in my
opening argument. The opinion concerns the possibility for
SS officers to be released from duties which involved
bloodshed, without thereby incurring damage, whether bodily
or materially. We are trying to find out whether Professor
Serafim can appear here in person. He could appear, since
according to our information, his past is unblemished. But
he fell ill and is now recovering from his illness. If we
shall be able to bring him here, we shall do so. If we
shall not be able to do so, we shall wish to submit the
written opinion, and then Defence Counsel will naturally be
able to cross-examine him, if he so wishes.
Presiding Judge: But I now inform you that, from this point
onwards, we must bear the time factor in mind, also in
discussing whether a document should be admitted, even if
the witness is subsequently interrogated abroad.
Attorney General: If that is so, it will perhaps be better
that I should submit, or offer the documents for submission,
Presiding Judge: Yes, and that applies to both parties. We
are today already at a rather advanced stage, and I do not
want us to have to wait for weeks or even months for replies
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, there is still the question of
the witness Novak who is incarcerated in Vienna. I shall
submit an application on that before noon tomorrow. Next,
it has been announced that the memoirs of Eichmann will
perhaps be submitted in evidence. If so, I would have to
request that those persons be heard who were present during
the preparation of the transmission of those memoirs. That
is so important a matter that I shall not waive the evidence
of these witnesses.
Presiding Judge: That also requires prior discussion of the
matter of the Life transcript, is that not so?
Attorney General: In this matter I have to request several
days from the Court, since the possibility of
authentication, which we intend to submit to the Court, is
being checked. I have been promised a reply by Friday.
Consequently I cannot inform the Court whether or not I can
submit this document, properly authenticated, before Friday
Presiding Judge: This means, therefore, that the deadline is
noon tomorrow. Everything you wish to submit after that
will have to be dealt with having regard also to the time
The Session is adjourned until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.