Session 060-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 60
16 Sivan 5721 (31 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the sixtieth Session of the trial
open. Please continue, Mr. Bach.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honour, in order to complete the
picture, I still wish to draw the Court’s attention to two
excerpts from two statements by Wisliceny. The one is the
statement which was written in the Bratislava prison, and
which we called at the time “Cell 106”; it was given the
exhibit number T/85. This is Prosecution document No. 773.
And here, on page 21 of the copy of the German version,
Wisliceny describes the negotiations between Dr. Kasztner
and Eichmann, how he kept on putting Dr. Kasztner off by
telling him repeatedly to come back again, how in the
meantime he planned the implementation of the deportations
from Hungary. And after that, he says:

“Whereas Becher truly endeavoured to secure results
from the negotiations, it was Eichmann’s objective,
through laying down impossible conditions and carrying
out the deportations in the swiftest possible manner,
to create a fait accompli.”

At the end he describes Mr. Brand’s mission and adds:

“In view of the fact that he was unable to achieve
anything, he did not even come back. Eichmann

On the following page, page 22 of the copy, he says:

“Since Brand did not return, Eichmann was unwilling to
receive Dr. Kasztner any more, and thought of getting
rid of him when the opportunity arose. He also planned
similar measures against Freudiger.”

We shall also see, subsequently, that these matters were
corroborated by the statements of Kurt Becher. Thereafter,
he describes how Eichmann, at a later stage, planned to
deport the Jews of Budapest.

With regard to the beginning of the deportation and how
precisely the plan was carried out, and what were the stages
of the planning of the operation, this we see from
Wisliceny’s affidavit which is also contained in Prosecution
document No. 856, which was given the exhibit No. T/56, and
here, in his interrogation dated 29.11.45, on pages 8-9, we
find paragraphs 23 and 24 of the statement. In paragraph
23, Wisliceny describes the negotiations between Eichmann,
Himmler and Becher. I do not wish to repeat this. He more
or less restates the same fact about the demand for trucks
and raw materials, on condition that they will not be used
against England and America. Thereafter, he says:

“I was later informed that this proposal was turned
down by the Allied countries because there was no
assurance that they would not be used against the USSR.
As Eichmann had predicted and wished, the negotiations
failed, the planned actions went ahead.”

Subsequently, he adds in paragraph 24:

“I think it quite important to describe the attitude of
the Hungarian Government. According to Ferenczy, the
Hungarian Government at first agreed only to
concentrate the Jews at certain collecting points.
Conditions created by the massing of hundreds of
thousands of people in congested camps were unbearable.
The inmates could not be fed or taken care of.
Ferenczy went to Budapest on about 20 April 1944 and
reported to Endre and von Baky that either the Jews
would have to be returned to their homes or removed to
other areas. This was the moment Eichmann had waited
for. He declared that he would be ready to take over
these Jews if the Hungarian Government would make a
special request. It happened as follows: Ferenczy
arrived in Budapest in the morning, gave his report to
von Baky, who sent it to Eichmann. Ferenczy saw
Eichmann around noon and received Eichmann’s request.
At four o’clock in the afternoon, the Hungarian
Government had made the demanded request. Eichmann
immediately called a conference of transport experts in
Vienna for the arrangement of the timetable of the
evacuation. The conference was attended by Novak and
Captain Lulay, Ferenczy’s adjutant, on behalf of the
Hungarians, and in addition, representatives from the
Reich Ministry of Transport were present.”

Wisliceny states further:

“I saw copies of the cables which were sent regarding
all these matters from Eichmann to the Chief of the
Security Police and SD, Kaltenbrunner, reporting the
developments; furthermore, a cable to Eichmann’s
deputy, Sturmbannfuehrer Rolf Guenther, requesting him
to immediately inform the Inspector of Concentration
Camps, Brigadefuehrer Glicks, of the arrival of the
Hungarian Jews in Auschwitz, and ask him to make all
necessary preparations for their reception.”

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is Prosecution
document No. 359, which was shown to the Accused and was
given the number T/37(109). Here, the reference is to what
they call “certificate Jews,” Jews who possessed a special
right or a special document, by virtue of which they could
be exempted from the anti-Jewish operations. And here
Veesenmayer, in a cable dated 26 May, advises that “in
accordance with a message from the Eichmann special
operations unit, the certificates were checked personally by
State Secretary Endre of the Hungarian Ministry of the
Interior. Through close co-operation of the SD units with
Endre, a stringent execution of the checking was ensured.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1192.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is Prosecution
document 152, which was also shown to the Accused and was
given the number T/37(90). Here Veesenmayer reports to the
Foreign Office on 25 May 1944 that, up to that day, about
one hundred and fifty thousand had already been sent to “the
destination” – as he put it. And later on he says:

“In a briefing that took place today in the Ministry of
the Interior under the chairmanship of State Secretary
Baky, with the participation of the Chief of the
Gendarmerie (the Hungarian District Commissioner) and
Chief of Police of Area 3, and Commander of the Special
Operations Unit of the SD, Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann, together with officials of his Section, all
the details concerning the concentration in, and
deportation from, Area 3 were settled.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1193.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, in his comments, the
Accused acknowledges that he participated in that meeting.
His comments are on page 1313.

The next document is our No. 678, which was shown to the
Accused and was given the number T/37(175). This is von
Thadden’s report concerning his visit to Budapest. It is
pointed out here that this is a secret Reich matter, and
that von Thadden, together with Hezinger, visited the
legation and spoke to Eichmann’s unit and the unit of
Ballensiefen; I shall explain later who this was.

The important matter here is on page three. There is a
certain hint here, although there is no detailed
explanation, about certain secret agreements, of which
Winkelmann was aware, and which were being prepared behind
Veesenmayer’s back, and of which Veesenmayer did not

Presiding Judge: Where does this appear?

State Attorney Bach: On page three, paragraph three, in the
German copy: “Soweit ich aus Andeutungen entnehmen konnte,
scheint es sich um Geheimvertraege zu handeln, die
Gruppenfuehrer Winkelmann hinter dem Ruecken von V.
vorbereitet hat, und mit denen V. nicht einverstanden ist”
(As far as I could infer from hints, there appear to be
secret agreements prepared by Winkelmann behind the back of
V., and with which V. disagrees).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1194.

State Attorney Bach: It says here that they planned to
include a total of a million Jews, of whom one third were
fit for work and would be transferred to Sauckel and to the
“Eastern Industries,”* {*The German document refers, in
point of fact, to OT, i.e. “Organisation Todt,” the Reich
agency for construction founded by Todt.} and that the
entire operation would be completed by the end of July.

At the end he describes a luncheon together with Eichmann, a
visit to the Ballensiefen Institute, an institute for the
research of Judaism which had been established in Budapest,
and he also describes the publication of a newspaper similar
to the Stuermer called Harc (Battle).

The following document is our No. 375, which was shown to
the Accused and given the number T/37(147). Here von
Thadden, after his return from Budapest, delivers a most
detailed report to his superiors. He states here that every
day twelve to fourteen thousand Jews would be transferred to
the Generalgouvernement, and he also talks of the duplicity
used against the Jews of Budapest. He relates that, by way
of duplicity, the anti-Jewish legislation continued to be
applied, and it was explained to the Jews of Budapest that
these measures applied only to the Jews of the eastern
areas, and not to Jews similar to the Magyars, explaining
further that otherwise there would be no need for anti-
Jewish legislation, if indeed they wanted to deport the Jews
of Budapest. And he says that this was a way of deceiving
the Jews of Budapest.

Presiding Judge: On what page is this?

State Attorney Bach: It appears at the bottom of the first
page and at the top of the second page in the German copy,
“das Gesetzgebungswerk zeige deutlich, dass man hinsichtlich
der uebrigen ungarischen Gebiete anders verfahren werden,
denn sonst sei dieses Gesetzgebungswerk ja ueberfluessig”
(The legislation was to show clearly that as regards the
other districts of Hungary, there would be a different
attitude, since otherwise this body of legislation would be

Thereafter he reports that an operation in Budapest was
being planned for the middle of July, and they were thinking
of mobilizing all possible forces to this end, including
postmen and chimney sweeps, who would have to serve as
guides, in order to point out the Jewish apartments. And he
says that on that day all buses and tram services in
Budapest would be stopped, so that they could be used to
transport the Jews. The Jews would be concentrated on an
island in the vicinity of Budapest, on an island in the
Danube. After that he describes the close co-operation
between Endre and the SD office in Budapest and gives an
account of the support they were getting from the newspaper

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1195.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our document No.
1342. Here Wagner passes on a report which is almost
identical to von Thadden’s report. However, at the bottom,
there is also a reference to the one third of the Jews who
were fit for work, amongst those whose deportation was being
planned. But the significance of this document lies in the
hand-written comment appearing on page two of our copy,
where Wagner writes, on 28 June: “Eichmann ist bei
Veesenmayer gewesen, um alle Einzelheiten zu besprechen.
Grell ist Verbindungsmann bei Eichmann” (Eichmann visited
Veesenmayer, in order to discuss all the details. Grell is
the liaison man at Eichmann’s [office]).

Dr. Servatius: It says “ist Verbindungsmann zu Eichmann”
(Eichmann is the liaison man to Eichmann.)
State Attorney Bach: I thank Counsel for the Defence.

The Court will notice that this remark was written on a
later date. The letter was written at the beginning of
June, and the comment was written later on; evidently
further information was received.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1196.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 566.
It is a letter which the Accused wrote to von Thadden – as
far back as 11 February 1944. I am quoting it here now, for
it is connected with the next document I am about to submit.
This was before the Germans invaded Hungary, and he enquires
here about a certain Jew, Edmund Meszaros, and here he
doubts whether the man is an Aryan – he does not know
whether the man is an Aryan – and he turns to the Foreign
Office, in order to obtain details about this man, about his
parents, and his past in Budapest.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1197.

State Attorney Bach: And here is the reply now, in our
document No. 527. Here, von Thadden writes to the Commander
of the Security Police and the SD on 30 May 1944 that, in
view of the close ties between the Eichmann unit in Budapest
and Endre and the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior, they
presume that the problem had meanwhile been solved directly,
and that there was no need for action by the Foreign Office.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1198.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 630,
which was shown to the Accused and given the number
T/37(174). Here, von Thadden advises Veesenmayer of a
particularly diabolical plan. He again refers to operations
against the Jews in Budapest and says that the great
operation in Budapest would surely arouse a vehement
response abroad. And he says that the Press Department
intended to recommend to the Minister the creation of
pretexts and of external grounds for the campaign, such as
the discovery of explosive materials in the headquarters of
Jewish organizations and in synagogues, sabotage groups,
plans for revolution, assaults on the police, and smuggling
of currency on a large scale, designed to undermine the
Hungarian currency system. And he adds that, according to
the plan, “some special outstanding incident ought to serve
as the culminating point which would serve as the reason for
the entire round-up.”

The man who proposed this was someone called Schmidt, who
had written about it previously to the Foreign Office.

Presiding Judge: Was this written by von Thadden?

State Attorney Bach: The letter is written by von Thadden.
He addresses his letter to Veesenmayer and states that it
was the Press Department which had made this suggestion to
find the necessary grounds for the large Budapest operation.

Judge Halevi: Do we know what the “Presse-Abteilung” (Press
Department) was?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. I simply did not think it was
necessary to produce another letter from the same Schmidt,
actually in identical terms, to von Thadden. I did not want
to burden the Court with yet another document.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1199.

State Attorney Bach: A reply came to this from Veesenmayer.
It is our document No. 632. He is not satisfied, he does
not approve of this suggestion, for he is afraid it will
have the reverse effect. He says: Surely it is well known
that the Jewish clubs and synagogues have been requisitioned
for some time already and are now under the strict control
of the Hungarian police; accordingly, he does not believe
that this operation, this propaganda, will serve much of a
purpose. He is also of the opinion that such a sharp
reaction abroad to the Budapest operation should not be
anticipated – judging by previous experience.

State Attorney Bach: Was the previous letter sent from
Germany to Hungary?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. Von Thadden sent it from Berlin
to Veesenmayer in the form of a suggestion, and Veesenmayer
replies that he does not think this suggestion is a
practical one, for the reasons which he specifies.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1200.

State Attorney Bach: In order to illustrate how Budapest
Jewry was preparing, meanwhile, for what was about to
happen, I should like to present to the Court the evidence
of Moshe Rosenberg.

Presiding Judge: [to witness] Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Rosenberg: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Moshe Rosenberg.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Rosenberg, in 1944, were you in

Witness Rosenberg: Yes.

Q. Are you a native of Hungary?

A. Yes, I was born in Hungary.

Q. In what work were you engaged in Budapest during that

A. My professional work?

Q. Yes.

A. I worked as an engineer.

Q. Were you also active in Jewish public life in Hungary?

A. Yes.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/07