Session 061-09, Eichmann Adolf

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 377.
This, too, was shown to the Accused and was given the number
T/37(156). This document was written on 21 November, and
here there occurs a policy change regarding the
“Fussmarsch.” It says here, in a letter from Veesenmayer to
Berlin, that the deportation of Jewish women on foot is no
longer being permitted, in view of the shortcomings that
were revealed on this march, and Hoess is not prepared to
take anyone except men fit for work, up to the age of forty.
It is their view that Jewish men and women who do not meet
these requirements at the present time constitute – to use
his words – an exceptionally heavy burden on his labour
administration, so that he had even been considering the
return of transports of unfit persons who were already on
their way. If he abstained from doing so, it was only for
political considerations.

Presiding Judge: Is that the same Hoess? It says here:
“Leiter Judeneinsatzes im Niederdonau Gebiet” (Official in
charge of the placement of Jews in the Lower Danube Area).

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour, he had been given
this appointment within the organization that dealt with
these people. He was then working under Glueck.

Presiding Judge: At all events, he was no longer in

State Attorney Bach: At that time, he was no longer in
Auschwitz. In fact, at the end of October, the gas chambers
really stopped operating, by order.

Presiding Judge: But the camp was still in existence?

State Attorney Bach: It was still in existence, and it was
there, in fact, when Baer took over.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1242.

State Attorney Bach: And now, Your Honours, the following
document deals with a complaint of the Swedish embassy, in
the matter of Wallenberg. This is our document No. 1121.
It says here in a cable to Veesenmayer from the Foreign

“The Swedish Minister called on me today and, on behalf
of his government, communicated the following message
to me: The head of the SS unit for the Solution of the
Jewish Question in Budapest has advised, as was
conveyed through a certain Mr. Eichmann to a worker of
the Swedish Red Cross in Budapest, that it is his
intention to put to death, by shooting, the person whom
he called `the Jewish dog, Wallenberg'” (den sogenanten
Judenhund Wallenberg zu erschiessen).

Presiding Judge: Is this what the Swedish Minister writes?

State Attorney Bach: Erdmannsdorff of the German Foreign
Ministry writes this to Veesenmayer, and he informs him that
the Swedish Minister had approached him with this complaint,
that Eichmann had told him that he had wanted to shoot to
death the person whom he spoke of as “the Jewish dog
There it says further:

“The reference is to the counsellor to the legation,
Wallenberg, who was attached to the Swedish legation in
Budapest, and who dealt mainly with the granting of
protective passports to Jews. The deputy to the head
of the SS unit there, Droegger, expressed himself in
similar terms.”

Later on it turns out that this was actually Dannecker.

“They also advised us, according to the message, that a
Jewish employee of the embassy had been shot, together
with three members of his family, by unknown

At the end it says:

“I told the Swedish ambassador that we would
investigate his information and that the expressions
quoted by him could certainly not have been meant
seriously, if they were uttered at all; the ambassador
agreed that such a thing was possible, but he indicated
the tense situation which prevailed in Budapest at the
time, which was likely to give rise to serious
incidents. I request an investigation and a cabled

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1243.

State Attorney Bach: The answer was given in document No.
1122. Veesenmayer replies:

“The embassy counsellor Grell advises that it was true
that the commander of the unit for special operations
of the SD for the Jews, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann, and his deputy, SS Obersturmfuehrer
Dannecker, had frequent and justifiable grounds for
criticizing the members of the Jewish bureau of the
Swedish legation in Budapest. This was particularly
true of the Legation Counsellor, Wallenberg, who
operated in an unacceptable manner for the benefit of
Hungarian Jews who were mobilized for labour service on
the borders. It was also determined that in doing so,
they endeavoured to let them escape by totally illegal
means from the obligation to work which was based on
law, through issuing protective passports. It is
possible that because of this feeling, the expressions
which were quoted were used, not in the form of a
serious threat, but in order to serve as a warning
against further tactics of this sort. The Jewish
employees mentioned are Hungarian nationals who possess
Swedish protective passports. But a final account of
the facts can only be furnished after
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, who is now away on his
travels, can be questioned, and at the first available
opportunity an additional report will be forwarded.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1244.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I should
now like to submit to Your Honours, as evidence, an
affidavit of Vajna Gabor. He was Minister of the Interior in
the Hungarian Government after the Szalasi revolution, that
is to say, after October 1944. This is the man concerning
whom I questioned Dr. Franz Tibor at the end [of his
testimony]. He said that he had been sentenced to death
after the War and was hanged.

He swore to an affidavit before an Allied officer. In it,
he describes a meeting with Himmler, and also with
Winkelmann and with Eichmann, and also quotes remarks that
were made to him by Kaltenbrunner about Eichmann’s duties.
He stresses here what Winkelmann’s role was, but in
particular he emphasizes Eichmann’s exaggerated extremism.

This document, in our view, is of particular importance and
special relevancy. When we submitted previous statements of
individuals, of German officers or of the Accused’s former
colleagues, we were always told by Defence Counsel that they
believed he was dead and wanted to put the blame on him.
All the arguments which the Court heard are well known. It
is true, one might say, that when a Hungarian, such as this
one, was interrogated, he would have an interest in
ascribing the blame to the Germans, but it certainly would
not be important for him, from his point of view, to say
whether the blame should be cast on Eichmann instead of
Geschke or Veesenmayer.

Presiding Judge: This has nothing to do with the
admissibility of the document – only with the question
whether we should treat it with less or more belief in its

State Attorney Bach: I merely wanted to point out that this
is a document possessing substantial probative value, for
that is the test which the Court must apply when deviating
from the rules of evidence. Therefore, I argue that this
statement has great probative value, particularly where it
is made by a man occupying such a position. Incidentally,
this affidavit was also submitted to the Accused and was
given the number T/37(158). The number of our document is

In pursuance of similar decisions which have been given by
the Court, I would accordingly apply for the admission of
this affidavit as evidence in this trial.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you have to say
about it?

Dr. Servatius: I am unable to see clearly where and before
whom the Minister Gabor made this affidavit, and whether or
not he was under arrest at the time.

State Attorney Bach: In this instance, I am able to help
Defence Counsel. It says here specifically, on the first
page, that this declaration was made before “Purroy E.
Thomsen, Major, Infantry, Investigating Officer,” and
thereafter it says, “Subscribed and sworn to before me at
Freising, Germany, this 28th day of August, 1945.”

Presiding Judge: Does it emerge here whether he was under
arrest or not?

State Attorney Bach: This is not actually derived from the
document, but it is possible.

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection – I regard the
document as irrelevant.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 64

We allow the submission of Vajnor Gabor’s affidavit – for
the reasons given in our Decision No. 7. This will be
marked T/1245.

State Attorney Bach: He first describes a visit to
Reichsfuehrer Himmler. He went to him at the order of
Szalasi in order to discuss the deportation of Jews from
Hungary, and Himmler declared that the persons authorized to
act on his behalf were Obergruppenfuehrer Winkelmann, and
more especially Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. In paragraph
three he says:

“In the course of an interview with Berger in Berlin,
Berger, in my presence, confirmed Himmler’s requests
and charged Kaltenbrunner with the task of dealing
further with the details. Kaltenbrunner promised that
a registration office would be set up immediately, and
the Jews would be dispatched, as far as possible, by
train. Kaltenbrunner insisted on their immediate
extradition, with the utmost urgency, and said that the
duty had been entrusted to Winkelmann, and particularly
to Eichmann, to carry out this undertaking. He said
that Eichmann was his personal representative who, in
every matter, could count on his support
(Kaltenbrunner’s). Eichmann came to me at the Interior
Ministry on a few occasions, accompanied by Winkelmann.
Not only did he appear energetic – for most of the time
he was quite arrogant, since behind him, as he himself
used to say, he had the German might, and especially
Kaltenbrunner. In Budapest, Eichmann also wanted to
deport children, women and elderly men, a step to which
I repeatedly expressed my opposition. Ultimately he
declared: If so, the Germans will take it upon
themselves to deport Jews.”

I also wish to submit a statement of the Regent Horthy.

Presiding Judge: Do you have more than one of the same kind
of document? Then we could take them all together, instead
of giving a decision separately in each case. That is to
say, at this stage, I see here one statement coming after

State Attorney Bach: I still have this one, and after that
two more passages from testimonies given at Nuremberg, but
possibly I would have to give special reasons for them, in
order to explain their relevance. But of this category of
statements, this is, in fact, for the time being, the last
statement, that of the Regent Horthy. This was also
presented at the Nuremberg Trials, in the case against
Weizsaecker. In fact, this statement is important only on
two points. There is a description here of that meeting at
Kressheim, which we have already heard about, before 19
March, on what, in fact, contributed to the taking over of
power by the Germans. He recalls there the order which he
gave on the matter of Kistarcsa, the sending back of the
train that had already travelled to the border, so that from
the Hungarian point of view, it completes the picture. He
describes the role of the men of the Gestapo in the dispatch
and deportation of the Jews from Hungary.

Presiding Judge: Where did he make this statement?

State Attorney Bach: It was actually his evidence, his

Presiding Judge: Was he not under arrest?

State Attorney Bach: To the best of my knowledge – no.

Presiding Judge: Is he no longer alive?

State Attorney Bach: He is no longer alive. He died
thereafter – I think it was a few years, two or three years

Judge Halevi: He died in Portugal, or somewhere like that.

State Attorney Bach: I believe he died in Portugal.

Judge Halevi: Was he brought to trial?

State Attorney Bach: As far as I am aware, he was never
arrested or brought to trial.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any comments?

Dr. Servatius: I do not have the document in front of me.
I have no formal objection. I only know that Horthy himself
was held under a most dignified arrest. He said, there, at
Nuremberg: “I was invited, and I was kept in a villa” – but,
in fact, he was under arrest.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 65

We allow the submission of Horthy’s affidavit. This will be
marked T/1246.

Judge Halevi: Was this evidence in the trial of Veesenmayer
or in some other case?

State Attorney Bach: This was in Trial No. 11, the case of
Weizsaecker, against members of the German Foreign Ministry,
including Veesenmayer. On pages 2702 and 2703, there is an
account of the meeting at Kressheim. How they actually kept
him interned, how they treated him as if he were a prisoner;
though they said that the train had left for technical
reasons, they gave him to understand that he was under
arrest. Meanwhile, the German army entered Hungary. The
Kistarcsa affair appears on page 2713, on the lower half of
the page. “About twenty-five kilometres from Budapest,
there is a camp called Kistarcsa, and I heard that a
particular transport had left there by train. I then gave
orders to establish contact with the train and to halt it.
The train was stopped at Hatvan and brought back to
Kistarcsa.” Above, on the same page, he also describes the
episode which appears in Kasztner’s report, that attempt
which was made at an earlier date to bring the gendarmerie
in their masses to organize a coup d’etat. This was still
prior to Szalasi’s coup d’etat.

Presiding Judge: Here, there is mention of a General Baky.
That is not the same Baky whom we know. Was he, in fact, a
general or an official of the Interior Ministry?

State Attorney Bach: I don’t know whether he is the same
Baky. It is difficult to imagine that it is the same man.
At any rate, he called in the army, and with the army’s
help, he managed to prevent the coup d’etat. This was
actually the first time the Jews of Budapest were saved.
The second time was later, in August.

There is a document which I can submit, which appertains to
a previous episode, and which I forgot to submit then. This
is our document No. 973. It also relates to the
“Fussmarsch.” This is a cable from Veesenmayer, dated 13
November 1944, where he reports to the Foreign Ministry.
According to information supplied by Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann, twenty-seven thousand Jews of both sexes had been
deported to Reich territory. He believes it is possible to
deport another forty thousand Jews who are fit for work. He
thinks that after that there will remain in Budapest
approximately one hundred and twenty thousand Jews, whose
fate has not yet been finally decreed. And this matter
depends, possibly, on the means of transportation that will
be available to the Germans.

Dr. Servatius: I would ask Your Honours kindly to note one
other point in the previous document, on page 2713 in the
last line. There it says – and I am reading from the
English version which I have before me –

“If I can remember correctly, the Minister and
Plenipotentiary, together with SS General Winkelmann,
came to see me, and they told me that they had made an
arrangement with the government, according to which the
deportation of the Hungarian Jews was exclusively in
their hands.”

Presiding Judge: I have marked the Prosecution document No.
973 – T/1247.

I wish to announce that the morning Session tomorrow,
Friday, will begin at 7.30 and will conclude at 12.30, in
accordance with our previous practice on Fridays.

The next Session will be this afternoon at 15.30.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/07