Session 062-06, Eichmann Adolf

Witness Gordon: I told him that I hid these jewels and
Jewish valuables because I was thinking about myself. If he
doesn’t come back, they would belong to me. Of course, it
was just a story.

Attorney General: And then he told you to go with those
people who were returned to Budapest?

Witness Gordon: We did not return to Budapest, I was put
into the labour camp in Kecskemet.

Q. And you stayed there till your liberation by the Soviet

A. Not quite. I escaped from there, from Szegedin. I had
been taken to Szeged to the hospital, from where I escaped
on October 14, 1944. Then I went to Budapest, and I was a
member of the underground until the liberation.

Q. I believe you also testified in Hungary in the case of
Marton Zoeldi.

A. Yes, Sir, I did.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no questions to the witness.

Judge Halevi: I did not quite understand. In the synagogue
they told you that this was a German order?

Witness Gordon: That was correct.

Q. Who told you that?

A. One of the Hungarian officials. We were kept also as
“Schutzhaeftlinge” (detainees in protective custody).

Q. A further question: Who was sent to hunt Jews?

A. Where from?

Q. I understood you to say that Christians were wearing the
Yellow Badge. Perhaps I did not understand you correctly?

A. Oh, yes. That was April 15, 1944, when I had to go to
the Foreign Police. They were just killing if there were
any Jews coming out of the places, and we saw people walking
with a Jewish Star. We believed that they are Jews, but
they turned out to be Christians, because, as soon as we
entered the building, we were arrested there.

Q. Why did they wear the Yellow Badge, if they were not

A. Just to trap those Jews who should come at that date to

Q. And were there members of the Security Service at the
Majestic Hotel, or who was it who questioned you there?

A. All we knew was that they were SS men.

Q. And did you hear the names of the officers?

A. I only heard Eichmann’s name from those who had been
there longer than I was.

Q. That is to say, they told you that this man who had come
in and looked at you was Eichmann?

A. That is correct, Sir.

Q. And this is why you identify him now?

A. Yes, Sir. And I also saw him at the Tsuk factory later

Q. But you still recognize him now?

A. Yes, I do, Sir.

Q. But he was not one of the interrogators?

A. No, he was not.

Presiding Judge: You said that the Accused expressed his
satisfaction in the courtyard of the leather factory.

Witness Gordon: Yes, and he made a remark which I clearly
heard, as: “These Jews had directed and ruled the Hungarian

Q. To whom did he say this?

A. To one of his accomplices, also in an SS uniform.

Q. Did you hear anything further from which you understood
that the Accused expressed satisfaction, or was it only

A. I couldn’t say anything about this. I saw him two or
three times in the Majestic.

Q. That is not what I am asking. You told us about his
comment that you heard when he visited the leather factory.
Was there any other remark from which you could have learned
about his satisfaction?
A. I did not hear anything else.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

Attorney General: I have another witness. I do not know
whether we can finish his testimony today. But if the Court
wishes us to begin, we can do so.

Presiding Judge: How long, in your estimation, would his
evidence take?

Attorney General: Half an hour. If we do not call him
today, I can submit some more documents, because this
witness is the last one of the individual chapters.

Presiding Judge: And you do not have material to submit?

Attorney General: I can keep the Court engaged for some

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge. There are
still a number of witnesses. But I have not yet received a
summary of their testimony, and hence I do not know what
they are to say. I do not know whether this is one of those
witnesses – I have not yet had an opportunity to speak to
my client about that.

Attorney General: We have supplied a precis, but it does not
matter. Since time is short, I shall submit documents, and
with these we can perhaps conclude the session. Defence
Counsel has received notice of the documents.

The two documents relate to a conference that took place at
the beginning of April, on 3 or 4 April 1944, of all the
“Juden-Referenten” – the directors of the Jewish sections in
the German Foreign Ministry and in the German embassies in

The first document is our No. 1186. This is a letter, dated
10 March 1944, from von Thadden to Eichmann, giving details
of the conference, and stating that the agenda for the
conference had been agreed upon with Eichmann. This was a
meeting of all the consultants on “Aryanization” of the Head
Office for Reich Security abroad and of all the Juden-
Referenten of the German legations abroad. It says that the
conference will take place in Krumhuebel in Silesia.

Judge Halevi: Was there a special reason for that?

Attorney General: Yes, for a special reason, so that, in the
event of a successful air raid, all these important experts
would not – Heaven forbid – be lost at one and the same

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1250.

Attorney General: The Foreign Ministry asks all those
invited to prepare their reports and their theses, and the
Court will find, in the margin of the letter, a minute by
von Thadden, dated 29 March 1944, that, owing to the events
in the south-east, the Head Office for Reich Security would
not be able to be represented at Krumhuebel by its advisers
on “Aryanization” on the date specified. On 21 March 1944,
the men in charge of the Jewish Department were occupied in
a special action in the south-east. They were engaged in
the extermination of the Jews of Hungary. But the
conference took place without them.

And here is the report of that conference. It is our No.
506. It is also PS 3319. It was submitted at Nuremberg.

I would draw the Court’s attention, first of all, to the
list of participants in that conference, which the Foreign
Ministry prepared in conjunction with the Accused. This is
to be found on the last pages. The Court will see the names
of the lecturers: The opening speaker, Professor Dr. Six
(this is the Defence witness), Ambassador Schleier, Dr. von
Thadden, Professor Mahr, Dr. (Miss) Hauhsmann, Dr. Walz, Dr.
Kutscher, Dr. Klassen, Dr. Matthias, Dr. Yanke, Dr.
Meissner, and several others who represented Germany in
France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden,
Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Turkey.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1251.

Attorney General: In opening this well-attended conference,
Professor Dr. Six, who was at that time already at the
Foreign Ministry, begins by saying in his speech that the
Fuehrer had laid down that the battle against Jewry had to
be intensified, and, in particular, anti-Semitic propaganda
had to be directed towards England and the United States.
Anti-Jewish propaganda in neutral countries was difficult,
but it was of the utmost importance, since, from the neutral
countries, it was possible to radiate to England and the
United States. (Ausstrahlungmoeglichkeiten).

On the second page, Dr. Six states…

Judge Halevi: Does Dr. Six say all this? The first words
are already not those of Dr. Six.

Presiding Judge: No, he only hands over the chairmanship of
the meeting and then goes on with his speech.

Judge Halevi: Apparently, it is Schleier who is speaking,
and not Six.

Attorney General: Quite correct. I thank the Court. This
is Schleier reporting. Six speaks on the following pages
about the political structure of world Jewry and, in doing
so, states the following as a fact:

” Judentum in Europa hat seine biologische und
gleichzeitig seine politische Rolle ausgespielt”
(European Jewry has already lost its biological and, at
the same time, its political role). Nevertheless,
there are still Jews left in England – so he says –
“owing to its plutocratic structure.”

And, at the end of the page, Professor Dr. Six deals with
Zionism. He says:

“Zionism means the return of the Jews to their homeland
in Palestine, in order to become there a political and
biological force once again. This question of a
renaissance in Palestine clashes at once with the Arab
problem. Jews were promised the return to their
homeland by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The
Jewish element in Palestine had expanded and made much
progress at the expense of the Arab people.”

And here there is a sentence:

“Die physische Beseitigung des Ostjudentums entziehe
dem Judentum die biologischen Reserven” (The physical
liquidation of the Jews in the east deprives the Jewish
People of its biological reserves).

And here, again, comes the notorious libel. The Jew is
connected with Bolshevism. In England, he is linked to high
finance. I have already had an opportunity to mention to
the Court that the Jew is the enemy of National Socialism in
its twin aspects: As a communist, he is the enemy of Nazism;
as a capitalist, he is the enemy of so-called socialism.
Consequently, he is a perfect target for an attack on the
two aspects of this name. Professor Six concludes:

“Not only in Germany, but also on the international
scene, a solution to the Jewish Question must be

Later on, von Thadden, in his speech, gives an account of
the steps which world Jewry has taken in reaction against
the German operation against European Jewry. (“Der Redner
fuehrte dann aus, welche Gegenmassnahmen das Weltjudentum
gegen die deutschen antijuedischen Massnahmen in Europa

At the end of his account, he reports on executive actions
which, because of their secret nature, are not included in
the minutes. There is nobody there of the Jewish
Department, since we know that Eichmann, Krumey, Hunsche,
Brunner, and all the gang were in Budapest, but there is a
delegate of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, SS
Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ballensiefen, and he reports on
the attempts to carry out anti-Jewish activities in
Hungary, in connection with the political events there.

Professor Dr. Mahr talks of the possibilities of anti-Jewish
propaganda on the radio.

Dr. (Miss) Hauhsmann discusses the anti-Jewish activities
that can be carried on by the press and by the distribution
of anti-Jewish photographs.

Dr. Walz asks that the particular mentality of each nation
to which the anti-Semitic propaganda is directed be taken
into consideration.

Dr. Kutscher says: “The Jews are the misfortune of all
nations. A Jewish victory will be the end of all culture
(for example, Russia).”

Judge Halevi: How much longer do we have to hear about all
those speeches? Surely this also appears in Mein Kampf?
What is new about that?

Attorney General: The novelty lies in the fact that, in
April 1944, when the balance was moving towards the other
side, when Germany was engaged in the massive Soviet counter-
attack, when the invasion forces for Europe were getting
ready in the British Isles – that was what preoccupied the
Germans. It was for this purpose that they called this
large European conference, in order to continue the struggle
against the Jews – in co-operation with the Accused.

And now, Your Honour, we come to the precise recommendation
of each expert on how to spread anti-Semitism in his

The French delegate suggests how this can be done in France
by exhibitions of photographs. There are problems in
Portugal, for it is difficult to talk there of a purge in
the German sense, but there the nation must be purged of the
remnants of Jewish blood which still exists within the
nation. From Switzerland comes a report that a healthy anti-
Semitic instinct exists there within the population, but it
has to be nurtured. While anti-Semitic propaganda must
proceed with caution, and its German origin must not be
revealed (“den deutschen Ursprung nicht verraten”), it is
worthwhile considering revelations of scandals in which Jews
are involved, dealing with Jewish personalities, the
spreading of Jewish jokes.

In Italy, the nation must be told that the Jews are active
in the black market, and illustrated brochures
(“illustrierte Broschueren”) should be distributed.

In Sweden, there are complaints about the spreading of anti-
Semitic propaganda. However, there are possibilities of
bringing anti-Semitism to life, if the wave of Jewish
immigration from Denmark were to be exploited. The
difficulty is that it is not possible to broadcast any anti-
Semitic propaganda on the Swedish radio. The delegate from
Romania complained that the racial aspect and the anti-
Semitic ideology had been neglected, and that they had
concentrated solely on economic and material measures
against the Jews.

Presiding Judge: Very well – and so it went on from country
to country.

Attorney General: So it went on from country to country –
the determination of the most effective measures for action,
how to disseminate the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
This is suggested for Turkey, on a scientific basis. It is
also interesting to refer to the case of Slovakia. It is
world-embracing. There is reference to Japan. On page 14,
Consul Meissner talks about a solution of the Jewish
Question in Japan and in the Far East. He points to the
large number of Jews from Germany who had managed to escape
there. There, too, they must be reached.

We have the agenda here, with the breakfasts and lunches
that were served, together with anti-Jewish films that were
screened for the participants. “Les Corrupteurs” – that is
the name of the film which was shown to the conference
delegates. And the record of the proceedings, as the Court
will notice later from the last page, goes to all the German
embassies in Europe.

Presiding Judge: Very well. Will you please give us two
more copies?

Attorney General: I shall do so, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I merely
want to point to the last page, where it says that those
taking part on behalf of the Head Office for Reich Security
were guests, and there the name of
Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Ballensiefen is mentioned. This was a
symposium for the heads of the Jewish Departments at the
embassies abroad; that is to say, all these gentlemen were
from the Foreign Ministry. And here we see where the
driving forces were to be found. This document is an
important defence document for the Accused.

Presiding Judge: On what page is this?

Dr. Servatius: It is on the page before last.

Presiding Judge: We shall adjourn now. Tomorrow morning’s
Session will commence, as I have already announced, at 8.30
instead of 9.00, and will conclude at 12.30.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/07