Q. Did you personally hear this?
A. Yes, for I was dragging bodies and I passed near them
while they were talking together. And that was a lie, for it
was a mixed transport, there were Poles, Germans, Czechs,
not only Jews, but they atoned for all the atrocities with
the word “Jews”.
And so, I said that I was a chemist, and I went off by train
with a group of thirty chemists. At the place where we
parted from the transport only about one thousand people
still remained alive. This was in Krumholz, near Liebental
in Lower Silesia – this place is called Krassnegora in
Polish. On the way we dug anti-tank trenches and shelters
for the army; this, too, was one of the methods of
extermination of this transport, which was without food,
without clothing, without sleep. When we arrived on this
train, we asked our guard where he was taking the chemists
to and he replied: “They are going to Flossenbuerg to forge
But he took us off at Reichenau, near Gablonz in the Sudeten
area. There was a camp there where no Jew had ever been. It
was a small camp of Gross-Rosen, and it had a plant for
radio sets. The plant was called “05Goetterland”. The whole
camp worked for the factory of radio sets. Electricians,
technicians and specialists in fine mechanics were working
We were the first Jews. Naturally we were full of lice –
they had not been taken to a march, they were more or less
clean – and we were obliged – all thirty of us – to sleep
outside. We were sent away to the Baukolonne (Building
Detachment). That was the only hard labour in this camp. We
built a villa for the camp commandant, and we had to pave
the road. And then something happened to me.
A Czech woman gave me a piece of bread. We returned to the
camp. He ordered us to undress. I put the bread on top of my
pile of clothes, since I knew that in Birkenau there was no
punishment for possessing bread. I did not understand that
there was a difference between that bread and this bread: in
Birkenau it was “army bread” and here it was “freedom
bread.” And when he looked at this bread and asked “whom
does this belong to?” and when I said that it belonged to
me, he said: “Make an injection” (Abspritzen). I stood
there, naked, two prisoners held my arms and I did not
understand what this was about. In Auschwitz I had heard
about this, but I did not know what it was. He ordered them
to bring a syringe. But he was told it was not there – it
had been given to the SS hospital. He said to me: “Get
dressed” and “Forward march.” He threw my bread into the
refuse bin, it was some kind of refuse pit. When I asked
later what was supposed to have happened, it was explained
to me that in this camp they used to make a petrol injection
into the heart. And this was not done by a doctor but by the
SS man himself – his name was Braun.
Two or three days before the liberation, we were set free
from this camp. We could not walk any further, for the road
seemed to be blocked. Meanwhile, of those thirty, who were
all Jews, ten remained – twenty had died. Of these ten who
survived, six died after the liberation in the municipal
hospital in Gablonz, and only four remained alive.
Attorney General: Dr. Beilin, of all the twenty-five
thousand who left Auschwitz together with you, how many
survived after the War?
Witness Beilin When I left the transport at Krumholz there
were one thousand persons. I did not know what happened to
them. After the liberation I was told by the doctor who
remained with this group until the end – he now lives in Tel
Aviv – that one hundred and nine persons survived, and of
these one hundred and nine, forty-three died after the
Attorney General: What caused their death?
A. Firstly, some were found to have tuberculosis. Then, they
had no strength left. They began eating to excess and
apparently without proper supervision. Instead of being
given their nourishment gradually and becoming accustomed to
normal food, they started overeating and as a result
Q. In all, about sixty people remained alive?
Q. Out of the twenty-five thousand who were there when you
A. Yes. I only want to add that I lost consciousness. For
three days…I was in a state of semi-consciousness. I
became a Muselmann. I began to visualize good food and I
knew that this was the sign. When I was already in this
state of semi-consciousness they did not force me to go out
to the building detachment, but I had to scrub the floor of
Once I was sitting there, scrubbing the floor and I noticed
a pair of SS boots approaching towards me. Naturally, I
automatically rose – “”Muetze ab” (cap off) and I saw
Mengele. He recognized me in my present condition, despite
the fact that I – certainly – did not resemble my original
self. This was three days before the liberation. He knew
that the War was lost. He asked me: “Was machen Sie hier?”
(What are you doing here?) I told him: “I am scrubbing the
floor.” And he walked away, saying: “Weitermachen” (Carry on
doing it). I was sure – despite the fact that I was semi-
conscious, I was half-dead, I could not feel the tips of my
fingers, the tip of my nose, the tip of my jaw and my legs
were swollen – I knew these manifestations well and I was
sure that he would be looking for me. I knew that he would
want to get rid of the witness who had been present at the
time of the liquidation of the Gypsies’ camp. I don’t know
if he really searched for me or not, because that same night
I was placed in the Sterbeblock (hut for dying people). When
I opened my eyes I was in the city hospital in Gablonz on
the river Neisse – this was four days after the liberation.
I was amongst the medical personnel, in a separate room,
with a white bed and even with flowers on the cupboard.
Q. What occupying army was it?
A. I was liberated, so my friends told me – there were
eighty persons there, Poles, Russians and Jews who had
originally been liberated by the Czech partisans who
appeared on 9 March, and, that night, the Red Army entered.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions?
Dr. Servatius: I have no questions to the witness.
Judge Raveh: Dr. Beilin, I do not know whether I
understood you correctly; when you first came to Auschwitz,
you did not work as a doctor?
Witness Beilin No, not in the quarantine and later on, too,
I did not work as a doctor. It was a special case if someone
was chosen to work as a doctor. The selection of doctors was
carried out by the Haeftlings-Oberarzt (the Prisoners’ Chief
Doctor). He himself was a Polish prisoner whose name was
Zangfele. This Roman Zangefele chose me whenever necessary.
An interesting point: Since my diploma had been torn up in
the “Sauna”, when he selected me for the clinic he asked my
one question: “Have you encountered spot typhus?” I
replied: “Yes.” Then he said to me: “You are lying – there
was no spot typhus in Poland.” He had forgotten that in the
meanwhile, the Soviets had been in this part of Poland for
two years and they had brought us typhus.
Q. How did he pick you out?
A. One has to bear in mind that the mortality rate of
doctors was also very high. They were not used to hard
labour and if they did not work in their profession they
died. They were tortured and died, particularly as the
authority over them was in the hands of criminals who
especially suppressed the intellectuals – not only the
doctors, but doctors as well. Hence, when there were few
doctors in Birkenau, an order was issued to all blocks: “All
nurses and doctors are to report.” And then he made his
selection from amongst these.
Presiding Judge: Thank you, Dr. Beilin, you have concluded
Attorney General: Your Honours, in view of the fact that we
only have a few minutes left, may I perhaps be permitted to
use them in order to submit, through Mr. Yehuda Bakon, that
statement of his which was, indeed, made on 15 June 1960 but
which was sent to the archives, because in the meantime we
received his long statement from Yad Vashem, and hence it
did not reach the Prosecution at all?
Presiding Judge: Is he still here?
Attorney General: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Bakon, you are continuing to testify
Attorney General: May I approach the witness, Your Honour?
Presiding Judge: Certainly.
Attorney General: I want to ask him to read a certain
Presiding Judge: Certainly.
Attorney General: Is this the statement you referred to as
having been submitted in the Russian Compound in Jerusalem?
Witness Bakon: Yes.
Q. Is it signed by you?
Q. Would you like to read, here, this extract, from the
words “Generally speaking” to the end of the passage?
Presiding Judge: On what date was it made?
Attorney General: On 15 June 1960.
Witness Bakon: “Generally speaking, people were
exterminated by gas, in their masses. But the Edelstein
family was put to death by special order, and it appears
that Eichmann had a hand in it. Mrs. Edelstein told me
before that, in February, when she met Eichmann, that he had
promised that she would meet her husband.
Presiding Judge: Is it signed by you?
Witness Bakon: Yes.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1330.
Are you making copies of this?
Attorney General: Yes, of course.
Dr. Servatius: I do not know whether the translation that
has reached us is a correct one. In the translation which
was handed to me by the Assistant State Attorney, Mr. Bach,
it says: “It appears that Eichmann had a hand in this
matter, for Mr. Edelstein also told me…”
Judge Halevi: The translation is not exact.
Presiding Judge: It does not say: “Also Mr. Edelstein, but
Dr. Servatius: Then there is a difference of time here. It
seems to me that, this morning the witness mentioned June,
whereas here he says that it was in February that Mrs.
Edelstein met Eichmann. Accordingly, I apprehend that the
witness may have been influenced by what he heard later on.
Witness Bakon: I said that in January-February, at the
beginning of the year, Dr. Janowich said that Eichmann had
arrived and that did not mean good tidings. During the same
period Mrs. Edelstein also met…she was taken out of the
camp, and, according to what she described, it was clear
that she had met with Eichmann, or with someone who
Presiding Judge: The question is this: when did you hear
these remarks from Mrs. Edelstein? In February or June?
Witness Bakon: Mrs. Edelstein was taken outside the gates
twice – once in January or February and it was then that Dr.
Janowich, too, identified Eichmann, for he told us, apart
from Mrs. Edelstein, that, now that Eichmann had arrived it
did not bode good tidings…
Q. We are talking of what Mrs. Edelstein said about
A. Twice, when she returned from the gate, she was promised
that she would meet her husband.
Q. When was that?
A. Once it was approximately in January or February 1944;
and the second time it was shortly before she was removed
from the camp.
Q. But when did she tell you this?
A. I remember it mainly from the second time.
Q. That means – in June?
A. I remember hearing it for the first time from Dr.
Janowich and the second time from Mrs. Edelstein.
Presiding Judge: Any further questions, Dr. Servatius?
Dr. Servatius: No, I have no more questions.
Judge Halevi: I am sorry, it is still not clear. Here you
wrote, and you said in your evidence, that Mrs. Edelstein
told you this in February?
@Witness Bakon: She told us twice.
Q. She told you the same story twice?
A. More or less the same story – that she had been promised
that she would meet her husband.
Q. She told you the contents of this story twice?
A. Yes, that she had been promised that she would meet her
Q. And twice she mentioned the name of Eichmann?
A. The first time mainly…
Q. What do you mean by “mainly”? I am asking about Mrs.
A. She said it had been promised to her by Eichmann.
Q. Twice she said that?
Q. In February she said Eichmann?
A. In February she mentioned Eichmann specifically – that is
what I understood in February. And in May I understood it
had been promised by Eichmann or by someone speaking on his
behalf. In February it was very clear that it was actually
Eichmann, and in June – by his representative or by himself.
Q. Did she return to your camp also in June?
A. Of course she came back.
Q. And in the end she was executed?
A. A little while after this she was taken away, and she
never came back. Subsequently I learned that she had been
Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Bakon, you have finally
concluded your testimony.
We shall now adjourn. We shall continue tomorrow morning at
As I have announced, after the recess you will be showing
Attorney General: We should only like to ask for one
instruction from the Court. Does the Court wish that a
witness should be present during the screening, a witness
who will previously have been sworn, and that he should
confirm what is being viewed? That would save time. Or would
the Court prefer that we should screen a portion, and
thereafter summon a witness to the witness stand to confirm
Presiding Judge: I do not know whether the first course is
Attorney General: It is practicable – it can be put into
Presiding Judge: But you have said that you have to darken
the hall. The proceedings also have to be recorded.
Attorney General: I understand. So only the second course is
Presiding Judge: After all, you have already seen it – you
know the amount of lighting.
Attorney General: At this spot, where the shorthand writer
sits, there is not much light.
Presiding Judge: Of course it is possible to ask the
electrician to put a lamp here. Everything is possible.
Attorney General: Will the Court agree in principle to the
Presiding Judge: If you maintain that it is practicable, and
that it will not lead to general confusion, of course.
The next Session will be tomorrow morning, at 9.00. o’clock.