Session 073-04, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: Yes. The number of errors, the
corrections of which were to appear separately, comes to
204. In our possession, there are fifty-four such

And now for the nature of the corrections. Only a few of
the corrections have any substantial value, and these are to
be found at the end of the transcribed tapes and are written
in the Accused’s handwriting; for example, tape 52 and tape
63. Nearly all the others are typing errors – whether they
are corrected on the special sheets of comments or corrected
in the text. Both the corrected tapes and the uncorrected
tapes extend throughout the length of the document – that is
to say, there is no special passage that one can point to as
a corrected passage or an uncorrected one. Both types are
to be found throughout the document.

The recording is of a dialogue. According to what is said
in the body of the document, this dialogue lasted four
months in 1957. The intention was, according to what was
stated, to publish a book on the role of Eichmann in the
persecution of the Jews. The aim of the book appears in the
first three pages of the first tape. In tape 30 as well,
note 43, there appears the remark: “Please, don’t put this
in the book.” And on the last page of the tapes, there is
the remark of Eichmann that perhaps these conclusions of his
were not suitable for publication in print, as long as he
was alive.

Moreover, on page 357, in tape 41, Eichmann mentions his
observations which have already been included in forty-one
tapes. This is what he says: “See, this already extends
over forty-one tapes. On page 360, there is reference to a
conversation which had taken place at the beginning of that

There were also arguments between the two, mainly in tapes
46, 47 and 54, and all of them relate to the initiative for
the extermination of the Jews. And when Eichmann objects to
the manner in which he is being interrogated by Sassen, on
page 442, Sassen answers him, saying that he is writing a
book that is supposed to refute the arguments of Eichmann’s
opponents, and that the book ought to be convincing and,
hence, he was insisting on an explanation from him.

There is special significance to the special sheets (Extra-
Blaetter) which appear at the end of the tapes, and these
are a kind of notes of subjects for research and additional
clarification, which still remained obscure. For example,
research into the statistics which had allegedly been
smuggled into the Wannsee record of proceedings; the date of
the order putting a stop to the deportations; the date of
the setting up of the large gas chambers; the date of the
evacuation of Norway and Denmark; the date of the great
“action” at Sosnowiec in August 1943, which went to prove
that there was pressure on means of transportation.

Presiding Judge: I think we are going into… I don’t know
what my colleague wishes to hear.

Attorney General: I believe this is an answer to Judge
Halevi’s questions.

Presiding Judge: In any event…

Judge Halevi: At any rate, it is clear that all these are

Attorney General: The Extra-Blaetter were notes for further
conversations: “On this subject, we still have to talk and
clarify matters for ourselves.” And further, in the course
of the conversation, a document is submitted to Eichmann,
and he is asked to adopt a stand – amongst those there were
documents that have been submitted here, of which we know.

I have to admit that there is also one document which Sassen
showed him which is not known to us, and I do not know where
he obtained it. But there were many documents which he
showed him and which were also shown to him in Bureau 06,
and in the same way as he was asked to respond to us, he was
asked to respond there.

Judge Raveh: Perhaps I may ask something – is it possible
to relate these written additions to certain passages in the
transcript? I do not know if I am making myself clear. Is
it possible to extract portions of the transcript in such a
way, so that the additions in writing plus these extracts
constitute some form of document in itself – intelligible by

Attorney General: That is the material which is in our File
17, which is entirely handwritten, comprising the following
portions: eight pages of corrections of tapes, comments,
pages six and seven relating to a subject, two pages of
additional material on the same subject, and thereafter some
tens of pages containing a detailed exposition in the
Accused’s handwriting on the subject: “My conclusions on
Jewish problems and the activities of the National Socialist
regime for the solution of this problem during the years
1933-1945.” Does this answer Your Honour’s question?

Judge Raveh: It is difficult to know that without becoming
acquainted with the material. Hence, I do not know whether
I have a clear picture in response to this question.

Attorney General: The first answer is that eight pages in
handwriting contain the numbered comments.

Judge Raveh: And is it possible to link them to the
corresponding portions of the transcript?

Attorney General: Certainly – the numbering shows…

Judge Raveh: That is already an answer.

Attorney General: And, after that, we found in handwriting
under such and such a number, “I am correcting so and so.”
But it is true that more numbers appear than the number of
written comments in our possession. We have only fifty-
four, and there appear some two hundred.

Judge Raveh: Can these numbered comments not be understood
without the appropriate parts of the transcript?

Attorney General: Certainly not – they can be explained only
in relation to the context.

Judge Raveh: Now I understand. I have received my answer.

Attorney General: But, apart from that, the comments which
Superintendent Hagag refers to are in the body of the
transcript, not in File 17. They extend…

Judge Raveh: One can say that this is a self-contained
matter which is not necessarily connected with other parts
of the transcript.

Attorney General: No, I am talking now of an ordinary
transcript. Perhaps I may show the Court what I mean – at a
distance, so as not to identify anything?

Judge Raveh: At present, he is referring to the
handwritten material.

Attorney General: Here, for example, is page two of tape

[shows it to the Court.]

Judge Raveh: I see that – handwritten additions.

Presiding Judge: Such as in T/37.

Attorney General: Exactly.

Judge Raveh: I did not mean that, of course. I was
referring to the part where comments are collected together.

Attorney General: In all these respects, from the point of
view of the graphological identification, the identification
of the contents, the authentication of the document and the
possession of it, there is ample proof for admitting the
document in evidence, whatever the weight may be which the
Court will attach to it, in the light of the document and,
of course, in the light of the explanations which the
Accused will give, should he wish to do so.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, since when have you had this
document? When did this document come into the possession
of the Prosecution, approximately?

Attorney General: That would be somewhat difficult to say.

Presiding Judge: Is that difficult to determine?

Attorney General: The question is: What does Your Honour
mean by “the Prosecution”? If you are asking me when I
received it, the answer is that it reached me three weeks

Judge Raveh: But it reached Israel before that?

Attorney General: I would ask you not to press me for a
reply to this question.

Presiding Judge: You are not bound to reply. I want,
further, to add a personal observation. This also applies
to the accuracy of the transcript and the copy. When this
question was raised for the first time – it seems to me that
this was during the sixteenth Session – by my colleague,
Judge Halevi, a remark was noted as having been made: “The
Attorney General will approach the editors of Life” it even
says “today”.* {*Volume 1, Session No. 16, page 252}

Attorney General: And that is what I did.

Presiding Judge: I wish to say that, apparently, this was
not recorded accurately. For the time being, I have
compared it only with the English and French translations,
and there I found a more accurate record, as far as I
remember. I still intend to check this with the tape,
according to the Decision in that regard, and then this will
be corrected, if, indeed, it is found not to be accurate.
This is not of much importance, but, at any rate, it has to
be done.

Attorney General: I made the approach at the time – either
on the same day or very soon after that day – and I have
also received a reply.

Presiding Judge: There it appears that you complied with our
instruction – at any rate, as is stated there, with an
instruction of mine. It was not exactly in that way, but I
shall still go into the matter.

Attorney General: As Your Honour pleases. May I request the
Court to peruse the list of comparisons, since that, in any
event, is part of my argument.

Presiding Judge: Very well, please do so, submit it, for the
present…unless Defence Counsel has any reservations in
this matter. We have not yet heard his arguments at all.

Attorney General: At any rate, I apply to submit the list to
the Court, instead of reading it.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge. I ask you
not to take cognizance of this document. I can also submit
a similar list of absolute contradictions, but this document
has only been in my hands for a few days, and I have not
been able, during that short time, to draw up an exhaustive
list of contradictions. I have also to point out that I
have only one photocopy, which I also have to show to the
Accused. Accordingly, I would request, if I may, a second
copy, in order to carry out my task.

I would, therefore, ask for one of two things: either not to
accept this document, or to allow me to submit a similar
document of my own in the future – when this will be
exactly, I cannot say at the moment.

Presiding Judge: We shall also deal with this question –
whether to accept the list of these comparisons, and under
what conditions to accept them. This is to be taken as an
amendment to what I said previously.

If you please, Dr. Servatius, how do you wish to respond
generally to the Attorney General’s remarks?

Dr. Servatius: With regard to Section 37(2), I put forward
my argument already last week, and I will not repeat my
argument, but I rely on what I said then. The crux of the
matter seems to me whether or not to admit a magazine
article written by a certain journalist, based, according to
him, on a tape-recording. The Accused says that such a
recording had, in fact, taken place, and a copy had been

As far as the public bar is concerned, I have to point out
that these things took place not inside a bar, but in the
atmosphere of a bar. It was a conversation of the sort that
would take place in a bar. Wine was brought from time to
time, and the Accused was plied with wine, so as to overcome
the resistance of the Accused, who did not want to comply.
The journalist asked the Accused to imagine that it was the
year 1945, and that he should state how he felt then, in the
year 1945. Eichmann’s reply was: “No! I am now a working
man, and I have no longer anything to do with politics.”
But Sassen insisted, and hence came the matter of the
drinks; from time to time, one finds in this record the
remark: “Another bottle of wine!” The Accused was not
willing – and one can also notice inconsistencies in the
body of the document itself.

Then there came books which were shown to him, certain
passages, with the journalist wanting to get his story. The
Accused also received part of the copy for correction, but
he was a working man who was occupied with his work, and he
did not have the time to make a serious study of each of
these transcripts – he had a brief glance in the course of a
cursory reading and, occasionally, made one or two
corrections. Occasionally, when he had some time to
himself, he wrote out them in greater detail, and then we
find observations on these slips of paper, indicating more
extensive corrections; there were also protests against the
contents here and there, and he said that he did not wish to
come any more for these conversations. But the journalist
insisted, and then the Accused stipulated that he would not
come unless there was a condition that this would be used
only if he would be able to sign every page with his full
name after making corrections as he wished, since his mind
was already beset by suspicion, and he no longer trusted the

I can also submit to the Court the precise contract that was
entered into by the two of them at the time; I only have an
uncertified copy in my possession, but I shall have to
secure an authenticated one, and I can do so. There is no
proof here that this transcript, this copy, purports to be
an authorized statement of the Accused.

I believe that it is important here actually to produce the
best evidence, instead of the account composed by that
journalist – it would be worthwhile to bring as the best
possible evidence the journalist himself, and not the
article which was composed in a special form and
colouration. I fail to understand why the journalist
himself should not be brought here. If difficulties exist
in securing Sassen’s address, I have it – I shall be able to
provide it.

Fritsch is in Austria, and Austria is a country where it is
possible, at any time, to lay hands on a man who is being
sought. We have also heard from the Prosecution just now
that it has no objection to bringing these witnesses to the
State of Israel. As far as I know, Fritsch was in Argentina
at that time. Now he is in Austria, as far as I am aware.
He was never a member of the Party. It is, of course,
another question whether he will be willing to come. At any
rate, I maintain that it is up to the Prosecution to bring
these witnesses here.

As far as Sassen is concerned, I will most certainly have to
attack his evidence; I shall have to level accusations at
him, and I shall not be able to do so if he is my witness,
unless he is subsequently declared to be a hostile witness.
With regard to the status of Fritsch, if he should come to
testify, I do not know where he stands. In any event, the
proof rests with the Prosecution, and it will have to bring
the witnesses.

And again, in regard to the document, it is not a complete
document and, hence, I contend that it is a falsification.
The last pages, which are written in the Accused’s
handwriting, are not complete, and a lot is missing from
them. These are statements that can be submitted, since, in
these parts, there is nothing like the strange matters which
appear in the typewritten parts.

Presiding Judge: But that cannot be understood without
reading it in conjunction with the transcript.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08