Session 073-06, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: If that is the case, I shall not trouble
the Court with this document, and I shall not submit it.
The next document is our No. 1532. This is a partial report
of 6 February 1943 on the personal effects stolen in the
camps of Auschwitz and Lublin. Here, there is reference to
textile and other articles that were seized, to the
difficulties of transport by train, and, after that, the
summing up – what each of the various authorities of the
Reich received from these robberies: the Ministry of
Economics and Finance – 97,000 men’s suits, 76,000 women’s
costumes, 270,000 kilograms of bed feathers. The total
which the Ministry of Economics and Finance received
amounted to a total load in 570 freight cars.

What did the Volksdeutsche receive, for example, in
children’s garments? 15,000 children’s overcoats, 11,000
short coats for children, 3,000 children’s trousers, 99,000
men’s coats, overcoats; 155,000 ladies’ coats, 125,000
women’s blouses, 111,000 women’s shoes – a total load of
clothing in 211 freight cars.

The German youth – there are details here of what it
received. This included 20,000 women’s sweaters. The
concentration camp personnel received 28,000 men’s coats;
100,000 pairs of men’s shoes; a total load of 825 freight
cars of clothing.

[This document was marked T/1386.]

The Court will find here Himmler’s instructions on arranging
matters of property, after his visit to Warsaw.

Our document No. 1533 is a report of 13 May 1943 on the
robbery and plunder. This concerns other plundered articles
– 94,000 men’s watches, for example, divided among the
various fighting units; so many watches were received by
fighting units at the front; 3,000 watches were received by
crews of German submarines. Each of the concentration camp
units received 200 watches.

Even fountain pens were distributed amongst the fighting
units. And the question now arose: What to do with the
women’s watches? “I request a decision,” writes Globocnik,
“as to what is to be done with 33,000 women’s watches”; four
large crates of stamp collections were sent. Gold: he asks
for an instruction what to do with the collections of coins
in his possession.

Presiding Judge: How do we know that this is Globocnik?
According to rank – is that right?

Attorney General: Yes. We are able to identify this
document according to the N.O. This we can identify.
Another report by Globocnik is our document No. 117, that is
4024 P.S. He gives a partial estimation at nominal prices,
so he says, of the robbery of property at one hundred
million Reichsmarks and more. He himself says that the
prices are nominal. And he refers only to money, foreign
currency, gold, valuables. He has a further thousand
freight cars of Spinnstoffe (textiles).

Presiding Judge: Document No. 1533 is our T/1387, and the
document which you have now submitted is T/1388.

Attorney General: Our document No. 1250 – Globocnik reports
to the Reichsfuehrer on the completion of the Reinhardt
Operation; and there is a summing up of the operation in its
two parts. He says that he has transferred the labour camps
to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl; and now he comes to the
economic aspect of the Reinhardt Operation. “The
deportation,” he begins, “has been accomplished and has
ended; in all, the undertaking has gone well. Greater
damage was caused only in Warsaw, where the operation was
completed by an erroneous method, due to misjudgment of the
state of affairs.” We know already what Globocnik describes
as the “erroneous method”: they did not succeed in enticing
the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto to go to their deportation,
and the revolt followed.

He refers, later on, to the utilization of the Jewish labour
force, to the setting up of residential camps, to the
transfer of the camps to the Concentration Camps
Administration of the Economi-Administrative Head Office of
the SS, of the economic enterprises of the OSTI – that is in
paragraph 7 – of the exploitation of the Jewish labour
force; and later on, in section D, of the income from
certain valuables, the seizure of all Jewish property, which
included the confiscation of Jewish assets within the
country and abroad, for all the prisoners in the camps were
obliged to hand over their claims to OSTI, which acted in
this matter as a sort of collecting agency.

Thereafter, he refers to the forced-labour camps. There is
a detailed specification of fine metals, foreign currency,
jewellery and valuables. There is a list of the foreign
currency according to country: Fabrics, textiles – these are
all to be found here. The Court should please note that the
date of the document is 4 November 1943, and we already know
from testimonies heard here that, on 2 and 3 November 1943,
the camps in the Lublin area were liquidated; the Jews were
transferred to Majdanek and shot there on the day they
arrived. On this point, evidence was given here by Dr.
Wodowinski – on the last 18,000 prisoners.
Judge Halevi: Where is the date?

Attorney General: At the top of the document, Trieste, 4
November 1943.

Presiding Judge: The date here is 18 January 1944.

Attorney General: This document has been bound in your
copies as the last one – the letter from Globocnik to
Himmler from Trieste, dated 4 November 1943.

Presiding Judge: How does it happen that there are these two
different dates? Here he submits a final report in November
1943, and, after that, there again comes a final report in
January 1944?

Attorney General: The Court should please note what he
requests. On 4 November 1943, he asks that the SS forces
which operated should receive suitable decorations, such as
those received by the forces which operated in the Warsaw

Presiding Judge: The Iron Cross?

Attorney General: Yes. And after that comes the final
report of the total liquidation of property.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1389.

Attorney General: The last document, which perhaps does not
belong to the series, is our No. 1443. This is a letter
from Rauff to the department which dealt with the supply of
gas trucks to the Einsatzgruppen. It says here that, since
the month of December, 1941, 97,000 were processed* {* In
German: verarbeitet} by means of the three trucks that were
in service, without any defect being discovered in the
vehicles. The notorious explosion at Kulmhof should be
regarded as an isolated incident. After that, it speaks of
how to avoid accidents, how to introduce improved facilities
in the extermination vehicles, of installing accessories
inside, a description of the truck, simplifying the off-
loading of the bodies. And with this the document ends.

We know that in Kulmhof extermination was carried out by
trucks. We also know that the Einsatzgruppen, particularly
Einsatzgruppe D, used gas trucks for purposes of
extermination. On 5 June 1942, the three trucks reaped a
death harvest of 97,000 suffocated persons. And the German
term for this was “verarbeitet”.

[This document was marked T/1390.]

Judge Halevi: Who sends this to whom? This is a single

Attorney General: This is the only copy. It is still a
secret Reich matter. It is sent from Department IID3, and
it is signed by Rauff, a member of the RSHA, SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff.

Presiding Judge: No. It is addressed to him. It is signed
by someone called Just.

Attorney General: Quite right, I beg your pardon. This was
submitted to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff and signed by

Presiding Judge: What was Department IID3?

Attorney General: As far as I remember, that was the
department which supplied the gas trucks. That is the Head
Office for Reich Security.

With this, we have reached the conclusion of this chapter,
and I would request the Court to kindly direct us how to

Presiding Judge: We shall now adjourn for ten minutes.

[Recess ]

Presiding Judge: With regard to the document which the
Attorney General calls the “Sassen Document,” we have not
yet reached a decision. We shall give our decision during
the course of the day. We shall see when. Now, with regard
to that testimony which you have mentioned, we are prepared
to hear it, but we would ask you, really, to see to it that
it be kept, as far as possible, within its proper limits.

Attorney General: Perhaps, in the meantime, my colleague,
Mr. Bach, with the Court’s permission, can finish the
matters that are still to be dealt with by him.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, the Court will certainly
recall that a few days ago, I tried to submit – and I asked
the Court to admit – the declaration of Dr. Imre Reiner, who
made an affidavit before our consul in Canada. I then
submitted two medical certificates confirming that the
witness, Dr. Reiner, had suffered a heart attack, that he
was suffering from a coronary thrombosis, and also from a
heart disease, and two doctors certified that he was unable
to fly to Israel in order to testify here.

Presiding Judge: Did we mark these certificates?

State Attorney Bach: They were marked T/1224. In the
meantime, I have supplied the Court, and also Defence
Counsel, with copies of that affidavit. The Court then
asked me to clarify whether there was, nevertheless, a
possibility that this witness could be examined in Canada.
The reply to that has been negative, in two respects.

Firstly, I asked that the witness be examined once again as
to the state of his health, in order to ascertain whether he
was fit to be examined. I received a medical certificate
from the same doctor who examined him in hospital, and he
says that in his opinion this witness cannot at the present
time be submitted to cross-examination, and that this would
be likely to endanger his health. He writes: “I feel that
Mr. Reiner is not in a position to be cross-examined at
present, as this would jeopardize his health.”

Presiding Judge: Who gave this certificate?

State Attorney Bach: The same Dr. Mendelson M.D. who had
also supplied the previous certificate. The certificate
reached me only yesterday and, therefore, I have not been
able to prepare photocopies, but I have printed copies. I
have also given one copy to Defence Counsel.

I have also found out that in fact there is no agreement
between Israel and Canada on mutual legal aid, and that from
this point of view also, we would not have been able to
lodge this application – at any rate not with any certainty
that we would, in fact, receive a response to our

I would say, therefore, Your Honours, that from the point of
view of the Court’s decisions, from the point of view of the
legal position, there is no difference, in fact, between
this witness and other affidavits which we have submitted to
the Court and which the Court admitted, where in the
circumstances of the case, it was impossible to examine
these witnesses, on account of their death, or for other
reasons. “They are not available,” as was already decided
at the time in Nuremberg and as, in fact, also follows from
the decisions of this Court. There is no essential
difference between the case of a witness who, because of his
death, cannot appear before the Court, and the case of a
witness who, because of his absence and the state of his
health, cannot be questioned.

Presiding Judge: Do you recall at what Session this matter
was previously discussed?

State Attorney Bach: I do not remember exactly, but perhaps
we can ascertain that according to the number of the

Presiding Judge: At Session No. 61.

State Attorney Bach: In fact, these cases are always
regarded as being parallel. For instance, in Section 36 of
the Trial upon Information Ordinance, it says: “If the
witness, who has given evidence at a preliminary examination
on oath, cannot be produced at the trial because of his
death, infirmity or sickness, or absence from Palestine, his
deposition may be read.” I am only quoting this section as
a basis for my argument that there is no difference in
principle between the case of a witness who has died and
cannot testify, and the case of a person who, owing to
illness, such as this grave illness, a heart affliction,
cannot be questioned now.

Presiding Judge: When was this affidavit made, Mr. Bach?

State Attorney Bach: This affidavit was made on 5 October
1960, and I should like to stress that in my opinion, this
fact adds both probative value and weight to that affidavit.
When Dr. Reiner made this declaration, he not only
indicated his readiness to appear here, but he actually made
his declaration in the knowledge and belief that he would be
examined on that declaration in Court.

There is no doubt that this declaration is relevant on
several important points that have arisen in this trial, and
the Court will also have ample opportunity to judge the
quality of the memory of the witness and his reliability,
especially where this evidence relates to documents
submitted by us, and to other evidence and other testimonies
which we have brought before the Court. I want to give only
one example of that.

Presiding Judge: Let us deal with your argument as such,
without your going into the contents of the document.

State Attorney Bach: I only wanted to say that it is
possible to divide the affidavit into several parts: There
are matters on which he testifies, and we know of these
facts only from him, and there are other testimonies which
are able to assist the Court to assess the nature of the
evidence and its weight.

I merely wanted to add one further argument: The Court will
recollect that Defence Counsel questioned one of the
witnesses who appeared here and gave his evidence. In cross-
examination, he quoted sections of that same affidavit of
Dr. Reiner – in fact, he read into the record portions of
that affidavit. It seems to me that from this point of view
also, it would be right for the Court to admit the
affidavit, to see in what context these words were uttered,
and this will enable the Court to weigh both the testimony
of the witness who testified, and also the significance of
the affidavit I wish to submit.

I previously indicated the examples from Nuremberg. In
fact, that was also the procedure there: When the
prosecution tried to submit a particular declaration, and
there was an objection on the part of the defence, the court
decided to admit these declarations and added in its
decision that it would be possible to demand the examination
of the witness “if he is available,” and if it transpired
afterwards that the man was no longer alive or could not
appear on the grounds of illness, then they would not insist
on this need for cross-examination. I would, therefore, ask
the Court to use its authority under Section 15 of the Nazis
and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, and admit the

Presiding Judge: I have marked the additional medical
certificate T/1391. Dr. Servatius, do you have anything to
say on this question?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, the second
certificate which has been submitted here is defective. The
doctor writes here that he has a “feeling”: “I feel that Mr.
Reiner is not in a position…”

Presiding Judge: This “Gefuehl” in English is not the German
Gefuehl, Dr. Servatius.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08