Session 085-05, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: There are two passages. In the record of
the Court of First Instance, Bad Toelz, dated 15 June 1961,
on page 2, I. On the allegations of the Accused, at the end
of point 1, it reads:

“My understanding that the Accused Eichmann was
responsible for the foot march was based mainly on
Winkelmann’s information.” And on page three, II: “I
did not talk with Winkelmann about the question who was
responsible for the initiative for the transports and
their technical execution. A discussion about that was
superfluous, after Winkelmann had declared that he was
out of contact, that he had nothing to do with this

Documents will be submitted showing a rather different

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, what do you wish to stress?

Attorney General: I have marked a passage which was also
read out by Counsel for the Defence:

“My name is Hans Juettner, I am 67 years old and
married. I am the proprietor of a sanatorium in Bad
Toelz, Herderstrasse 1.”

On page 2, point 1:

“In November 1944 I travelled, accompanied by
Obersturmbannfuehrer Becher, from Vienna to Budapest.
On the way, on Hungarian territory, we found columns of
Jews guarded by Hungarian Honveed soldiers, moving in
the direction of Vienna. He said to me, more or less:
`We shall meet the “Eichmann Regiment”.’ I asked him
what this was, because I imagined that this was a
military unit. Then Becher enlightened me that it
meant the deportation of Jews from Budapest to the
Austrian frontier.

“After I had seen the columns, I went to the Higher SS
and Police Leader Winkelmann in Budapest, in order to
enquire who was responsible for these transports, and
to protest against them. Winkelmann knew of these
transports. He maintained that he had nothing to do
with them, that this was Eichmann’s concern. Then I
asked him who Eichmann was. Winkelmann explained to me
that he (Eichmann) was the head of a Section of the
Head Office for Reich Security over which he,
Winkelmann, had no authority. In this Section,
Eichmann was dealing with the Jewish Question. My
understanding that the Accused Eichmann was responsible
for the foot march was based mainly on Winkelmann’s

“The junior officer at the time who came to me from
Eichmann’s Section told me, after I remonstrated with
him on these deportations, that his unit belonged to
the Secret State Police in the Head Office for Reich
Security, that they had their own orders, and that I
had no business to tell him what to do. He spoke to me
in a very insolent manner. I was told that Eichmann
was not present, and that this junior officer had come
in his stead.”

Attorney General: I would now ask for Grell’s testimony.

Presiding Judge: I mark Grell’s statement V. Dr. Servatius,
what do you wish to stress in this statement?

Dr. Servatius: There are a few passages in the record of 14
June, Court of First Instance, Berchtesgaden, on page 3, in
the middle:

“Based on my knowledge of my own area of expertise, it
was my opinion and impression that the Special
Operations Unit led by the Accused was exclusively
responsible for the technical implementation of
transports of Jews. I also made this point in
Prosecution document No. 640.”

Then, further down:

“In accordance with the instructions of the Hungarian
Ministry of the Interior, the concentration and
rounding-up of the Jews in Hungary was carried out by
the Hungarian gendarmerie.”

At the bottom of page 4 it says:

“When problems arose, the Senior Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in Hungary,
Standartenfuehrer Geschke, also intervened.”

At the top of page 5:

“The Reich Ambassador to Hungary, Veesenmayer, did not
play any role in planning and implementing deportations
of the Jews.”

I shall subsequently present documents showing the contrary.

Then it says:

“I believe that in the first few months of his
activities he made proposals and became active in
taking the initiative.”

At the top of page 6:

“In my view, the Reich Ambassador to Hungary conducted
the negotiations with the Hungarian Government which
were decisive for deportations, acting on instructions
and on a diplomatic level.

Then on page 8, in the middle:

“I am utterly convinced that the crucial factor in
carrying out the deportation of Jews from Hungary was
that of the Hungarian Government of the day. The
Hungarian Government was probably not informed of the
final destination of the deportations.”

On the same page, the penultimate paragraph:

“Eichmann never made any difficulties for me in my area
of singling out foreign Jews in Hungary. The date of
each transport was given to me at my request by his
office or by Eichmann himself.”

On page 9, the second paragraph: “Eichmann did not sabotage
the protective measures – this relates to the safe conduct”
– to the bottom of the paragraph, “of which the Prosecution
has just shown me a photocopy.”

Then, on page 10, the paragraph at the bottom, beginning: “I
do consider Eichmann to have been the man in charge of his
office in Budapest, but not a man who did, or was able to,
act independently and decisively on his own initiative in
his field.” Then down to the sixth line from the end, “to
cope with the assignment he received.”

Then a particularly significant passage appears at the
bottom of page 6. It is significant in evaluating the
affidavits made at Nuremberg. The witness says as follows:

“My statement of 31 May 1948 was formulated by the
defence, for purposes of the defence, and is not in
formal terms a solemn statement as defined in the Penal
Code. Given these conditions, my statement is
understandably somewhat tendentious, without this
making it untrue. However, because of this it is also
somewhat incomplete on certain matters. Moreover,
because the matters were far fresher in my memory then,
the statement I made at the time is more precise on
various points than what I remember now. Also, at that
time it was customary, under the impression of a one-
sided victors’ court, for the accused before the court
to be cleared of guilt, to the detriment of persons not
present or presumed dead.”

I would remind the Court that apparently Justice Musmanno
was less aware of these facts than was the defence.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, it is clear that this is a
trained lawyer speaking.

Is that everything from this testimony, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I shall not present anything further.

Attorney General: If it please the Court, I have already
handed my passages to the interpreters, but I should like to
add something else. I have also marked a passage on page 9
in which Grell confirms what he said in the proceedings
against Krumey and Hunsche. He confirmed what is marked
with the letter `d’ in that statement, the end of the second
paragraph on page 9. This statement is not part of the
record before the Court, but I have it before me, signed by
Grell, in the presence of his defence counsel; it is now
before the Interpreter. I would ask the Interpreter to also
read out what it says in this paragraph `d,’ as confirmed by
Grell, and I would ask the Court to admit this as an
appendix to Grell’s statement.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you agree to this?

Dr. Servatius: I have not yet read this statement.

Presiding Judge: A copy of this statement will be provided
to Dr. Servatius, so he can react to the matter. I see that
the reference is to letter `d.’

Interpreter: [Reads Grell’s statement] Page 2:

“I joined the NSDAP (German National Socialist Workers
Party) in May 1929, and the general SS in May 1933. My
last rank in the SS was Obersturmfuehrer.”

On page 7, at the bottom, fifth line from the end:

“In the late autumn of 1944, Eichmann once said to me
during a conversation that the enemy powers considered
him to be war criminal number one, and that he had some
six million people on his conscience. In this context
he was speaking not of Jews, but of enemies of the
state. I understood this comment by Eichmann along the
lines of “viel Feind, viel Ehr” (many enemies, much
honour), and it was not until the American prosecution
put it to me that I remembered it. As far as I was
concerned, this statement was part of Eichmann’s
efforts to emphasize the importance of his position or
of his own person. To the best of my memory, this
conversation took place in late autumn 1944, after
Eichmann had returned from service on the front on the
Hungarian-Romanian border. During his service there
Eichmann had won the Iron Cross, Second Class. During
this conversation Eichmann was neither drunk nor

And then page 9.

Presiding Judge: In the meanwhile read out what it says


“And for the rest, I stand by my written statements in
the criminal proceedings against Krumey and Hunsche,
letter `d’ of 7 October 1957, of which the Prosecution
has just shown me a photocopy.”

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, the Attorney General would
like to read that part marked `d’; what is your position?
This would appear to be necessary for the understanding of
the testimony now before the Court.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the text is badly printed and
in very small letters; I have to read it through – perhaps
other material can be dealt with for the moment. There are
still several more pages.

Presiding Judge: Very well; let us leave this for the
moment. Is there anything else to be read out from this

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: Very well; we shall leave this for the
moment and return to it later, once Counsel for the Defence
has deciphered the passage. Now for the last testimony, by
Becher. I mark Becher’s statement VI.

Dr. Servatius, what do you wish to stress in Becher’s
statement? We shall return later to Grell.

Dr. Servatius: This is the record dated 20 June 1961.
Bremen Court of First Instance. I should first of all like
to read out the last sentence, where there is a note which
says here: “Before the examination, the witness was informed
of the questions on which he was to be examined.” This is a
very curious procedure for a cross-examination, and not only
did the judge make this note – I was also informed by my
assistant that the questions were made known to the witness
days before, and obviously he discussed them with his
lawyer. It is not possible to carry out cross-examination in
this fashion, and I would here like to draw the Court’s
attention to the fact that this witness also had lengthy
discussions with the late Dr. Kasztner, and Mr. Brand also
visited him. He is a very clever and competent businessman,
who also understands how things work here – we heard before
about the Nuremberg judgment – about this kind of testimony
from witnesses. Therefore, I have doubts about this
statement being admitted now. I must in any case object,
because it has never yet happened in cross-examination that
the accused was informed of the questions by the court days
in advance.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your information on
this point: How long before the beginning of the examination
did he already know about the questions?

Dr. Servatius: He had them several days in advance, and
this was also noted by the Prosecution representative, who
admitted as much before the judge, but the judge simply made
this very discreet comment…

Presiding Judge: All right.

Dr. Servatius: In my opinion, the witness really ought now
to be brought before this Court for a real cross-
examination, since I would have quite a lot I would like to
ask him.

Attorney General: If it please the Court, I would first like
to clarify things completely. We did not inform Mr. Becher
of the questions he was to be asked, and if such is the
implication, I must correct any such impression.

Presiding Judge: I did not understand that to be the

Attorney General: There is a decision in the file of the
Bremen court to show the questions to Mr. Becher, by a
decision of the judge. In accordance with this decision,
the questions were given to Mr. Becher, but I do not know
how long in advance.

Presiding Judge: Did we not note in one of our decisions
that the questions were not to be made known? The question
is only whether this was notified to the court in Germany; I
am not sure that it was.

Attorney General: I have not seen the details of the
application to take Becher’s evidence on commission. In any
case, the examination of Kurt Becher was carried out in
accordance with a request by the Defence. If the judge in
Bremen considered it correct to show him the questions in
advance, under the procedure adopted by him – this is a
question of legal proceedings in another state, on which I
am not required to express an opinion. This is how he
understood he had to carry out his duties. At the very
most, this argument would affect the weight to be given to
this testimony, but nothing more. I would ask that this
interrogation be admitted, and I have marked a number of
passages to be read out before the Court.

Presiding Judge: Your last remark in no way affects the
question we are discussing; in other words, it should
neither encourage nor deter us.

Attorney General: Not the latter, I trust.

Judge Halevi: What would be your attitude to Dr. Servatius’
application to examine him as a witness before this Court?

Attorney General: The first time the request was made, I
said right away what my position was with regard to Kurt
Becher, that I could not offer him immunity from criminal
proceedings. Nothing has been disclosed in the meanwhile
which would lead me to modify this attitude.

Judge Halevi: Including this testimony?

Attorney General: Including this testimony.

Judge Raveh: Does the Attorney General know who caused the
decision of the judge to show the questions to the witness?

Attorney General: No, Your Honour, I do not know.

Judge Raveh: Nor do you have a copy of the decision or the
debate preceding it.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09