Session 103-03, Eichmann Adolf

Q. What was Endre’s function?

A. Endre was somehow the chief of the Hungarian gendarmerie.

Q. And he was in charge of the deportations of the Jews from
there to Auschwitz, wasn’t he?

A. On the Hungarian side, yes, with the Minister of the

Q. And on page 922 you said, “because I did in fact meet
Lazi Endre almost every day.”

A. I have just explained what is meant by almost every day.
For example, I was frequently not in Budapest for a week or
longer. I went off somewhere privately, so then I cannot
have met with Endre, and therefore this expression must not
be taken literally. Not at all.

Q. And you took part in a meeting on 25 May 1944, with Baky.
Who was Baky?

A. Baky was a Secretary of State, just like Endre. Both
were in charge of the gendarmerie; exactly how this was
divided up, I cannot say.

Q. All right. And in this meeting on 25 May, the details
were set with Baky for the concentration and evacuation of
the Jews in the various parts of the Hungarian State, is
that correct?

A. Although I cannot remember it, I have read this and must
say that that is quite possible, because those were the
basics, according to the timetable.

Presiding Judge: So the reply is yes, correct?

Accused: Yes.

Attorney General: So you had representatives in the various
districts of the country. Perhaps you can remember who
these representatives were, where their offices were. If
you do not want to call them representatives, then just give
them whatever other name you see fit.

Accused: I do not know what their names were in detail,
even less do I know where they operated. I know that
Wisliceny was out there, I believe that Abromeit also worked
out there, and Hunsche will also definitely have made a
journey outside. More than three or four would never have
been outside.

Q. Zoeldi.

A. Zoeldi was not in fact subordinate to me, I did not
direct him. He worked with the Hungarian gendarmerie. The
man was also not listed in personnel records as being with

Q. Is it not true that he was a Gestapo man and wore German
Gestapo uniform, that he was seconded to you?

A. I do not know, I can only see this man in a Hungarian
captain’s uniform…

Q. Did he not wear a Gestapo uniform?

A. I do not know about that. No, he also only came to
me…as far as I remember, I believe I only saw him in my
rooms once or twice. He cannot have spent very long with
me, I believe, because at the beginning when I was asked,
the name was totally unfamiliar to me, and then it occurred
to me, yes, there was briefly a man, a Hungarian gendarmerie
officer with me with a Hungarian name, and so I guessed that
he might have been this Zoeldi. Those are the only
recollections I had and have.

Q. Abromeit was also one of the commanders of assembly camps
for the Jews in Hungary, wasn’t he?

A. I have said that if Abromeit was actually in Hungary –
which I am not trying to question, but which I do not
remember – then it is very likely, because he was a man who
was used to working in the field, and not do desk work, that
he was outside…but there were no commanders.

Q. We have here exhibit T/1162, according to which Abromeit
belonged to the commander’s office of the Nesmeny assembly
camp. Do you remember anything along those lines? He was
one of your people, so you should remember that, shouldn’t

A. If that is in there, then quite clearly Abromeit was out
in the field. I did not say an untruth, though, I simply
did not know. Whether the place is correct or not, I do not
know. I am not familiar with it, and if he belonged to the
commander’s office, that does not mean he was the commander.

Q. I asked you whether he was a member of the camp
commander’s office, not whether he was the commander.

Q. I believe this should not be understood as the camp
commander’s office, but rather this is the commander’s
office of the Hungarian gendarmerie, which carried out the
deportations, and since he had to operate in this area, that
is to say, to single out the Jews with foreign nationality,
he naturally belonged to the command staff.

Presiding Judge: So the answer is that he belonged to the
command staff, and that is that!

Attorney General: And similar duties to those of Abromeit
were also carried out by the other people who worked
outside, correct?

Accused: Yes.

Q. You yourself visited the ghettos – we have heard here
Sapir’s statement that you went to Munkacs, for example?

A. I did not visit a camp. I was making a trip to the
Carpathians, on a bear hunt – but I did not carry out any
official duties. I never visited a camp.

Q. I believe you organized quite a different hunt from a
bear hunt – but we shall ascertain that later. You heard
Sapir state here that you visited the Munkacs Ghetto – are
you saying that he told a lie?

A. If that is alleged to have happened, then it must be a
lie, because I never went to any Munkacs Ghetto. I did not
visit any camp whatsoever, neither a camp nor a ghetto, in

Q. I do not, however, remember your asking Mr. Sapir any
questions about that – not in cross-examination and not at
any other time – although you did in fact hear his statement
clearly. Can you comment on this?

A. I have a document here, there is in fact a document here
showing that Secretary of State Endre did visit some place
in the Carpathians…I went to the Carpathians in Endre’s
car. Endre attended to his official duties. I remained in
the hotel during that time. I definitely remember that…I
had no reason…

Q. But that in fact was not my question. Would you please
be so kind as to answer my questions. Why, after Sapir
testified here as to your visit to the Munkacs Ghetto,
didn’t you ask him any questions or make any comments about

A. I do not know – I did not make notes about everything
which was not right. I did send my Defence Counsel various
notes, but not on every single matter I felt not to be

Q. Very well. Ferenczy was a liaison officer with you, was
he not?

A. Yes, Ferenczy was the liaison officer between the
Hungarian gendarmerie…

Q. The answer is “yes” or “no.”

A. Yes.

Q. And he handed the prisoners over to you – there are
documents to this effect – did he not?

A. He did not hand any prisoners over to me, no. To me he
did not hand over any prisoners. Maybe to the Commander of
the Security Police, but not to me – I did not have to
receive any prisoners. I would not have known where to take
them. I was not competent for that.

Q. And I say to you that documents show that he handed
prisoners over to you.

Presiding Judge: Do you have the reference?

Attorney General: [To the Presiding Judge] If this is being
denied, I shall consider his denial sufficient, and I shall
refer to it in my summing up. My colleague has informed me
that this is T/1165.

Presiding Judge: Very well; in the meanwhile, please

Attorney General: Von Thadden was in Hungary, wasn’t he?

Accused: Yes. He was in Hungary.

Q. And out of all the men of the Security Police, he did not
see Winkelmann, nor Geschke; he spoke only to you. Is that

A. I do not know; in any case, I did not see anything about
this in his documents.

Q. Perhaps T/1194 means something to you – a report by von
Thadden about his visit, in which he reports in detail on
his visit to Hungary, and of all the police personnel only
Eichmann is mentioned. Not Geschke and not Winkelmann, but
only Eichmann. No one else.

A. Oh yes there is – there is also someone called
Ballensiefen, from Department VII.

Q. But of those who dealt with Jews, who is referred to in
the report?

A. I have read it – he was even my lunch guest. But
Ballensiefen also dealt with Jews, and he is also referred
to in this. So I was not the only person he visited and
came to see.

Q. Can you tell me for what purpose von Thadden went to

A. I believe that it was a purely informative journey. I
believe that to be the case, but I am not sure about it.

Q. And the details about deportations of Jews, both about
what had happened and what was planned, he obtained from

A. As to what had happened, that is possible, but not as to
what was planned, because the person doing the planning and
initiating things was, in fact, his Chief, whom he went to
see in Hungary, that is to say, Veesenmayer.

Q. But he reported that he spoke specifically to you and
received details from you.

A. Any details I knew I also had received from Veesenmayer
or from Winkelmann. I could not after all have received
them from anyone else.

Q. That is what you are saying now. But in his testimony as
a witness in your defence, Winkelmann says something quite
different. He says that you received your orders from
Berlin and not from him. Have you read Winkelmann’s

A. I have not read the whole testimony, I have only read an

Q. And he says that your orders, where it was necessary for
you to receive orders, were obtained from Berlin and not
from him. And he is a witness for your defence.

A. I did receive orders from Berlin where timetable,
technical transport matters were concerned.

Q. That is clear – but not from him. And as far as
deportations of Jews are concerned, you did not obtain any
orders or instructions from Winkelmann, even if you might
have been formally subordinate to him.

A. Berlin, in fact, did not know a thing about matters in
Hungary, as far as the evacuations and deportations were
concerned. Veesenmayer, together with Winkelmann, dealt
with that with the Hungarian Government. All the documents
do in fact attest to this. So Berlin cannot have known. I
did not in fact…

Q. One moment. Winkelmann testifies that you did not
receive any instructions from him, but were under the
control of Berlin. Is that true or not? And be careful:
this is your defence witness.

A. I must nevertheless say that I was subordinate to the
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service.

Q. That is not an answer. From whom did you actually obtain
your orders? Let us just ignore the formalities and get
down to the facts.

A. From Berlin and from the Higher SS and Police Leader in

Q. And what Winkelmann says is not true?

A. What he said is not entirely correct. That is true.
Because I obtained the orders about the evacuation…

Presiding Judge: Silence in Court!

Accused: …from him, and on technical transport matters
I obtained them from Berlin. The orders about the
evacuation: Here it was a question of the figures which I
received from him and from Geschke, and these figures were
in fact the basis for drawing up timetables.

Attorney General: All right, we have already heard this.

Presiding Judge: I hope that we shall be able to complete
this Session in the presence of the public. I shall not
issue any further warnings.

Attorney General: The men who were with you included some
who had already acquired a great deal of experience in anti-
Jewish legislation, anti-Jewish measures, in all the
European countries, both within the Reich and outside it –
Hunsche and others. Correct?

Accused: In fact Hunsche was not one of them, but the
others were.

Q. I thought you once said that Hunsche had been dealing
with legalistics. But if you now want to retract this title
of his, you are free to do so. Others are just as good. I
would therefore assume that the same Security Service man
who is mentioned in the anti-Jewish legislation in Hungary
and in T/1184, who therefore participated in anti-Jewish
legislation, is one of these men. Perhaps you can identify
him, perhaps you can say who he was?

A. I would first like to add something if I may, to what I
stated previously. You asked me, Mr. Attorney General,
about men who acquired experience of various kinds in the
countries. I said they did not include Hunsche, as I do not
know that he operated in those countries, that is to say, on
the spot, like Wisliceny, for example.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14