Session No. 109
12 Av 5721 (25 July 1961)
Presiding Judge: I declare the one hundred and ninth Session
of the trial open. Dr. Servatius, there is still Slawik’s
statement, isn’t there?
Dr. Servatius: Yes.
Presiding Judge: What do you wish to read out from this
Dr. Servatius: This is Slawik’s statement of 6 July 1961
before the District Court in Vienna. On page 1, the witness
says on Question 1:
“From April 1944 until around November 1944, I worked
for Eichmann as the caretaker, or rather house servant,
at the Aschner villa in Apostol Street, Budapest (Am
On Question 2:
“I do not, and did not, know anything about a Jewish
boy being beaten or killed on the grounds of the
Aschner villa in Aposto Street while I was working for
Eichmann. Today I am not sure whether I was away in
Vienna for ten days or two weeks of leave in April or
May 1944. After I returned, I heard nothing about any
On the same page, at the bottom, on Question 3 of the
“In addition to Eichmann and myself, the other
permanent residents of the Aschner villa were the
Hungarian caretaker couple (whose name I no longer
remember), a servant named Janka, and Eichmann’s
driver, Karl Boehm. Shortly after we moved into the
villa, two more of Eichmann’s drivers also came to live
there, but I only remember the name Teitel. I no
longer remember the name of the third driver. At the
time of the Hungarian Arrow Cross revolt (I no longer
remember when this was), the tenants of the villa were
SS Fuehrer Abromeit, Wisliceny, Novak, Dannecker,
Girzick and Government Counsellor Hunsche.”
On Question 4:
“Teitel must have come to Eichmann from the Waffen-SS
as the driver of an amphibious vehicle, around the
middle or end of April 1944. He was an ethnic German
from Hungary. I heard that in June or July 1944
Teitel was brought before an SS court for the murder
of an old woman in Budapest and was said to have been
On Question 5:
“It must have been May 1944 when two covered pits for
shelter were dug in the garden of the villa. Another
garden, which was separated from the garden of the
villa by a little path, also belonged to the Aschner
villa. Air-raid trenches were dug in this garden, too,
probably for the inhabitants of the surrounding
On Question 6:
“This work was carried out by a Jewish engineer using
Jewish labourers. I myself had nothing at all to do
with this work.”
On Question 7:
“I know nothing about complaints about stealing of
On page 6, on Questions 9 and 10 of the Prosecution:
“Hungarian Jews, made available by the Religious
Community, worked in the garden of the Aschner villa.”
On Questions 11 to 14:
“No work was carried out in the villa itself; the air-
raid installations, already mentioned, were built only
in the two gardens. I believe that the name of the
engineer from the Jewish community who had to carry out
the air-raid constructions was Kolbach. This engineer
was responsible for carrying out and supervising the
work. I do not know an engineer by the name of
On Question 15:
“Karl Boehm was Eichmann’s permanent chauffeur;
Eichmann also had another two drivers – Teitel, and an
SS Unterscharfuehrer whose name I have forgotten.”
At the bottom of page 7, on Questions 21 to 28:
“I am unable to say anything, as I know nothing about
this. I never received an order to punish fruit
thieves; I never locked anyone up in any room of the
villa. I know nothing at all of a tool shed in the
villa. The garden was maintained by the Hungarian
caretaker, but I do not know where he kept his tools.
I do not know anything about Eichmann having ill-
treated anyone or a boy called Salomon.”
On page 8, on Questions 29 to 31:
“I do not know anything about one of the Jewish workers
being accused of having tried to rape a Hungarian
child. I did not have any Jewish workers, and Jewish
labourers were only used in the garden to install the
air-raid shelters. I am unable to give any further
information, as I know nothing about this.”
These are the passages from the statement which I wished to
Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Attorney General.
Attorney General: Counsel for the Defence has read out most
of the passages which we have marked. Perhaps just one
short passage on page 2, in reply to the first question from
“From April 1944 until approximately November 1944, I
worked for Eichmann as a house servant, only in the
Aschner villa in Apostol Street. I was a member of the
SS with the rank of an Oberscharfuehrer.”
Presiding Judge: I have marked Slawik’s statement XVI.
Dr. Servatius: May I ask another question? This statement
was not yet available when the Accused was put on the
witness stand, and at that time it was provided that if any
further question were to arise from it, then this could be
put to the Accused. I would ask to be allowed to ask the
Accused as witness another two or three questions in this
Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, what is your
Attorney General: I have no objections.
Presiding Judge: All right, we shall permit this. Accused,
Counsel for your Defence is asking you to reply to a few
further questions. Your answers will continue to be given
Presiding Judge: Please proceed.
Dr. Servatius: When questioned, you said that you did not
remember the name Teitel. How long was Teitel with you?
Was he a member of your commando, when did he arrive, and
when did he leave?
Accused: Today, I can still not remember anyone by the
name of Teitel. But when I heard about this yesterday
evening, I had a recollection of – rather I remembered that
a driver from the Waffen-SS came with the amphibious
vehicle, and in the same way as I was loaned the amphibious
vehicle by a Waffen-SS supply office, the driver was
detailed with it. He was detailed by the Personnel
Department of the Senior Commander of the Security Police
and the Security Service, and he vanished again a short time
later. I do not know how long he was with me. It might be
– my feeling is that perhaps it was a month, perhaps six
weeks, or perhaps even less – I do not know. The man was
not a member of the police, and so he did not belong to my
office, nor did he belong to the office of the Commander of
the Security Police, to which I was subordinate.
Dr. Servatius: Then it says here that in June or July 1944,
Teitel was sentenced to death and shot for the murder of an
old woman. Did you hear anything about this?
Accused: No, I first heard of this yesterday, I do not
remember anything. But I am sure that I would have
remembered, if I had heard of it.
Dr. Servatius: Would you not have been notified of this, if
he was still under your command?
Accused: If he had been under my command, I would have
had to be notified by the SS and police authority, and I
would have been heard somehow in such proceedings as a
witness or something, I should think. But he was not under
my command, and perhaps he…when he became redundant for my
needs, he only had to hand over the vehicle and ensure that
it was in order, perhaps he then went on a rampage, was
picked up and then sentenced. But if I might add something,
I believe that this is a very simple matter, because the
highest judicial authority for all SS and police units in
Hungary was the Higher SS and Police Leader Winkelmann, who
is still alive; he must have confirmed the sentence, and he
must above all be able to indicate who was the SS and Police
Judge who was in charge of this matter.
Dr. Servatius: I have no further questions.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General. [To the Accused] You
will now please answer the Attorney General’s questions on
the same matter.
Attorney General: I see from Slawik’s statement that in
Budapest you had three drivers.
Accused: Yes, that is not correct, that is not correctly
worded. I had – if you like, I may have had five or six,
because things were like this: There were perhaps half a
dozen men who were excellent drivers, and I took one or the
other of them from time to time. Normally, the way things
were and worked out was that one was used to the vehicle and
then simply drove for a longish time. I never had three
drivers all at the same time, and apart from that, most of
the time I always drove myself in town.
Attorney General: Karl Boehm was your permanent chauffeur?
That is what Slawik says, is it not?
Accused: Yes, I did in fact travel most of the time with
Attorney General: Apart from Boehm, there were also one or
two other drivers, were there not?
Accused: Yes, in fact there were several with whom I
drove. Boehm was the one – for example, if I went to
Vienna, Berlin, Boehm drove these routes. He hardly drove
in town, I believe; I myself drove in town, as I have said.
Attorney General: For what purpose was the amphibious
vehicle made available to you?
Accused: When I came to Hungary, I had an Opel Kapitaen,
and it was often out of order. Then I heard through Becher
that an SS supply office – I forget the name of this office
now – that this office had vehicles available, and primarily
amphibious vehicles. And – I no longer remember the details
of how it came about, in any case through Becher’s efforts,
he immediately got down to it…and I received the
amphibious vehicle with driver, and this amphibious
vehicle…the driver then went off, and I had to return the
amphibious vehicle also, I think at the end of the summer.
Attorney General: I assume that an amphibious vehicle was
designed for special purposes, since it can be used both on
dry land and on water. Correct?
Attorney General: So why did you need an amphibious vehicle?
Accused: I did not need an amphibious vehicle, I received
it, and in fact – I still remember to this day – I was very
happy with it, because I had never driven a vehicle like
that, and I practiced driving it on open terrain as a sport.
I did not need it for professional purposes, but I could not
get anything else; I could not select a particular vehicle.
Attorney General: In other words, you are saying that you
were given an amphibious vehicle instead of a simple motor
vehicle, right? Is that correct?
Accused: Yes, that is how it was, because I did not, in
fact, know in advance that I would receive an amphibious
vehicle. Becher said to me that he wanted to provide me
with a vehicle on loan. And that is how the amphibious
Attorney General: I assume that at that time the
relationship between you and Becher was still such that he
exerted himself to obtain a vehicle for you, correct?
Accused: On a personal level, the relationship between
Becher and myself had not been broken off, although we had
differences on matters of substance.
Attorney General: My last question: Does it not appear odd
to you that Slawik knew about Teitel’s fate, that he was
accused of murder, sentenced and shot, and that you know
nothing of this?
Accused: Yes, I wonder when Slawik did hear about this.
And that is why I have already said I do not know, but I did
indicate that, even at that time, such proceedings, I can
imagine, took at least one or two weeks until the sentence
was carried out, and something like that cannot in fact be
somehow hushed up.
Attorney General: So as not to mislead you, Slawik says that
this occurred in June or July 1944, and that Teitel had been
arrested at that time. Does it not appear somehow strange,
unusual, to you that Slawik knew about this and you did not?
Accused: Yes, of course it is strange and also unusual,
because I should – if Slawik knew, I should also have known,
because word would have gotten around
Attorney General: That is what I thought, too.
Accused: But because word did not get around, that is the
reason why I pointed out who was the highest judicial
authority and the SS and police jurisdiction: These sources
are easily available and ready to reply to questions or
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any more
questions on the same topic in re-examination?
Dr. Servatius: No, I have no further questions.
Presiding Judge: Now, Dr. Servatius, on the documents which
were shown to the witness Kappler. Yesterday it appeared
that you had not yet looked at these documents. Do you have
any comments? I trust that in the meanwhile you have looked
Dr. Servatius: I have looked through the documents. The
last one is a letter. I do not know whether it has already
been submitted by the Prosecution.
Presiding Judge: You are referring to the letter to
Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. This was shown to Kappler during
his examination, and therefore the letter is also before the
Dr. Servatius: Therefore, it need not be submitted
Presiding Judge: This depends on the Attorney General. If
he wishes to submit the document again, he may do so, but it
is our opinion that it is before us in this form.
Dr. Servatius: This is sufficient for me, too.