Session 109-03, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: Yes. I believe that I would not be
justified in concealing the existence of this document. It
is my duty to inform the Court that this document is in our
hands, and to request that the Court use its power under the
section of the Trial upon Information Ordinance according to
which the Court is entitled at any stage of the proceedings
to require the submission of any item of evidence. I hereby
request that the Court in its discretion apply Section 41 of
the Trial upon Information Ordinance, and require that Dr.
Vrba’s affidavit be submitted as evidence. It simply
explains document No. 4.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I have not yet taken cognizance
of this document – I, therefore, do not know what is in it;
but on the basis of the Attorney General’s submission, it
appears to be an important document for a historical
department, but no longer for the Court. Consequently, I am
no longer able to make any comment on this, and I would have
to carry out an investigation, so at this stage in the
proceedings I would ask that the document be rejected.

Attorney General: In order to clarify things: Yesterday,
immediately after we received the document, Dr. Servatius
received a copy of it – Mr. Bach provided Dr. Servatius with
a copy of it.

Presiding Judge: Section 41 does not apply here, Mr.
Attorney General, if we are to be precise. Section 41 deals
with witnesses who are brought before the Court.

Attorney General: Of course we must here add Section 15 of
the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, it is possible that, as the
phrase goes, as I was half-way through the door I was given
a copy, but I had no time whatsoever to look it over and
study it thoroughly. Your Honour, I have glanced at the
document now: There is a total number, but there is no
indication of exactly how this has been arrived at in any
fashion that would allow the figures to be verified. It
always says that he refers to his statistics – but it is
precisely these statistics which are not available, and
therefore this document has no real value.

Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, this does not apply to the
Accused, as far as I understand; this does not ascribe any
new responsibility to the Accused. There is nothing in this
document which directly incriminates the Accused, is there,
or am I to understand the opposite?

Dr. Servatius: In point of fact, in very many pieces of
evidence which have been produced there is something which
would not directly incriminate the Accused – that applied to
testimonies of witnesses as well – I did not object to that
– but now, at the end of the trial, where I must somehow
deal with this question, it is really very late. In my
opinion these matters can and will have to be clarified in
some entirely different setting, i.e., by historians, this
being something which it is very difficult for the Court to

Presiding Judge: We shall have to take about this under
consideration. We would like to hear all of the requests
and applications for rebutting evidence.

Attorney General: The next document I have here is the
Administrative Rules of the Reich Ministries, issued in 1935
during the Nazi era. This document contains directives
about interministerial correspondence; it is an earlier part
of the volume which I have already submitted to the Court,
i.e., the volume which has now been issued by the Federal
Republic, and it sheds light…

Presiding Judge: Is there some reference to this there? Why
do you say that it is an earlier part?

Attorney General: Because it refers to the same ministerial
decisions and directives from the Weimar period as the
volume which I have submitted. In other words, some
continuity can be seen here. I do not know whether the
continuity was complete; I do not know whether in the
meantime there were not new directives, or whether these
were changed in the course of time. Anyhow, this is what I
know. It was issued in 1935 for use by all Reich offices,
and the important thing here is about sending letters to
officials with the indication of the official’s name. It
says here that this form of address should not be used
unless there is a special reason for it.

Presiding Judge: This is what we call the name of the

Attorney General: Yes. The passage to which I wish to refer
in particular says…

Presiding Judge: You are referring to addresses, in other
words, when the name may be indicated in addition to, or
instead of, the function?

Attorney General: No, the directive is that the letter is to
be addressed to the office, and the name may only be given
in certain cases. And now here there are directives as to
which are those cases. But since there is very extensive
correspondence to the Accused addressed for his attention or
to him personally, as there are also a number of letters by
him, from him to the Foreign Ministry, von Thadden, to
Rademacher, etc., and assuming that he respected the general
official directives which are binding on him as on other
officials, we can therefore assume that there were special
reasons for this kind of correspondence, which was not the
normal kind. Therefore, I assume that this evidence will
shed light on the reasons for this kind of correspondence,
and I therefore request that this volume be admitted.

Presiding Judge: And this volume has also only now reached

Attorney General: Not quite as late, but it was delayed.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you would tell us whether you
received it during the Accused’s testimony?

Attorney General: Yes, I must admit as much.

Presiding Judge: Of course, the true state of things has to
be presented.

Attorney General: But again, we did not apply our minds to
this particular passage until rather late in the day.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I have not so far had any
knowledge of this piece of evidence; it should, at the very
least, have been submitted when it was still possible to
question the Accused, and it should have been shown to him,
so that he could comment on it.

However, in addition I would submit the following: It must
first be argued that the Accused was familiar with these
directives. He was not, after all, a career official who
had gone through this school; rather he was put into office,
and as the phrase goes, he was a trainee, but he was not
familiar with all the ins and outs. And furthermore: These
provisions from the Weimar Regime – as it was called at the
time – were to a large extent rejected.

Presiding Judge: No, this was not from the Weimar Regime,
this is from the Third Reich, as I understand it, from 1935.
Is that correct?

Attorney General: It says here, Berlin 1934, unchanged
reprint. The external appearance does not show any Nazi
influence in the symbols – there is the old Weimar Eagle.

Presiding Judge: That was probably a regrettable error.

Dr. Servatius: Laws and legislation change extremely
slowly. Perhaps today it can be used as proof of a
resistance struggle.

Judge Raveh: Will you adopt the same position if the
Accused is given a further opportunity to comment on it as

Dr. Servatius: I have no objections if the Court wishes to
question the Accused. However, I do not believe that he
will give any other answers than those which I have given

Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, do you have another
request under the heading of rebutting evidence?

Attorney General: Matters which I request as of right. N/19
is an affidavit submitted by Counsel for the Defence in
conjunction with the Lidice children who were in Poland near
a place called Puszykowko. I should like to submit the book
to which I referred at that time.

Presiding Judge: Is this rebutting evidence?

Attorney General: Yes, it is. This is a book published in
Czechoslovakia, by the Organization of Anti-Fascist
Fighters, under the name: This is Where Lidice Was.

There are two passages here which we have translated from
the Czech: The first passage is on pages 60 and 61, called,
“The children at the gates of death in Chelmno,” on pages 73-

Presiding Judge: Let us first ascertain on what this passage
is based, on what evidence?

Attorney General: There are various records here which have
been collected by the author, and to which the author also
makes reference.

Presiding Judge: In other words, the author is basing
himself on statements he has taken from persons whose names
he gives?

Attorney General: Yes. He mentions the name of the gardener
at Chelmno, Andrej Misha, who wrote an account. On pages 73-
83 there is a passage called “The fates of the children who
were deported.” The children are listed here alphabetically
by name, with their year of birth as well. There is a
special mention of Puszykowko, and then a full explanation
is given as to some of the children in fact having been

Presiding Judge: Is this the place near Posen?

Attorney General: This is the place near Posen which is
mentioned in the affidavit N/19. I believe that this gives
a complete explanation of the events from two aspects – that
near the end of the War, or at any event when the Soviet
army was advancing in that area, there were apparently still
some children there in the area of Puszykowko. The place
was called Puschkau in N/19. Here, too, the author bases
himself on various statements which he indicates in detail.

Presiding Judge: Is it not a question here of distinguishing
between the evidence which you could have submitted already
early on as evidence about the fate of the children, and the
other part which came up only as a result of N/19, about the
children walking around in the convent garden?

Attorney General: The facts are as follows: This evidence
reached us late in the day. We had no knowledge of the
existence of this book. We made investigations in Prague,
and all we found out we produced as evidence at the proper
stage. After we found out about N/19, we carried out
further investigations, and at about the same time we got
hold of the book. We already had the book when Counsel for
the Defence submitted N/19, and at that time I already said
that I would wish to submit the book at this stage as
rebutting evidence. This is my first application for
rebutting evidence.

Judge Raveh: I wish to ask a question. Is a place called
Brockau also referred to in this book? I found this place
referred to in one of the documents appended to Krumey’s
statement. There is a letter there of 7 July 1942, where it
says: “In the same transport there are also six children who
are suitable for re-Germanization, who are destined for the
Brockau District Children’s Home.”

Attorney General: Perhaps the Court would allow me to hand
these passages over to my colleague, Mr. Bach, who dealt
with this chapter, and perhaps he will be able to reply to
this in a few minutes’ time.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps we should follow the normal order.
Let us now hear Dr. Servatius’ position on this.

Dr. Servatius: I only received this translation yesterday,
or the day before yesterday, and I am of course not able to
carry out detailed investigations of this, or try and obtain
witnesses. I would ask that the document be rejected as
coming too late. It is particularly difficult for the
Defence to shed light on this whole Lidice matter, because
it is just impossible to obtain witnesses from this area, or
even have investigations carried out. Even witnesses who
originate from there are somewhat concerned about having
their name mentioned here, and I would of course have done
something with regard to the female witness who made a
statement here about having seen the children, who also
indicates that the teacher is in Czechoslovakia. I would
then have endeavoured to approach this woman. It was my
opinion that I could spare her the awkwardness which this
matter might involve for this witness. I would, therefore,
ask that the document be rejected as coming too late.

Presiding Judge: Does this also apply to that part which
relates to the statement which you submitted, to N/19, Dr.
Servatius? On the basis of this statement you did, in fact,
introduce a new element into the proceedings – the children
who, according to the witness referred to there, were
supposed to have lived somewhere in Posen.

Dr. Servatius: That was document N/19, that is a long way
back, one of the first items of evidence.

Presiding Judge: Yes, but I am sure you remember that the
Attorney General immediately suggested or requested that the
book be submitted, and at that time we said that he should
repeat his request after the Defence had made its
submissions. I do not know whether a specific decision was
taken about this, but I do have a distinct memory of this
being said.

Dr. Servatius: Yes, something was said along these lines, I
do not believe a decision was taken. It could not in fact
be assumed that these documents would arrive now after the
conclusion of the Defence submissions.

Presiding Judge: In any case, your objection applies to the
whole of this document, does it not?

Dr. Servatius: Yes.

Attorney General: I should just like to reply to His Honour,
Judge Raveh. The only thing we have here is that a child
called Zelenka, who was re-Germanizable and in Puszykowko
until the autumn of 1942, was then taken to an SS children’s
home at Oberweiss in the Upper Danube region. But names of
other places are not mentioned. In Puszykowko there were
those children, or some of those, who had been found to be
re-Germanizable, and that is why this is so important.

Presiding Judge: Very well, the last matter now.

Attorney General: No, the matter before the last. In
exhibit N/99, statement by Alois Steger, on page three,
there is a reference to what was said by Paul Revesz, who is
now in a kibbutz in Israel, and to Ladislaus Perez. Steger
is probably mistaken here, as Paul Revesz and Ladislaus
Perez are in fact one and the same person. I will read out
the second paragraph on page 3: “I have heard about Paul
Revesz and about Ladislaus Perez, now in a kibbutz in
Israel.” Here Mr. Steger says that he knows from these
witnesses that the train was diverted by Becher to Bergen-
Belsen, because the money had not been paid in time. The
purpose of this passage was to rebut Becher’s statement in
this matter.

We request that the witness Revesz be heard.

Presiding Judge: You do not wish to rebut Becher’s
testimony, but what Becher said.

Attorney General: It is the same thing, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: No, here Steger tells what he heard from
Revesz about what Becher said in the past, does he not?

Attorney General: Yes, but meanwhile Becher’s words about
this have been submitted to the Court, both in his testimony
and in his examination, and I wish here to rebut Becher’s
statement that it was Becher who diverted the train to
Bergen-Belsen because the money had not arrived. Steger
states this on the basis of what he heard from Revesz.

Presiding Judge: And what is the correct version?

Attorney General: The correct version is that Eichmann was
the person who diverted the train to Bergen-Belsen. The
witness Revesz knows this, at least he thinks so.

Presiding Judge: Can you refer us to the relevant passage in
Becher’s testimony? Perhaps it is in his previous

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14