Written Defence Summaries-02, Eichmann Adolf

5. (I e) Acting through Specialists on Jewish Affairs and
Police Attaches
Means of Proof:

42. N/6 – Document 495
43. T/10 – Document 542
44. T/1415 – Document 544
45. T/731 – Document 466

6. (I f) Deportation camps

Means of Proof:

46. T/1359 – Document 731
47. T/1278 – Document 413
48. T/1279 – Document 416
49. T/665 – Document 1
50. N/94 – Document 49
51. N/95 – Document 50
52. T/219 – Document 1410
53. T/299 – Document 155
54. T/1374 – Document 11

In connection with the extermination camps,the Accused is
charged with having been involved in the supply of gas.

55. T/1309 – Document 185
56. T/90 – Document 226
57. T/715 – Document 42

This document is of evidential value only to the extent of
Wetzel’s handwritten note. In this note about the
possibility of gassing Jews, Eichmann’s name is not
mentioned. There is not sufficient room in the empty spaces
of the manuscript for the name or the rank of the Accused.
Only in the pages called “draft” it states:
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann of the Head Office for Reich
Security agrees to gassing.

These pages bear no letterhead or signature and are
typewritten. Their authenticity is not established by the
fact that they were produced at Nuremberg. They are dated
29 October 1941.

The above three items of evidence relate to different times
and events. They do not support each other as
circumstantial evidence.

The Wetzel document deals with the planning in October 1941.
Hoess alleges that at that time (summer 1941) he already had
orders for gassing from Eichmann. Hoess and Gerstein
(T/1309) were accomplices. Finally, Gerstein speaks about
the period of summer 1942 and does not mention the Accused
at all.
The allegation that the Accused was competent for
concentration camps is based also on the allegation that he
had put skeletons at the disposal of Prof. Hirt in
Strasbourg. The Accused was not responsible for this

Means of Proof:

58. T/1362 – Document 91
59. T/1363b – Document 46
60. T/1363b – Document 46
61. T/1367 – Document 913
62. T/1370 – Document 912
63. T/1366 – Document 46
64. T/1371 – Document 790
65. T/1369 – Document 1050

Sievers and Brand approached Eichmann in writing. The items
of evidence did not show that, as a result, Eichmann took
action. Only Sievers’ testimony affirms that he called on
Eichmann. Sievers was an accomplice. Sievers’ diary further
shows that, according to him, he received the positive
information from Guenther.

7. (I g, I h) Operations Units

The Operations Units were created by agreement between the
heads of the [SS and SD] and senior military echelons. They
received orders from Heydrich, with whom they were in
communication through the Sonderstab (Special Staff) at the
Head Office for Reich Security (Prinz Albrechtstrasse). The
Accused did not communicate with him. The contrary cannot
be concluded from the fact that at irregular intervals his
Section received their reports. A connection between
Eichmann and the Operations Units in Poland is based solely
on the testimony of Wisliceny.

Means of Proof:

66. T/85 – Document 773
67. T/175 – Document 1097
68. T/312 – Document 776
69. T/102 – Document 778
70. T/295 – Document 1464
71. T/313 – Document 1465

Many of the further reports do not show any distribution
list. It cannot be proved whether the Accused received them
or not.

Means of Proof:

72. T/309 – Document 1699
73. T/1390 – Document 1443

8. (I i) Operations Units Kovno, Riga, Minsk (working in

Means of Proof:

74. Testimony of Karstadt of 5 May 1961, Session 29
75. Testimony of Neumann of 8 May 1961, Session 30
76. T/714 – Document 504

Second letter – order by Daluege, Chief of the Order Police,
of 24 October 1941. The Security Police carries out
deportation to Riga and Minsk. The Order Police provides
escort, by agreement with the Chief of the Security Police.
Not an enterprise of the Accused but of the Chief of the
Security Police; no willling and conscious co-operation
between the Accused and the Operations Units.

Means of Proof:

77. T/305 – Document 1092

9. (I j) Labour Camps

For documentation on this, see para. II 1a. In addition,
the following is submitted:

Means of Proof:

78. T/215 – Document 1362
79. T/249 – Document 945

10. (I k) Deportations (as to the concentration in ghettos
and transit camps, see para. II a).

The Accused carried out deportations within the framework of
his office in the following countries: Germany, Austria,
Bulgaria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece,
Holland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Romania and

There is no evidence about deportations for the purpose of
extermination from the USSR, the former Baltic States or
Poland. The activity in the framework of resettlement in
Poland was not directed towards extermination, nor did the
Accused carry out deportations from Italy.

Means of Proof:

80. T/XV – testimony of Kappler

Regarding the deportations, the Accused never acted on his
own authority or initiative. The operations were ordered
entirely by his superiors, or by the Governors, District
Leaders, or other authorities.

Means of Proof:

81. N/97 – Document 412

Also, in rounding-up for deportation, the Accused did not
act alone. The local offices (BdS, or Inspector of Security
(IdS)) were themselves active within their respective

82. T/506 – Document 872

11. (I l) Hungary

Anti-Jewish measures in Hungary were decided upon between
Hitler and Horthy on the basis of a conference held in

Means of Proof:

83. T/I – Testimony of Hoettl

Veesenmayer negotiated during his activity as Reich
Plenipotentiary with the Hungarian Government on the
execution of measures against the Jews, under directions
from Ribbentrop.

Means of Proof:

84. T/XIII – Testimony of Veesenmayer
85. T/V – Testimony of Grell
86. N/71 – Document 372
87. N/74 – Document 676
88. T/1206 – Document 384

The Foreign Ministry insisted jealously on its influence on
the subject of the Jewish Question.

Means of Proof:

89. N/70 – Document 1124

Concentration and ghettoization were dealt with by the
Hungarian gendarmerie, on the advice of the Security Police.

Means of Proof:

90. T/1160 – Document 1316
91. T/1161 – Document 1317
92. T/1162 – Document 1318
93. T/1163 – Document 1319
94. T/1164 – Document 1320
95. T/1165 – Document 1321
96. T/1166 – Document 1322

Among the tasks of the Special Commando Unit was the
tendering of advice to the Hungarian authorities.

Means of Proof:

97. N/93 – Document 104

The tasks of the Special Commando Unit also included the
organization of the transports, including provision of
escorts for the trains.

Means of Proof:

98. T/1210 – Document 637
99. T/1124 – Document 639
100. N/81 – Document 518

The competence of the Accused ceased upon the arrival of the
transports on German soil.

Means of Proof:

101. T/76 – Document 374

It is alleged against the Accused that he was the initiator
of the foot marches from Budapest to the Austrian frontier.
He was involved in these foot marches. However, no witness
could confirm that he was the initiator.

Means of Proof:

102. T/IX – Testimony of Krumey
103. T/XIII – Testimony of Veesenmayer
104. T/XI – Testimony of Winkelmann

The first steps in the organization of the foot march were
taken by Veesenmayer.

Means of Proof:

105. N/89 – Document 871

The Accused promised Jewish officials exit permits for a
small number of Jews. Those Jews emigrated.

Means of Proof:

106. T/1232 – Document 450
107. N/91 – Document 451

The Accused also tried, in every possible way, to allow the
emigration of one million Jews about whose emigration there
had been negotiations.

Means of Proof:

108. Testimony of Brand of 29 May 1961, Session 56.
109. T/IX – Testimony of Krumey

The witness Gordon claimed that the Accused was guilty of
the death of the youth Salomon. The Accused denies that
occurrence. The witness Slawik (XVI) also denies it.

Even if Salomon was beaten in that toolshed, his death is
not the inevitable result. Anyhow, the witness could not
have observed the death from where he was standing.

Also, if Teitel is alleged to have said, “I have thrown him
into the Danube” – that is no proof.

The witness alleges that the corpse was placed on the rear
seat of the amphibious vehicle. That is technically
impossible. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether from the
garden the witness could have seen a vehicle parked in front
of the house.

In order to find the Accused responsible for the death of
the youth Salomon, the required measure of proof was the
same as if he had been accused of murder. Such proof was
not provided by the testimony of Gordon at the 54th Session
on 26 May 1961.

III. Submission for the Defence
Cf. oral pleading on Count I.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15