SECOND COUNT OF INDICTMENT
Crime against the Jewish People
I. Argument for the Prosecution
(a) Subjecting the Jews to living conditions which were
bound to bring about physical extermination, during the
period 1939-1945.
1. and 2. Employment in forced labour camps, ghettoization.
Means of Proof:
1. Testimony of Lichtman, 28 April 1961, Session 20
2. Testimony of Pachter, 1 May 1961, Session 21
3. Testimony of Zabludowicz, 1 May 1961, Session 21
4. Testimony of Beisky, 1 May 1961, Session 21
5. Testimony of Wells, 1 May 1961, Session 22
6. Testimony of Ross, 2 May 1961, Session 23
7. Testimony of Shiloh, 2 May 1961, Session 24
8. Testimony of Buzminsky, 2 May 1961, Session 24
9. Testimony of Lubetkin-Zuckerman, 3 May 1961,
Session 25
10. Testimony of Zuckerman, 3 May 1961, Session 25
11. Testimony of Auerbach, 3 May 1961, Session 26
12. Testimony of Masia, 4 May 1961, Session 27
13. Testimony of Dworzecki, 4 May 1961, Session 27
14. Testimony of Karasik, 4 May 1961, Session 28
15. Testimony of Peretz, 4 May 1961, Session 28
16. Testimony of Karstadt, 5 May 1961, Session 29
17. Testimony of Aviel, 5 May 1961, Session 29
18. Testimony of Neumann, 8 May 1961, Session 30
19. Testimony of Ansbacher, 12 May 1961, Session 38
20. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45
He testifies that in the Theresienstadt Ghetto he saw a
number of SS officers, one of whom was pointed out to him as
being the Accused. He no longer remembers whether the
Accused – as alleged – or the Commandant of the camp, Rahm,
selected a certain number of inmates for deportation to
Auschwitz by ticking off their names on a list.
21. Testimony of Rosenberg, 24 May 1961, Session 51
22. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52
He testifies about the arrests in Budapest, the Kistarcsa
camp under Hungarian command; Novak, Hunsche and Lemeke are
said to have frequently attended arriving and departing
transports.
23. Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53
3. and 4. Detention in transit camps, mass deportations
and transport under inhuman conditions.
Means of Proof:
24. T/447-1 – Document 696
25. T/447-2 – Document 695
26. T/447-3 – Document 752
27. T/447-4 – Document 691
28. T/447-5 – Document 692
29. T/447-6 – Document 690
30. T/447-7 – Document 271
31. T/447-8 – Document 257
32. T/447-9 – Document 256
33. T/447-10 – Document 244
34. T/447-11 – Document 453
35. T/447-12 – Document 275
36. T/447-13 – Document 276
37. T/447-14 – Document 273
38. T/447-15 – Document 250
39. T/455 – Document 37
40. T/457 – Document 272
41. T/258 – Document 254
42. T/459 – Document 258
43. T/460 – Document 259
44. T/447 – Document 276
45. T/545 – Document 590
46. T/558 – Document 592
47. T/557 – Document 603
48. T/561 – Document 602
49. T/563 – Document 1352
50. T/540 – Document 623
51. T/541 – Document 621
II. Argument for the Defence
As to 1. and 2.:
None of the witnesses 1-19 could testify about any act of
the Accused or about actions which were carried out at the
orders of the Accused or his Section. The dispatch to the
forced labour camps, the ghettoization, and the herding
together into transit camps and places of concentration were
not within the Accused’s competence. Some witnesses
mentioned names of those responsible for specific actions.
For instance, the witness Karasik testified that the man
responsible for a specific action in Poland had been
sentenced and executed. As submitted under Count I, the
Accused was not one of those who planned the entire Final
Solution. Therefore he cannot be held responsible for those
specific acts for which no elements of the offence were
proved against him.
The witness Diamant, who alleged that he had heard that the
Accused was the SS leader whom he saw in Theresienstadt,
could not confirm that the person said to be the Accused
carried out the selection for Auschwitz.
Means of Proof:
1. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45
The witnesses Brody and Szenes, who alleged that they had
seen subordinates of the Accused (Novak and Hunsche) in the
Kistarcsa camp, were not able to testify about the
competence of those men.
2. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52
Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53
In addition, Novak denies in his evidence that he had ever
anything to do with the Kistarcsa camp.
3. Testimony of Novak (XII)
As to 3. and 4.:
Rounding-up and the concentration in the East were carried
out by the local offices (see the items of evidence of the
Prosecution under 1. and 2.) and in the West through the BdS
and their emissaries (see document T/258).
4. Testimony of the Accused before the Police, Vol. I,
pp. 402-404.
5. T/447, 1 – 15.
If the Accused’s Section urged acceleration of the
transports, that was not done of its own accord, but because
it received directions accordingly.
Means of proof:
6. N/12 – Document 3
7. T/544 – Document 1356
III. Submission for the Defence
As to 1. and 2:
The criminal responsibility of the Accused extends only to
the point to which he carried out the tasks he was ordered
to fulfil. His participation in the total plan has not been
proved; therefore, insofar as he did not commit acts which
constitute elements of the offence, or did not take part in
an act as per one of the formulations set out in the
sub_sections of Section 23 of the Criminal Code Ordinance,
he cannot be found guilty.
Neither does his presence in Theresienstadt, which has not
been proved beyond doubt by the evidence of the witness
Diamant, suffice to prove a criminal act or complicity in
it. The same applies to the presence of his subordinates
Novak and Hunsche.
As to 3. and 4.:
The rounding-up and the deportations were executed on orders
from above. The Accused’s Section took part in those
deportations, but only in regard to the technical
implementation of the transports. The rounding-up of the
persons to be deported was carried out by the local office
under directions from the Reichsfuehrer-SS. The Inspector
of Concentration Camps determined which were to be the
reception camps. The participation of the Accused, and
therefore his responsibility, were thus limited to the
implementation of the transportation.
Last-Modified: 1999/06/15
