Written Defence Summaries-05, Eichmann Adolf


Prevention of Births

I. Argument for the Prosecution: Crimes against the Jewish

1. Planning of measures for sterilization by the
Accused (a and b)

Means of Proof:

1. T/185 – Document 74
2. T/187 – Document 842
3. T/100 – Document 446
4. T/188 – Document 876
5. T/1379 – Document 409
6. T/1377 – Document 326
7. T/189 – Document 1206
8. T/190 – Document 106
9. T/191 – Document 829
10. T/192 – Document 878

2. Theresienstadt (c 1)

Means of Proof:

11. T/864 – Document 1369

3. Kovno (c 2)

Means of Proof:

12. Testimony of witness Dr. Peretz

4. Sterilization Conference Berlin (c 3)

Means of Proof:

13. T/190 – Document 106

II. Argument for the Defence

As to 1. (IV a and b)

The Accused participated in the Wannsee Conference; however,
he did not take part in the discussions but only took care
of the technical aspects (taking the minutes).

Means of Proof:

1. Testimony of the Accused on 26 June 1961 (Session

The Accused dealt neither with the planning nor with the
execution of measures for sterilization.

Means of Proof:

2. Testimony of the Accused of 26 June 1961 (Session

As to 2. (IV c 1)

The testimony of Rahm of 25 March 1947 is contradicted by
the testimony of Seidl of 4 June 1946.

Means of Proof:

3. T/842 – Document 109 (Seidl’s testimony)

The Accused could not have given such an order, because he
was not competent to do so. Theresienstadt was subordinate
to the BdS Prague.

Means of Proof:

4. T/863 – Document 1200

As to 3. (IV c 2)

Participation or responsibility of the Accused has not been

As to 4. (IV c 3)

It has already been explained that the Accused did not take
part in the planning at the Wannsee Conference. There the
question of treatment of persons of mixed blood was dealt
with by the highest official echelons.

Means of Proof:

5. T/185 – Document 74

The results of the conference between the State Secretaries
were discussed further by the competent experts at another
meeting on 6 March 1942. Result: The status of persons of
mixed blood was to be like that of the Jews. In return for
their being allowed to remain in the Reich, they were to be
sterilized voluntarily.

Means of Proof:

6. T/100 – Document 446
7. T/1381 – Document 597

The results of previous planning were not changed or
developed further at the conference in which the Accused
participated. The result of the conference was not the
order for implementation of the measures planned.

Means of Proof:

8. T/190 – Document 106
III. Submission for the Defence
As to 1. and 4 (IV a, b, c 3)

The Accused did not plan or order any measure for preventing
births, nor did he take part in the implementation of such
measures. The planning took place before the conference on
27 October 1942. The minutes are not conclusive as to
whether the Accused participated actively.

As to 2. (IV c 1)

The testimony of Rahm has only minor evidentiary value. As
a former Commander of Theresienstadt, the witness had
reasons for shifting responsibility on to others.

As to 3. (IV c 2)

If, in addition to the directions by the Jewish Council of
Elders, there was also an order by the German police or SS
authorities, that cannot be imputed to the Accused who did
not give or transmit that order. An excess by a subordinate
SS or police unit provides no basis for responsibility of
the Accused.


I. Argyment for the Prosecution

Crimes against humanity, murder, extermination, enslavement,
starvation and deportation of the Jewish civil population in
Germany and in other Axis countries and in territories
occupied by them, and also in countries which were in
practice subject to their authority during the period 1939-

II. Argument for the Defence

Count V of the indictment relates to the same facts as
Counts I-III. For pleading on the facts, see Counts I-III.

As to the legal arguments, cf. the oral pleading.


I. Argument for the Prosecution

Crimes against Humanity.

In acting according to the facts alleged under Counts I-V,
the Accused persecuted Jews on national, racial, religious
and political grounds.

II. Argument for the Defence

For pleading on the facts, see Counts I-V. As to the legal
arguments, cf. the oral pleading.


Property Offences

I. Argument for the Prosecution

Crimes against Humanity

VII a. Property offences in general

VII b. Specific cases

1. Austria

Means of Proof:

1. T/154 – Document 783
2. T/150 – Document 1171
3. T/149 – Document 1176
4. T/137 – Document 69
5. T/114 – Document 76
6. T/151 – Document 91
7. T/729 – Document 1265
8. T/139 – Document 784
9. Testimony of Lindenstrauss 25 April 1961 (Session
10. T/144 – Document 1130
11. T/147 – Document 1133
12. T/148 – Document 1135
13. T/795 – Document 1136
14. T/205 – Document 1087
15. T/797 – Document 1138
16. T/798 – Document 1139
17. T/799 – Document 1140
18. T/800 – Document 1141
19. T/801 – Document 1142
20. T/802 – Document 1143
21. T/804 – Document 1145
22. T/812 – Document 1148
23. T/813 – Document 1149
24. T/719 – Document 739
25. T/817 – Document 1152
26. T/818 – Document 1153
27. T/823 – Document 1158
28. T/824 – Document 1159
29. T/825 – Document 1160

2. Bohemia and Moravia (VII b 2)

Means of Proof:

1. Testimony of Meretz, 27 April 1961 (Session 19)
2. Testimony of Burger, 27 April 1961 (Session 19)
3. Testimony of Zimet, 27 April 1961 (Session 19)
4. T/162 – Document 1326
5. T/163 – Document 1332
6. T/294 – Document 1193
7. T/834 – Document 732
8. T/828a – Document 1334
9. T/838 – Document 1237
10. T/833 – Document 1236

3. Germany (Property)

1. T/115 – Document 505
2. Testimony of Henschel, 11 May 1961 (Session 37)
3. Testimony of Lindenstrauss, 25 April 1961 (Session
4. T/665 – Document 1
5. T/650 – Document 1293
6. T/676 – Document 728
7. T/712 – Document 140
8. T/664 – Document 1281
9. T/713 – Document 1275
10. T/721 – Document 1286
11. T/722 – Document 737
12. T/737 – Document 1279

4. Special Account “W”

13. T/724 – Document 1283
14. T/723 – Document 738
15. T/734 – Document 119
16. T/753 – Document 1284
17. T/724 – Document 1283

5. Poland (Property)

Means of Proof:

1. T/165 – Document 775
2. T/164 – Document 983
3. T/169 – Document 1397
4. T/167 – Document 1396
5. T/170 – Document 1398
6. T/171 – Document 1399
7. T/166 – Document 468
8. T/211 – Document 1401
9. T/206 – Document 779

6. “Aktion Reinhardt”

Means of Proof:

10. T/1389 – Document 1250
11. T/1385 – Document 117
12. T/1384 – Document 1106

7. The Territorial Principle

Means of Proof:

1. T/744 – Document 147
2. T/193 – Document 908
3. T/194 – Document 508
4. T/1024 – Document 850
5. T/1031 – Document 989
6. T/1031 – Document 991
7. T/1031 – Document 990
8. T/195 – Document 509

8. Emigration against ransom as an example for several other

9. T/535 – Document 223


As to 1-3:

In the area of the Reich, former Austria and the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the seizure of property
and its realization were regulated by law.

Means of Proof:

1. T/65
2. T/65
3. T/67
4. T/67
5. T/68
6. T/68
7. T/71
8. T/71
9. T/75
10. T/77
11. T/79
12. T/80
13. T/81
14. T/750 – Document 1292
15. T/637
16. T/722 – Document 737
17. T/641

The Prosecution has not produced any proof that would lead
to the conclusion that the Accused took part in drafting or
promulgating these laws.

Insofar as the Prosecution produced documents relating to
the so-called Crystal Night, it is submitted that that
operation was not directed towards the illegal acquisition
of property. Besides, the Accused, who was at that time
active in Vienna, learned about the operation only after it
had already commenced.

Means of Proof:

18. N/34 – Document 108
19. T/154 – Document 783

As to 4. Special Account “W”

The Accused’s Section was not entitled to dispose of the
funds in “Special Account “W”. Emigrating Jews, whose
property was forfeited to the Reich in accordance with
Regulation 11 of the Reich Citizens Law (before the
promulgation of that decree, property was forfeited under
individual orders), were to be required to pay part of their
liquid assets to the Reich Association of Jews in Germany,
in order to enable it to finance the equipping of the

Means of Proof:

20. T/723 – Document 738
21. T/724 – Document 1283
22. T/750 – Document 1292

As to 5. Insofar as the Accused is being charged with
having been involved in the spoliation of Jewish property in
the occupied areas, it is pleaded in reply that the
competent authorities were the offices of the Reich
Commissar, in the Generalgouvernement its government, and in
the Eastern districts the Trusteeship Office East.

Means of Proof:

23. T/206 – Document 779
24. T/1417 – Document 1175
25. T/1385 – Document 187

As. to 6. “Aktion Reinhardt”

The Accused did not have any influence or competence within
the context of the so-called “Aktion Reinhardt.” There is
no mention of his name or designation of his Section in the
documents produced by the Prosecution. It was Globocnik who
was specially charged with this operation by Himmler to whom
he also reported.

Means of Proof:

26. T/1384 – Document 1106
27. T/1388 – Document 117
28 T/1389 – Document 1250
29. T/1417 – Document 1175

As to 7. Territorial principle

Insofar as the Accused is being charged with involvement in
the spoliation of Jewish property in countries other than
the above-mentioned occupied areas or Axis countries, it is
pleaded in reply that, in accordance with a departmental
conference in the Foreign Ministry, the property of Jews
there was forfeited to their home countries. In the West,
Jewish property was also seized by the so-called Special
Operations Staff Rosenberg (Einsatzstab Rosenberg).

Means of Proof:

30. T/744 – Document 147
31. T/193 – Document 908
32. T/194 – Document 508
33. T/195 – Document 509
34. T/508 – Document 310

As to 8. Emigration against ransom Insofar as the
Prosecution charges the Accused with allowing some Jews to
emigrate against payment of a considerable amount in foreign
exchange, it is pleaded in response that it was
Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler who was solely competent to decide
on these individual cases.

Means of Proof:

35. N/104 – Testimony of Dr. van Taalingen-Dols
36. N/105 – Book: The Battle for a Human Life


A crime against humanity, according to the definition in
Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950 is: murder, extermination,
enslavement, starvation, deportation and other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population, as well as
prosecution on national, racial, religious or political

The spoliation of Jewish property could only fall within
this provision, if it could be considered an “other inhumane
act,” or as a part of persecution on national racial,
religious or political grounds.

Already from the enumeration of inhumane acts in the first
part of this provision, there results a limitation of the
concept “crime against humanity” to acts against the life,
bodily integrity and liberty of the person. The provision
makes acts punishable which are directed against “humanity,”
but not against property. If, therefore, the object of an
act is the spoliation of property, the act itself cannot be
turned into a crime against humanity because it was
accompanied by inhumane situations.

Section 1(a)(2) has been modeled on Article 6 of the Charter
for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and
Article II(c) of Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 December
1945. In particular, its content conforms completely with
Article II(c) of Control Council Law No. 10.

By the provision of Section 1(a)(2) the same factual
situations were aimed at as by Article II(c) of the Control
Council Law. Therefore, the decisions of the Military
Tribunal of the United States which based its judgment on
Control Council Law No. 10 should be used in interpreting
this provision, insofar as they dealt with crimes against

(There follow quotations from judgments in the Subsequent
Trials, as cited in Heinze-Schilling: Judicial Decisions of
the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, edited by the Institute
for International Law at Goettingen University (in German),
1952, at p. 206, No. 959; p. 207, No. 961; p. 204, No. 947;
p. 207, No. 962; p. 207, No. 963; and pp. 205 and 206.)

On interpreting the concept “persecution” in the light of
these decisions, and having regard to the examples set out
in Section 1(a)(2), one arrives at the conclusion that
persecution on national, racial, religious or political
grounds can be considered as a crime against humanity only
when the act of prosecution in its totality is directed
against the life, the bodily integrity or the liberty of a
person or a group of persons.

The fact that in the course of an operation of persecution
which is directed against property inhumane acts are also
committed does not turn the whole operation into a crime
against humanity (see above, Heinze-Schilling, p. 204, No.
947). Therefore, under Count VII of the indictment there is
no factual situation which can be described as a crime
against humanity.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15