1. Sessions One Through Thirty + Defense Submissions April 11, 1961 -- May 8, 1961
2. Sessions Thirty One Through Fifty One May 8, 1961 -- May 24, 1961
3. Sessions Fifty One Through Seventy Five May 24, 1961 -- June 29, 1961

Publisher Rubin Mass Ltd. has released “The Trial of Adolf Eichmann,” in 9 volumes. Contact Rubin Mass Ltd. on the web, or via P.O. Box 990, Jerusalem 91009, or (Fax) 972-2-6277864, (Voice) 972-2-6277863 or by electronic mail for current pricing.

Some thirty years have passed since Adolf Eichmann was put on trial before the District Court of Jerusalem and since the appeal against his conviction before the Supreme Court of Israel. But it is only now that it has become possible to publish in English the record of the proceedings before the trial Court, the judgments of that Court and of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

It is our belief that in spite of this long delay, the publication of these proceedings has lost none of its importance. In fact, it acquires special meaning at the present time when tendencies of so-called “historical revisionism” have become rife in many countries, with their denial of the very occurrence, or at least the extent, of the catastrophe which the National Socialist regime in Germany brought upon the Jewish people.

In an introductory passage to its judgment, the District Court pointed out that the Holocaust of European Jewry had already been dealt with by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in its judgment at the trial of the Major War Criminals, and also in several subsequent trials.

However, in the trial of Adolf Eichmann the persecution and mass murder of Jews in countries under German occupation were central to the proceedings. The Court emphasized that in spite of the manifold grave questions raised by the Holocaust, it remained its duty not to stray into areas outside its criminal proceedure. Yet – the judges states – they did not lose sight of the moral and educational value implicit in the conduct of the trial, both for the citizens of Israel and for the world in general. Thus, “the evidence at this trial of survivors of the Holocaust who poured out their hearts on the witness stand, will certainly provide valuable material for the research worker and the historian.”

During the course of the trial the proceedings were recorded in Hebrew in shorthand and also mechanically. Evidence given in other languages was translated simultaneously. At the end of each day a transcript of the proceedings was published in Hebrew, English, French and Yiddish. For the present publication, the translation of the record of proceedings has been fully revised and whenever necessary has been compared with the transcript in the original language in which the evidence was given and also with the tape recording. The translation of the judgments of the District Court and the Supreme Court is based on the official version which was published together with the original text of the judgments.

The entire project of publication has been co-ordinated by Dr. Daniel Fraenkel of the Israel State Archives. The team of translators who took part in this onerous task was led by Sam Levin, Ruth Morris, Hava Hareli and Mordechai Shalev. The major part of the transcript was typed by Esther Herskovics, who also read the proofs. A final comprehensive revision of the manuscript was done by Shlomo Ketko, who was also responsible for the production of the volumes in the press. All of them are to be highly commended for their
labours.

This first volume contains the record of the proceedings in the District Court up to and including the thirtieth session. The following volumes will complete the record of the trial and will contain the testimonies taken outside Israel, the final addresses of the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defence and the judgments in both instances. There will also be a glossary of terms and an index. Further volumes will contain the statement given by Adolf Eichmann to the Israel police, as well as the main exhibits produced at the trial.

The publication of the proceedings of the Eichmann Trial has been undertaken by the Board of Directors of a Civil Trust constituted under Israeli law. The Directors of the Trust were Justice Moshe Landau, who acted as Chairman, the late Mr. Gideon Hausner, in his capacity as Chairman of the International Committee of Yad Vashem, Justice Gabriel Bach, and State Archivist Paul A. Alsberg, who also acted as
Honorary Secretary. Dr. Josef Burg, the present Chairman of the International Committee of Yad Vashem, joined the Board of Directors after the death of Mr. Hausner.

Jerusalem, June 1992

Publisher Rubin Mass Ltd. has released “The Trial of Adolf Eichmann,” in 9 volumes. Contact Rubin Mass Ltd. on the web, or via P.O. Box 990, Jerusalem 91009, or (Fax) 972-2-6277864, (Voice) 972-2-6277863 or by electronic mail for current pricing.

Attorney General: Now, Professor Gilbert, you say that you took Judge Musmanno to Goering and acted as translator. What was said in that conversation?

Witness Gilbert: Well, Goering said more or less the same things that he had said to me, namely that he was sure that Hitler was dead and that his political testament was genuine. This was the political testament, I’m sure you all know, in which Adolf Hitler accused the Jews of starting a war and admitted ordering their extermination as punishment.

There is psychology behind that, but we need not go into it. Then Goering, of course, was asked what he thought about this crime of extermination and he immediately said: “Well, this, of course, was not any business of mine, it was not in my jurisdiction, it was under the jurisdiction of Himmler and his boys, Heydrich, Eichmann and so on.”

Q. Did you introduce Judge Musmanno to other accused persons?

A. Yes, there were some others, but frankly I don’t remember the details at this point. There were other interpreters available, enlisted men, and some of the other accused did speak English.

Q. Did Judge Musmanno also see other accused men, such as Ribbentrop, Frank, von Schirach, von Papen and Kaltenbrunner?

A. I believe so, but frankly, I don’t remember all the rest of the details.

Q. Did you talk to Judge Musmanno about Eichmann?

A. No, we didn’t. There was really no occasion to speak about Eichmann at the time. Frankly, he wasn’t thought of very much by the major Nazi war criminals, and anyway, I had reason to believe that he was dead, at that time.

Q. What led you to the conclusion that Eichmann was dead?

A. Well, his own boss, Kaltenbrunner, told me he was dead. I remember this conversation very vividly, because it was the one day on which, I’m afraid, I lost a little of my professional aloofness. This was a day on which a survivor of Auschwitz testified how the children born in concentration camps were taken from their mothers and never seen again, and then, in the rush season of 1944, children were thrown alive into the furnaces of Auschwitz.

This was too much, even for a psychologist, and I went to Kaltenbrunner at lunch that day, and I said: “Herr Kaltenbrunner, now do you really mean to tell me that you know nothing about these things?” And he said, “No, no, really. I didn’t have anything to do with the extermination programme as such. This was done by Heydrich and Eichmann and the people in that context – Heydrich, Eichmann and the others involved in this chain of command, from Himmler on down. And,” he added, “they’re all dead.”

Q. Is that to be found on page 163 of your book?

A. Yes, this is a correct recording of the conversation I had with Kaltenbrunner, right out of my diary.

Q. Eichmann’s name is mentioned here on a further occasion, after Wisliceny’s evidence – I think on page 102. This is Goering’s response when already in gaol, after Wisliceny’s evidence.

A. Yes, I remember that conversation.

Q. What did Goering say then?

A. Well, his comment on Wisliceny’s testimony was that Wisliceny looks like a big Schweinehund only because Eichmann isn’t here – or to make it exact, that “Wisliceny is a little Schweinehund who looks like a big one, because Eichmann isn’t here.”

Q. Does this appear in your book?

A. Yes, this can be found in the original diary – all of these notes that are in the public version can be found in the original diary which I kept at the time.

Q. Did anyone else in the Nuremberg gaol talk to you about Eichmann when you were on your official mission?

A. Yes, the name came more and more into discussion, not so much amongst the main Nazi war criminals, but among the SS men of whom we had practically the entire military and police power in gaol in Nuremberg. There were many higher SS police officials, and I frequently ran across Eichmann’s name there – at first, somewhat to my surprise, but more and more a clear picture emerged.

Q. Did you speak to Oswald Pohl about Eichmann?

A. Yes. Oswald Pohl – I believe his title was Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, the Chief of the WVHA – was also in Nuremberg, and I, of course, discussed the atrocities with him.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. Well, he tried to get into a jurisdictional dispute about who had charge of the extermination programme. He, of course, disclaimed responsibility for himself, insisting that this was under Kaltenbrunner’s jurisdiction, but he made it quite clear that Eichmann was involved.

In other words, both Kaltenbrunner and Pohl tried to shove on to the other the responsibility for being in charge of the bureaucracy, but both agreed, automatically, that Eichmann was the one involved, at least one of those involved.

Q. Pohl was kept in the witness wing in the Nuremberg gaol – is that correct?

A. Yes, in the witness wing there was the rest of the top hierarchy of Nazi Germany, and they were interrogated at times, called at times as witnesses by the defendants, sometimes by the prosecution; I had access to all of those – just as free access as I had to the top Nazis themselves.

Q. Is that where you also met Ohlendorf and Rudolf Hoess?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any contact between the witnesses detained in the witness wing and the principal accused who were imprisoned in their cells?

A. No, that’s why they were kept in a separate wing. They could only be called to discuss particular cases, if they were needed as witnesses, and then the attorney might call the witness to discuss something with the defendant. Otherwise they were kept quite separate.

Q. You said that other people spoke to you about Eichmann. Who were they?

A. Well, the main one was Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz.

Q. What did Hoess say about Eichmann?

A. Well, he seemed to be unable to discuss the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, and at first I hardly noticed this, but when I started to get written statements from him for psychological purposes, the name came in more and more, and it gradually dawned on me that this man must be a key figure in the whole extermination programme.

Q. What do you mean by “it dawned on me”?

A. Well, I was starting to investigate something else. What I was really interested in was what makes these Nazis tick. So I was trying to find out what made Colonel Hoess tick, how could he do things like this? And in the orderly procedure of getting a case history on a subject, I asked Colonel Hoess to write an autobiography telling his entire history from childhood up to the present time.

Q. Are you referring to that autobiography which was published under the title “Commandant of Auschwitz”?

A. Oh, no – I am speaking of the original autobiography which Colonel Hoess wrote for me in Nuremberg, for purely psychological purposes, in his own handwriting.

Q. You have kept it in your possession until now, and it has not been published so far?

A. That’s right – that is one of the original written documents I had to confirm my conversations, and it hasn’t been published except for excerpts which I used in analysing the case of Rudolf Hoess in my second book, The Psychology of Dictatorship.

Q. Did Hoess write it before he wrote his autobiography in Poland?

A. Oh, yes – definitely; he had not yet been brought to Poland to stand trial, and I was the first one, I believe, to ask him for his case history.

Q. I notice there is a date at the top – 10 April 1946. And Hoess ended it on 12 April. It took him two days to write – would that be correct?

A. Yes, that would be about right.

Q. And it has not yet been published?

A. Not as such, no – as I said – except for brief excerpts.

Q. Is this the original handwriting of Hoess?

A. This is the original.

Q. Signed by him?

A. Yes, this is Rudolf Hoess’ signature, and this is exactly the document which he wrote for me.

Presiding Judge: Did the witness receive this from the hands of Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: I received this from Hoess himself and have kept it in my possession ever since, except that I showed it to Mr. Hausner when I came here.

Attorney General: I submit this document. To my regret we have not managed to make copies. We shall make copies for the Court. We shall ask for the document to be returned to us so that we may print it. The handwriting of Hoess is quite legible.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1169.

You will receive it back after the session, in order to make copies of it. Has Dr. Servatius seen the document?

Attorney General: Dr. Servatius has received from us a copy of the English translation, since Dr. Gilbert made an English translation for himself. And I gave him the complete translation.

Presiding Judge: Please also give him the German original.

Attorney General: Certainly.

Dr. Servatius: May I request a photocopy of the handwritten document, in order to show it to the Accused?

Attorney General: I have no objection to Defence Counsel receiving the document and showing it to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: The document will be returned to you, and you can submit it to Defence Counsel.

Attorney General: I have a manuscript of Hoess which has also not yet been published. I shall let him have it immediately.

I understand that Eichmann is mentioned in the autobiography written by Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: Yes, I noticed that. That is how I began to get the impression that Colonel Hoess cannot describe the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, even though he is only supposed to be writing a personal autobiography for psychological purposes.

Q. At a later stage we shall draw the Court’s attention to what it says there.

Tell me, Professor Gilbert, did Hoess testify in Court?

A. Yes. He was a witness for Kaltenbrunner.

Q. He gave evidence, or at any rate evidence was led, showing that 2,500,000 men, women and children had been exterminated in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

A. Yes.

Q. What was the effect of this evidence on the other accused in that trial, as far as you remember?

A. Well, this was one of the main psychological problems at the trial. The atrocity evidence of the extermination and the films of the atrocities and concentration camps sometimes had a very shocking effect on the defendants themselves, and I was very anxious to find out just how genuine this was, and what their guilt reactions were from a psychological point of view.

Q. Do you remember what Hans Frank said to you?

A. Yes. In connection with the testimony of Rudolf Hoess, he stopped me in the hall on the way to lunch or from lunch and said: “Captain Gilbert, this was the lowest point of the trial. Just imagine a man sitting there and saying out of his own mouth: I murdered two and a half million men, women, and children.” Oh yes, I remember the additional comment: “People will talk about this for a thousand years.”

Q. Do you recall the testimony of Keitel who, I believe, was the Chief of the German General Staff?

A. That’s right. I recall Keitel’s reaction to the atrocities particularly vividly in connection with the atrocities films. And when I saw him in the cell later, he said: “Those dirty SS swine! If I had known what they were up to, I would have told my son, I’ll shoot you rather than let you join the SS.” He was, of course, at the same time trying to indicate that it was not the army that had committed these horrible atrocities. But he did react emotionally and with great shock.

Q. Do you remember any unusual reaction on the part of anyone else?

A. Well, there were a number of them. We could, of course, go on and on, but I think we want to come back to the documents that form the picture that I gradually formed of the role of Adolf Eichmann.

Q. That is correct.

A. Well, in connection with getting these guilt reactions, I would have to present the reaction of Goering, which leads to the next document which I received from Colonel Hoess. Goering’s reaction was to try to brush it all aside, to tell everybody that this was all exaggerated propaganda. “Oh, they are a bunch of SS Schweinehunde doing some dirty things, but it is all exaggerated, it’s all propaganda.”

So, I would engage Goering in conversation in front of the others and say: “Well, now, you can’t just brush off the murder of two and a half million people. The German people themselves will demand to know how did this happen. The conscience of the world demands to know how did this happen. Do you want to go down in history as a man who just laughed it off?” …And we would argue along this line.

You see, the only way of appealing to Goering was not through conscience, but through his egotistical role in history. And I knew that he was trying to brush aside the crimes, so that he would not lose his chance to get his picture in the German history books, because he knew that even the German people would be horrified by it. Particularly because women and children had been murdered. The killing of the men would not damage his picture in the German history books, he told me.

Now then, realizing that he was determined to try to blot out the memory of this horrible crime from history, I felt that, psychologically, historically and humanly, it was absolutely necessary to see to it that this was properly documented – both from the historical and the psychological point of view.

Q. And then, what did you do?

A. I therefore told him…I’m sorry. No, the next step was his clinching argument, namely, that it was technically impossible to exterminate two and a half million people inside of the three or three and a half years that Colonel Hoess was Commandant of Auschwitz. This seemed to be very convincing to some of the other Nazi leaders.

Q. What did you do, then?

A. I then told him that, of course, I was no expert in mass production of extermination, but that there was an expert in the witness wing, and I could get the details from him. I was, of course, referring to Colonel Hoess.

Q. And then you took a sheet of paper and you wrote at the top certain words in German?

A. That’s right. I wrote a question in German.

Q. And you gave it to Hoess and got his written reply?

A. That’s right. I handed it to him, and he wrote the reply in his own handwriting.

Q. You gave it to him on 23 April 1946, and you received his reply on 24 April 1946?

A. Yes. I believe the dates are recorded on the document.

Q. Kindly read out to the Court the question and the answer (I already have a printed copy here – it is a short document).

A. The question which I wrote down in German was: Goering wants to know how it was at all possible, from a technical point of view, to destroy two and a half million people in the course of three and a half years.

Q. What was Hoess’ reply?

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, this is going to take very long, with the translation.

Previous | Index | Next

14 Sivan 5721 (29 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I hereby declare the fifty-fifth Session of  the trial open.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, we are obliged to interrupt, for a short time, the evidence about Hungary, and to request the Court to hear evidence of a general nature. I shall call Professor Gilbert. Professor Gilbert will testify in English.

Presiding Judge: Is he Jewish?

Attorney General: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Gustave M. Gilbert.

Attorney General: Professor Gilbert, what post do you occupy at present?

Witness Gilbert: I am chairman of the Psychology Department of Long Island University in Brooklyn, New York.

Q. What are your professional qualifications?

A. I am a qualified psychologist, having received the Doctorate at Columbia University in 1939. I also hold a diploma from the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology.

Q. Were you in military service during the Second World War?

A. Yes, I was commissioned as a military psychologist with the rank of First Lieutenant, and after spending some time examining misfit soldiers, I was sent overseas as a military intelligence officer, because of my knowledge of German.

At the cessation of hostilities, I was assigned to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, where the major Nazi war criminals were about to be tried. That was the first trial of the major war criminals.

Q. What was your function at the Nuremberg prison?

A. It was, first of all, to make psychological examinations of all the defendants – Goering, Hoess, Ribbentrop and so on, in order to be informed of their mental state, in case any question of insanity arose, and also to keep watch over them – to be with them at all times, so that I would have my finger on the pulse of their morale and so on, and do everything that was possible to ensure the conduct of an orderly trial.

Q. Were you their doctor in the sense that what they said to you was a medical confidence between patient and doctor?

A. No; I am not a physician in the first place, but more important than that, their position there, and my position there was clearly not one of clinical confidences. In other words, I was there in the uniform of the American army – I was a military psychologist; it was my responsibility to watch over them, and I never at any time pretended that anything they said to me was in confidence. There was just one limitation on this, and that was that, as the Nazis ridiculed and cursed each other behind one another’s backs, they would sometimes ask me to please not say anything about it to the others until the trial was over. I kept that confidence.

Q. Professor, did they know that you were Jewish?

A. At first they did not. I wanted to see whether they could tell according to the Nazi ideology that you could always tell “these despicable Jews.” Not a single one could. However, Streicher did think that some of the judges were Jews. They were of course not – none of them. So I let it be known that I was Jewish and they, in turn, did not seem to react to this, beyond making it clear that they never had anything against Jews personally, that this was all silly ideological nonsense, and that some of their best friends had been Jews.

Q. Did the fact that you revealed to them that you were a Jew have any effect on your subsequent talks with them?

A. There was not really much, except in the case of Streicher and Rosenberg, who seemed to be a little nervous about it, but they reacted in rather a strange way: Streicher, for instance, decided that, since the Jews were fighting courageously to make a homeland in Palestine, he wanted to “lead” them, because he admired their courage.

Outside of such nonsense, there was really no appreciable effect. I behaved absolutely correctly – they appreciated it, and the study went on in a perfectly dignified professional manner. Perhaps I might add that there is ample evidence that I had the respect and cooperation of the defendants – perhaps Dr. Servatius himself can confirm this.

Q. Let us continue. Did you give any official evidence before the International Military Tribunal in relation to your task?

A. The only actual official testimony was in connection with the sanity hearing for Rudolf Hess. I testified – I gave the final testimony that Rudolf Hess was, in fact, sane; and this testimony appears in Volume I of the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal. Now, aside from that, of course, I had examined all of the defendants and was with them all through the trial.

Q. Did you subject them to psychological tests?

A. Yes. I administered intelligence tests and personality tests to all of them before the trial started, to be sure that these would be valid, because it was of supreme importance to get to understand the Nazi mentality.

Q. Did you keep in contact with the accused persons also after the trials had begun?

A. Oh yes, I was in intimate daily contact with all of theNazis on trial in Nuremberg; I was with them every day in the court, I spoke to them during the court intermissions and during the lunch hours, and had extensive conversations with them at night in their cells and over the long weekends and recesses from court. This went on from the beginning of the trial to the end of the trial, without losing a day.

Q. Did you keep notes of your conversations with these accused?

A. Yes, I made very extensive notes after every conversation – but not in their presence. I recorded the summary of our conversations with extensive verbatim quotations, and compiled this in my own diary; and the defendants were unaware of this until about the end of the trial.

I might add that I further substantiated these conversations with notes by getting additional documentary evidence – you would say (protocols – I would say) – to substantiate what we had talked about; first, for psychological evidence, and secondly, because some of it was so incredible that I felt I had to have a record of these people because my colleagues would never believe me.

Presiding Judge: What was the material that you recorded?

Witness Gilbert: There were essays written by the defendants in their own handwriting which further substantiated what we had talked about.

Attorney General: These essays are still in your possession to this day and have not yet been published – is that correct?

Witness Gilbert: That’s right. These essays are in my  possession, and most of it has not been published – hardly any of it, in fact.

Q. Your diary is here with you, as I can see – the one you kept at Nuremberg.

A. Yes, these are my original diary notes, in their original binding, just as I kept them in Nuremberg. In fact, it just so happens that I had them locked in a trunk for the last ten years, and they only arrived by diplomatic pouch last night, so they are substantially as they were in Nuremberg.

Q. Did you publish part of it in 1947, under the name Nuremberg Diary?

A. Yes, that is correct. The original edition of the Nuremberg Diary, which represents, I should say, about two-thirds of the material in my original diaries, was published in 1947.

Q. Has this now appeared in a new edition?

A. Yes, a new edition was published just this year, because of the renewed interest in Nazi war crimes, and it is an authentic reproduction of the original edition. In fact, it went to press before I even knew it, and it was printed from the original manuscript.

Q. Is this the book? [Shows the witness a book]

A. Yes, this is the book. This is the authentic copy of the original edition, which was edited by me from my own original diary notes.

Attorney General: I shall now submit this, for the Court’s convenience, if that should be desirable. I have another copy.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you have two more?

Attorney General: I shall submit the second one as well, at the end of the session.

Witness Gilbert: I have a further copy.

Presiding Judge: Thank you very much. This will be marked T/1168.

Attorney General: We shall come back to this diary of yours, but meanwhile I wanted to ask you a number of questions. When you were in Nuremberg, did you see Judge Musmanno
there?

Witness Gilbert: Oh yes. He wasn’t Judge Musmanno then. He was Commander Musmanno of the Navy. I remember him very well.

Q. When was that?

A. It was somewhere around the early part of the trial. I don’t remember the exact date.

Q. What was Judge Musmanno doing there?

A. He was on two missions, as I recall. One was to investigate the death of Adolf Hitler. The other one pertained to naval military intelligence, and I don’t think I’m free to speak about that. It’s quite irrelevant to the trial.

Q. Did you introduce him, Judge Musmanno, to some of the accused?

A. Yes, I did. I particularly remember that because he was the only one outside of some psychiatrists who was allowed to come down into the cells. In other words, everybody was kept out of the gaol cells – except myself, chaplains and so on, and occasional psychiatrists for the psychiatric examinations – but Musmanno had special permission to come down, and I introduced him to several of the top Nazi defendants to satisfy his commissions.

Q. Did you take him to Goering?

A. Yes. Goering was one of them. Since Goering couldn’t speak English, I remained for that interview as his interpreter.

Attorney General: At this stage, I request the Court to rule, by virtue of its powers under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Act 5710-1950, that Professor Gilbert should be permitted to recount what he heard at Nuremberg from the following persons: Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Frank, Oswald Pohl, Ohlendorf, Rudolf Hoess (the commandant of Auschwitz), and Kaltenbrunner.

All these conversations are relevant to the subject under discussion; some of them are also linked to the evidence of Judge Musmanno and to the matters on which he testified, others are linked directly to the Accused, to persons with whom he was in contact, and with remarks which they made about him, with their mentality, with the Nazi personnel structure…

Presiding Judge: With whose mentality?

Attorney General: Of the accused persons.

Presiding Judge: Of the persons who were accused there?

Attorney General: Of the persons who were accused there. We also showed Professor Gilbert the psychological tests which we conducted on the Accused here, and we shall ask him to make a particular comparison between the tests that he was shown here by the government psychologists and the tests he conducted there.

Presiding Judge: Were tests conducted here as well?

Attorney General: Tests were conducted here. We shall submit them in the proper way through the persons who conducted them. These are public officials of the Ministry of Health. Psychological tests were made. We shall submit them. Professor Gilbert has seen them.

Presiding Judge: Very well, that may be an additional question.

Attorney General: Yes, this is an additional question. But I am explaining why I am interested in evidence on the personality of an SS man engaged in exterminating Jews. Together with it a certain question of comparison will arise.

Presiding Judge: At the present moment this matter is not so clear to me.

Attorney General: Perhaps the Court will allow me to go over this stage by stage?

Presiding Judge: Perhaps we could separate the issues and leave this question of the psychological tests on one side for the time being.

Attorney General: As the Court pleases.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius?

Witness Gilbert: Pardon me, may I receive a summary of what is being discussed?

Presiding Judge: No, this is a legal argument. If it would be more comfortable for you to be seated, you remain where you are; if not, you may leave the witness box. Perhaps some member of the Prosecution, Mr. Bach, the Assistant State Attorney, will explain to you briefly what is going on here, as we did in the case of Judge Musmanno. For that we have a precedent.

Dr. Servatius: If a psychological research is going to be presented here dealing with what the Nuremberg accused said and thought, I should have received, in the first place, the tests that were conducted here concerning the Accused himself.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, pardon me. I have already said to the Attorney General that we shall deal separately with the question of the psychological tests. We now have here an application to hear evidence on what the witness heard from the Nuremberg accused whose names we have heard. This is the first question, irrespective of the psychological aspect of the matter. What is your reply to that?

Dr. Servatius: I believe that such a question has already arisen here once, and it was settled by the Court. I believe that this is hearsay evidence, and I want to voice an objection, something which I have already done previously.

Judge Raveh: Mr. Hausner, did you only mention persons who are no longer alive?

Attorney General: Only persons who are no longer living. I have here eight names.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 58

We shall permit evidence by this witness about matters which he heard from those persons whose names have been mentioned by the Attorney General, on the grounds we gave in our Decisions 7 and 29, by virtue of our powers under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.

Previous | Index | Next

A. Yes. According to Law No. 81/45 and also under Regulation 1440/45 of the Prime Minister, both the instigator and the accomplice to a crime are punished in exactly the same way as the principal offender. Therefore he knew from what he heard from me – and he noted it and understood it – that he, being one of the major war criminals and liable to such punishment, could not in any way escape the penalty of hanging, and he took note of that and understood it.

He told me not only that he had been the Commissar for Jewish Affairs, but that he had also been State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, that is to say the holder of one of the highest offices in the land. From time to time, when for some technical reasons he had been unable to fulfil orders, the Accused rebuked him on account of these matters in the severest terms.

He complained about this also to his Minister, Andor Jaross and Andor Jaross replied: “We have been delivered up into the hands of the Germans and we have to do what they order us to do.” I don’t remember whether Baky met with the Accused or spoke with him. Possibly there had been no meeting between them. But on the other hand, I remember Endre always passed on the orders that he received from the Accused.

Q. Can you tell us, perhaps by way of summing up, what Endre said to you about his relationship with the Accused, what was, in fact, the administrative or operational connection between the Accused and him?

A. I did not doubt for a moment that the Accused gave the orders. He (the Accused) supplied him with the plans and he was but the one to carry them out, as a representative of the Hungarian Government.

Presiding Judge: Who is that speaking now?

Interpreter: The witness.

Presiding Judge: This is unimportant for us – what is important is what he heard from Endre.

State Attorney Bach: I understand that the question in Hungarian was not put in such a way that the witness could understand it in the sense it was asked. Perhaps I can ask him once again: What did Endre say to the witness about his operative and administrative relations with the Accused?

Witness Ferencz: He said not only to me but also in his interrogation that it was the Accused who gave the orders, and subsequently he reported to the Accused.

Q. Who decided, according to what Endre said, from which ghetto, and when, the Jews had to be evacuated and in what order?

A. I am not certain, I don’t remember exactly, that Doeme Sztojay, on his return from Germany, already brought with him the whole plan for the evacuation of the Jews. But I don’t know this with absolute certainty.

Q. Is this what Endre told you?

A. Not only Endre told me this, but it also came out in the trial of Doeme Sztojay who was hanged.

Presiding Judge: Please confine your remarks to what you heard from Endre, without drawing conclusions on the basis of something else you heard.

State Attorney Bach: The question is: What did Endre tell you – who in Hungary decided from which ghetto Jews had to be deported, when they had to be deported and to what place they had to be deported?

Witness Ferencz: It was the Accused, and he (Endre) also reported to the Accused.

Q. For how long did you converse with Baky?

A. Very briefly.

Q. Can you tell us only what he said to you about the Accused?

A. He said that the orders which Endre received from the Accused – were given to him to carry out. He reported the results to Endre. This was the procedure by which the events took place. I don’t remember whether Baky ever said that he had spoken face to face with the Accused.

Q. What were Baky’s duties in the Hungarian Government?

A. Baky was also State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior. He was in charge of the gendarmerie, he controlled the gendarmerie and he passed on orders for implementation to the commanders of the gendarmerie.

Q. By the way, were these matters, the contents of your conversation with Endre and the contents of your conversation with Baky, recorded by anyone?

A. We prepared a minute which was placed in the secret archives. First I showed the minute to the Minister and afterwards it was placed in the secret archives.

Q. Did you also speak to Peter Hain at a certain stage?

A. Yes, I also spoke to Peter Hain before he was put to death by hanging, not before he was hanged. This was a complicated affair, for he was hanged twice. On the first occasion, when he was being led to the gallows, he escaped from his guards and jumped from the third floor, and broke his spine, so that they had to take him to the prison hospital, where he lay for some time, and only after that was he hanged.

Q. At any rate, you spoke to him at a time when he believed that he was about to be executed?

A. I spoke to him, when his application for clemency had been rejected before the first so-called hanging, inside the death cell.

Q. I do not remember whether I have already asked you what were the duties of this Peter Hain?

A. Peter Hain was an Inspector of Police, who did everything, interfered in everything, in political matters. Officials in his department or his subordinates in his department seized high-ranking persons from the first day the Germans entered Hungary, on 19 March 1944; they seized Jews, mainly. When the Germans arrived, he transferred his office from the police headquarters to the Majestic Hotel.

When I questioned him before his execution, he told me for the record, that he was in the closest contact with the Accused and with the Accused’s Section, with his office. He received orders for implementation partly from the Accused and partly from the Accused’s Section and also, according to the reports which he delivered to the Accused, it was the Accused who gave instructions for the arrest of various people.

Q. Can you tell us who Gabor Vajna was?

Szálasi Ferenc

A. I believe that it was on 16 October 1944, when members of the “Arrow Cross” took control of the regime in Hungary, after the Sztojay Government left and was replaced by the Szalasi Government. And then, after Andor Jaross, Gabor Vajna, a member of the “Arrow Cross,” was appointed to be Minister of the Interior in his stead.

Q. Was he also placed on trial, and if so, what happened to him?

A. Yes. He was sentenced to death and executed by hanging.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  As leader of the Arrow Cross movement, Ferenc Szálasi led a Fascist government in Hungary during the last year of the war. He staged a coup against Admiral Miklós Horthy's government when it attempted to make peace with the Soviets in the fall of 1944. As a close ally of the Germans, Szálasi's government viciously persecuted Hungary's Jewish population. Szálasi was executed on March 12, 1946.]

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions to the witness?

Dr. Servatius: Yes. Witness, you said that in the proceedings against them, both Endre and Baky pleaded in justification that they were acting under superior orders. In this way they wanted to exonerate themselves. Is that correct?

Witness Ferencz: When I questioned them in the death cell, they no longer pleaded in justification or used this as a defence, for their lives were about to end.

Presiding Judge: The question referred to their defence at the trial.

Witness Ferencz: Yes, in Court they defended themselves on the ground that they acted under orders. All of them
defended themselves in this way.

Q. On whose orders did they base this?

A. I can no longer remember exactly to whose orders they referred in the Court proceedings, since I came and went and also received reports from the Prosecution. These were long proceedings and hence today I can no longer remember exactly to whose orders they referred.

Q. Who was likely to have issued orders to them? Not the Minister? Not the authorities of their Hungarian Government?

A. It was common knowledge that both the Minister and the authorities during those times did what the Germans ordered.

Q. Wasn’t the German Ambassador Veesenmayer the man who maintained contact with the Ministers and issued orders to them on behalf of the Germans?

A. He, too, was in contact with the Ministers. But, for example, at the Royal Hotel on Arzibt Road there was a particular department of the Gestapo which also gave instructions independently.

Presiding Judge: In the Royal Hotel?

Witness Ferencz: This department in the Royal Hotel also gave instructions independently.

The Germans, for their part, had no need – not at government level or at a lower administrative level – for any seal or rubber stamp in order to issue instructions or in order to act.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, I presume that an official can receive orders from one authoritative source only, namely his superiors. If that is the case, the statement which Endre made later on that Eichmann gave him the orders, was a false one.

Witness Ferencz: This is nothing but the opinion of Defence Counsel. But I am a witness testifying under oath, and I am telling the truth.

Dr. Servatius: I have no more questions to the witness.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, do you have any questions?

State Attorney Bach: I do not wish to re-examine, Your Honour.

Judge Raveh: I understand that in the trial of Endre and Baky, you did not know whether they mentioned Eichmann or not. Did I understand you correctly?

Witness Ferencz: As I have already said, I was the head of the General Prosecution, and in every important case I was in charge of its conduct. I was assisted by 112 lawyers and a huge staff, who conducted the proceedings. So that I would enter the court-room, sit down, listen, and leave and give instructions. I cannot testify – for I am on oath – whether Eichmann’s name was mentioned in the course of the proceedings in court, since I can only testify to the truth.

Q. What was your purpose in wanting to talk, after the trial, to them – to Endre and Baky?

A. It was the opinion of my Minister that it was necessary, prior to the death sentence on war criminals, to hear the views of these accused, not only of the war criminals I have spoken about, but of all the criminals in this category, to determine their views once again, finally.

Q. Does any kind of verbatim record exist of the case against Endre and Baky?

A. Certainly.

Q. Did you read this record after the case was over?

A. I surely read all these records, since my lawyers presented me with reports, particularly of the trials of the main war criminals, since I myself exercised control over them.

Q. Also from reading the record you do not recall whether Endre and Baky mentioned Eichmann in the course of the trial?

A. I don’t remember, since this prosecution was a kind of routine matter and since I myself didn’t conduct these trials. It didn’t seem all that important. The records are there. They are preserved in the Budapest Court, which succeeded the People’s Court, in a special place in the archives which are in the basement.

Judge Halevi: Does a record still exist of the conversations you conducted with Endre and Baky?

Witness Ferencz: These records were dealt with separately, and secretly. In the autumn of 1956 there was a revolution in Hungary. A substantial number of the war criminals, who were serving their sentences in various prisons, were freed, and many documents were then destroyed by them. Therefore, I don’t know now, for sure, whether this record is extant. For by then I had already, some time previously, terminated my duties in the People’s Prosecution office and I had no influence over affairs.

Judge Halevi: Did the Prosecution take any steps to obtain the record from the Hungarian Government?

State Attorney Bach: No, Your Honour. With regard to this record, I asked the witness and he said that he was unable to give me a reply as to where this record was kept. As far as the records of the trials are concerned…

Judge Halevi: I am not referring to the records of the trials, but only to the specific record of these conversations on which the witness has testified before us orally.

State Attorney Bach: No; we did not approach the Government in this matter for we could not even say where this record was being kept.

Judge Halevi: In general, did the Hungarian Government extend any help in this trial?

State Attorney Bach: We submitted a list of a large number of documents mentioning them specifically, various documents of whose existence we were aware from various books, and also asked for the records of the trials. We received some material, not precisely according to the list we submitted, and more than that we did not receive.

Judge Halevi: At any rate, the best proof of these conversations would surely be the verbatim report, to the extent that it is possible to secure it.

State Attorney Bach: This would certainly be more desirable. I was simply not especially optimistic in regard to this matter when the witness was not able to give us even some hint as to where it is being kept.

Judge Halevi: He told us something about its being placed in a secret archive. Perhaps he can tell us in which secret archive?

Witness Ferencz: This is a special archive, a secret one, in which items were kept which had been marked with a double ‘O’, and even if the record were to be found – they would not supply or even disclose any material from this archive. Only very few persons had authority to examine material in this archive.

State Attorney Bach: In view of Your Honour’s observation, I am prepared to ask our Ministry for Foreign Affairs again to request the Hungarian Government to make an effort to discover the material, and if we shall receive it up to the end of this trial, we shall submit it to the Court.

Judge Halevi: If the reply is in the negative, we shall have to be satisfied with the oral evidence. [To witness] Did Endre mention, in his conversation with you, only the name of Eichmann, or other names as well?

Witness Ferencz: He mentioned various other names of members of his Section. For instance, I recall the name of Krumey. He also mentioned other names, but I don’t remember them.

Q. Anyone else?

A. Yes, he also mentioned various names, but I don’t remember them.

Q. Did he mention the names of Hungarians?

A. He did not mention the names of any Hungarians who gave orders and to whom they had to report – with the exception, of course, of his Minister – Jaross – to whom he reported.

Q. Was Jaross the Minister of the Interior?

A. The Minister of the Interior.

Q. Was he a minister in the government of Sztojay or in which government?

A. Yes.

Q. You say that he told you that he was obliged to give a report to Jaross as well?

A. Whether he had to report to him or not – about this he did not speak clearly. But, amongst other things, he also said that he had turned to Jaross and had complained about the Accused because he had rebuked him, had been annoyed with him; after all he was a State Secretary – what was he to do? In reply to this Jaross had said that the Germans were the masters and they gave the orders.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Ferencz, you have concluded your evidence.

We shall adjourn now. The next Session will be held next Monday, at 9 o’clock in the morning.

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: What was the first paragraph?

State Attorney Bach: The first paragraph was paragraph No. 2. It says there that the commanders were officers of the German Security Police, and it indicates the places. I do not wish to read out all of them here.

In paragraph 12 it says: “According to information from the railway station-master, about 400 persons from the labour services were released – and it mentions some of their names – they were arrested by the German Security Police and their leave passes were confiscated.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1164.

Judge Halevi: What is “typical of the Jewish Intelligence Service?” It appears in section 13.

State Attorney Bach: It says:

“This is typical of the thouroughness of the Jewish Intelligence service: In a telegram sent from Koeszeg to me, in my name, by some unknown person in Hatvan, I was asked to free his wife from the Koeszeg Ghetto. The purge in the areas across the Danube was planned for a later date, but, notwithstanding that, they were aware, at the most westerly edge of the country, that I was acting in Hatvan as a liaison officer.”

Our next document is No. 1321 – once more a report of Ferenczy from Hatvan, dated 8 June 1944. This is already an interim report on the implementation of the deportations. He talks of various areas of his command where so far a total of 275,415 Jews had been transported in 92 trains. “Apart from mixed marriages and their offspring, there are no longer any Jews in the aforementioned areas.”

In paragraph 3 it is stated:

“I arrested Dr. Bela Berend, a member of the Jewish Council in Budapest, and also his wife” – and he mentions her name here – “who had been released from an assembly camp, since they obtained and passed on forged documents to their relatives, who at that time were detained at that same assembly camp. I brought them to Munkacs for purposes of interrogation and, after the interrogation I handed them over to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1165.

State Attorney Bach: The last report is our document No. 1322. Ferenczy’s report dated 9 July 1944, from Budapest. Here it says: “From the beginning of the evacuations, on May 14 1944, until today 434,351 persons belonging to the Jewish race, left the country in 147 trains.”

In paragraph 3 he says: “The Jewish community has now been evacuated from all regions of the country, except from the capital Budapest.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1166.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I should now like to present the evidence of Dr. Tibor Ferencz.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Ferencz: A little.

Presiding Judge: Do you want to speak in Hungarian?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

The witness is sworn.

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness. Dr. Ferencz Tibor.

Q. Is Ferencz your first name?

A. Ferencz is my surname – Tibor is my first name.

Q. Where do you live?

A. In Bnei Brak, on Rashi Street.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Ferencz, when did you immigrate to
Israel?

Witness Ferencz: On 22 May 1957.

Q. Where were you until then?

A. In Budapest.

Q. During the Second World War, where were you and what was your occupation?

A. Prior to the War I was a lawyer in one of the provincial towns. In 1942 I was mobilized for the labour service. I served in the labour force with longer or shorter intervals.

Q. In the Hungarian labour service?

A. Yes.

Q. After the War, in what were you engaged in Hungary?

A. When I returned home at the end of March 1945, I didn’t find anything there, nor any members of my family. My wife, my mother-in-law – all of them had been taken to Auschwitz. Similarly my apartment had been robbed, and I didn’t find anything there, except for one thing which was in the garbage – and that was my diploma. I decided to discontinue my law practice and to dedicate myself solely to the service of the Jewish People.

At that time I volunteered – I offered my services to the People’s Prosecution Office. At the time this office was devoted to bringing to trial those who were responsible for war crimes. Within a short time I had risen to the position of Prosecutor with the General People’s Prosecution Office, and also Deputy Chief Prosecutor. All matters were concentrated in my hands, in my office, all the trials against war criminals and of those who had committed crimes against the people. Thus I directed all these matters which were within the competence of this office.

Presiding Judge: Was this the General Prosecution that was attached to the special courts that dealt with war crimes?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: What are these documents?

Witness Ferencz: These documents are photostats of my letters of appointment. I have the original documents, bearing the seal of Ministers and of the Prime Minister.

State Attorney Bach: I apply to submit these letters of appointment in the Hungarian language.

Presiding Judge: With or without a translation?

State Attorney Bach: I think it will be without a translation. Perhaps the witness will be able to tell us what they certify. This is our document No. 671.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1167.

Perhaps the interpreter can glance at the documents and tell us what they contain. Without a detailed translation. Is that possible?

State Attorney Bach: It should not be necessary to translate the whole document.

Interpreter: The first document is dated 15 June 1945, signed by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Agoston Valentin. In this certificate he appoints Dr. Tibor Ferencz, advocate, to be a People’s Prosecutor with the General Prosecution in Budapest. He requires him to report immediately to the Director of Prosecutions.

The second document is from Prime Minister Miklos, dated 25 September 1945. He advises him that the Council of Ministers has appointed Dr. Tibor Ferencz as deputy to the General People’s Prosecutor on behalf of the government.

The third  document is dated 28 December 1946, and in essence it is identical with the previous one, except that it is from another Minister of Justice.

In the fourth document he is released from his appointment, on 26 May 1948. But at the same time he is appointed to another post with the Chief State Prosecutor’s office.

State Attorney Bach: Did you also, by virtue of this office appear personally in trials, or were you present at the trials of Hungarian war criminals?

Witness Ferencz: In the proceedings of the trials I directed the material for the prosecution and in most cases I also appeared personally. Of course, I also had assistant prosecutors, who prepared the files.

Q. Were you present at the trial of the deputy ministers Endre and Baky?

A. On a few occasions I went in and out of the court-room, a few times.

Q. What were the sentences given to Endre and Baky?

A. Death by hanging for both of them.

Q. Was the punishment carried out?

A. It was carried out.

Q. Do you remember when the sentence of death on Endre and Baky was carried out?

A. I am sorry – I can’t remember now exactly when it happened, since there were many cases of the execution of the principal war criminals in those days. At any rate, I remember that it was in the summer, but when exactly, even if I make a special effort, I can’t recollect.

Q. In the summer of roughly what year?

A. Either 1946 or 1947. I would prefer to say 1946. I don’t remember exactly.

Q. Do you remember whether Endre and Baky were hanged on the same day or on different days?

A. Yes, on the same day, I saw to it that they should be hanged on the same day.

Q. Did you see them on the day of the hanging?

A. The court rejected their application for clemency. Accordingly they knew that there was no way out and that the death sentence would be carried out. And then, after consultation with my Minister of Justice, Istvan Reiss, and on his instructions, I went into the death cell and questioned Endre and Baky separately, approximately an hour or an hour and a half before their execution.

Q. Were they together or in separate cells?

A. They were separated.

Q. Was it only on that day that they were separated, or in fact were they generally kept apart from each other during the whole of that period?

A. All the main war criminals were kept in separate cells.

Q. Including these two?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the object of your meeting them?

A. Endre, the proceedings of whose trial I remember in particular, defended himself throughout the trial by saying that he had acted in accordance with instructions and on this ground he based his request for clemency – that we  should pardon him because he had acted according to instructions.

As a result of the consultation with my Minister of Justice, I wanted, once again, before the death sentence was carried out, to determine finally, perhaps for the sake of history, what was the nature of the instructions he had received and from whom he had received them.

Perhaps I may be permitted to add that Endre had previously been the head of a small administrative district in Goedoelloe. He was a most consistent anti-Semite. He did everything he possibly could against the Jews. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of deputy district governor for the district of Pest. He was equipped with all the attributes necessary in order to be in charge of Jewish affairs in Hungary.

Also on the occasion of this, our last meeting – and this I definitely recollect – he referred to the fact that the plans for carrying out the deportations and for the “ghettoization” – that is to say the placing of the Jews in ghettos – came to him in ready-made form. He told me that it was the Accused who gave him these orders and he was obliged to give an account to him of every deportation and on each operation of placing Jews inside a ghetto.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps, here, I am bound to ask the Court for a decision which will enable me to question the witness about the statements that were made to him by Endre and Baky.

It is clear from the evidence of the witness that his conversation with them actually took place very shortly before these two men were executed, after their application for clemency had been rejected and they did not have any more hope of achieving anything as a result of the statements that they made to him.

It seems to me that this is the closest case of a dying declaration that it is possible to find, although from the legal point of view a dying declaration is an exception from the rules of hearsay evidence only in cases of murder trials, when the reference is to the words uttered by the victim before he died. For this reason I would not be able, according to the normal rules of evidence, to produce this evidence.

But it seems to me that, from the point of view of its real significance, when a man no longer has any hope and he then says certain things that have greater weight, it seems to me that there is an analogy between the present instance and a dying declaration.

The Court will also recall its decision in connection with the evidence of Judge Musmanno, who also testified about statements made to him by various war criminals. Defence Counsel responded to that by asking a number of questions, in which he tried to show that, in the case of some of the offenders at least, there could have been contact between the cells, which would have enabled them to co-ordinate their stories, and so on.

Naturally the more we shall be able to point to a larger number of instances of this kind, when we have one instance in a goal in Nuremberg, and when we submit the statements of Hoess in Cracow and Wisliceny in Slovakia, and the statements of war criminals in Germany, and these two in Budapest, then the extent of the consistency between these statements is greater, to that extent it will be more difficult to believe in coincidence or chance and in collusion between all those people who, as it were, decided to shift the whole guilt on the Accused, while he is innocent.

Accordingly I request the Court to permit the witness to quote the last words of these two men, Endre and Baky, who throughout the final Hungarian period had the closest connections with the Accused.

Presiding Judge: If you please, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: Only one other analogy is possible. This is not a dying declaration but the declaration of a man anticipating execution. I agree with the Prosecution that there was no co-ordination here. But, without doubt, there was an intention to justify themselves morally before their people and that is how they arrived at the Accused,
Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: But what is your view, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 57

We allow evidence of the witness Dr. Ferencz about remarks he heard from Endre and Baky before they were executed. (See our Decisions Nos. 7 and 29).

State Attorney Bach: Which one of them did you see first – Endre or Baky?

Witness Ferencz: First Endre.

Q. Did you go to him in his cell?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did the conversation last?

A. Between a quarter-of-an-hour and half-an-hour.

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: Perhaps Dr. Servatius will define his final position before us on the admissibility of the part that is ready, without waiting for that single film.

Attorney General: We shall be able to arrange a showing of the film to Dr. Servatius at any time convenient to him.

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned the narrow size reel will be sufficient for this viewing, and there will be no need to enlarge it. But with regard to the time of showing, I would request you not to deprive me of the little time available to me for the work of the defence, for the showing of the films. Otherwise I shall really not be able to carry on my duties in the time allotted to me.

Presiding Judge: How much time will all the films take?

Attorney General: Not more than one hour. But we are not going to show them all at once, but section by section, which will also be authenticated section by section.

Presiding Judge: Would you not be able to screen this film, which apparently has to be converted to another size, on another projector?

Attorney General: This can be done in a cinema hall, because the machines are built into their cabins. These are not machines that can easily be moved around. Nevertheless we shall make all the arrangements that are possible.

Presiding Judge: This means that screening this particular film will not involve you in expense before it is converted?

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: So let us raise this matter again on Tuesday morning and by then you will have been able to show the films to Dr. Servatius, and in the meantime you will be able to show us the references in the law reports.

Attorney General: Of course, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume that it would be desirable that the Accused should be present when the films are screened for inspection, for he would be in a better position than I to identify the uniforms.

Attorney General: This is feasible in regard to the screening of those films which can be shown here on the wall of this court-room, but, would not be practicable in the case of the film which would have to be shown in a cinema hall.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, will you be satisfied with that?

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned, this is likely to be sufficient.

Attorney General: We shall see to it that these films are shown to Defence Counsel here in this hall in the presence of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Not during the course of a session.

Attorney General: No, not when a Session is in progress.

Presiding Judge: What do we have next?

State Attorney Bach: First, I should like to submit now the original affidavit of Dr. Petoe which I did not have previously. It is document No. 7.

I now have, Your Honour, a number of reports in the Hungarian language, together with a copy of the Hebrew translation. These documents are contained in that same collection which I submitted to the Court earlier. I would suggest that perhaps the Court could return this volume to us at a later stage and then we would be able to mark the appropriate exhibit number on each page.

Presiding Judge: That was report T/1154.

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Later on. Mr. Bodenheimer, please give this to Mr. Bach so that he may mark the extracts submitted by him.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1314. These are the minutes of a meeting which took place in the office of the Mayor in the capital of the Nagybanya Province. Actually the only significance here is in what is said at the end of the second paragraph of the translation.

The meeting took place on 26 April 1944, and at the bottom of the second page, it says who participated in this meeting. Here there is the name of the Hungarian police officer, and after that an officer of the Hungarian gendarmerie, and on the last page appears SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit.

Dr. Servatius: I have before me only the Hungarian report and since we are here dealing with this important Hungarian matter I would ask to be given a German translation.

State Attorney Bach: We supplied the German translation of all these reports to Mr. Wechtenbruch, Defence Counsel’s assistant. Perhaps they are not at the moment in Dr. Servatius’ file, but they were translated and given to him.

Dr. Servatius: It is quite possible that they are in my files, but I do not have them here. I shall check this. Consequently I do not wish to voice my reservations for the time being.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, if Dr. Servatius does not find it – please give him another copy of the German translation.

State Attorney Bach: Certainly.

[The Accused passes a document to Dr. Servatius].

Dr. Servatius: Meanwhile I have received it from the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1158.

State Attorney Bach: Prosecution document No. 1315 is a report by the officer Ferenczy, of whom we have already heard, a liaison officer of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie attached to the German security police. Here he submits a report from Kolozvar dated 3 May 1944. He speaks here of camps for the concentration of Jews in various areas, and amongst them Kolozva, and he says:

“In these localities and also in the areas annexed to them, representatives of the local authorities and officers of the police were conducting the operations of rounding up the Jews in conjunction with a committee consisting of officers of the headquarters of the gendarmerie and in cooperation with the German consultative bodies who were sent to them.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1159.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is Prosecution document No. 6316. Once again, it is a report of the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, this time dated 9 May 1944. Here he gives details of the number of Jews in the various assembly camps. And in paragraph 3 of the report he says that “The joint Hungarian-German committee has drawn up the plan for deporting the Jews. The deportations will begin on the 15th and will end on 11th June.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1160.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is Prosecution document No. 1317. Once again it is a report by the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, dated 10 May 1944. Once again it is a report on the number of Jews in the camps, and thereafter, on the second page of the translation, he writes:

“The local commander of the German Security Police – who relied on an agreement with the Honved Ministry – this morning received a telephonic instruction from the headquarters in Budapest, to the effect that in those areas in which Jews were being rounded up, they would not be called up for labour services. In view of the fact that for men of the labour services there exist two conflicting orders, I have given orders – pending final instructions – to forbid the serving of calling up notices in the camps.”

This refers to the Hungarian labour service, to which the Jews in the end were eager to be summoned. And here, therefore, an order is given by the commander of the representative of the Security Police and the SD in Kolozvar to stop serving out those call-up orders.

Judge Halevi: Kolozsvar – is that Cluj?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1161.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is No. 1318. This is a meeting that, again, took place in the office of the Mayor of the district capital, Nagybanya, and here there is a discussion about a meeting that had been held in Munkacs – a place we have heard about from one of the witnesses. It says here that it was a meeting in which Ferenczy participated, for the one side, and for the German side a Gestapo officer, Dr. Marton Zoeldi, took part.

The subject of the discussion is stated: Deportation of the Jews – which would begin on 14 May – and the nationality of those Jews whom it was possible to deport. Thereafter it says that 110 trains would transport the Jews and that they would be marked “D.A. Umsiedler” (persons resettled).

Presiding Judge: One hundred and ten trains?

State Attorney Bach: One hundred and ten trains. The mark “D.A. Umsiedler,” “the transfer of German labourers, 40 “G” freight-cars, 70 persons in each one together with their effects. The commander at the place of loading, who is to be a German officer or a Hungarian officer of the gendarmerie, is to request the railway station-master for the freight-cars five hours before loading and he is further to request him to fix a place for loading at some distance from the station itself.

Presiding Judge: This was for co-ordination with the Hungarians, but there is no mention of Slovakians here.

State Attorney Bach: No, here only Hungarians are mentioned.

Presiding Judge: This was on the question of transportation, is that not so?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: This was preceded by some agreement with the Slovakian railway management by Hungary, Slovakia and Germany. But here they have already reached the stage of implementation, assuming that they have 110 freight-cars and all that.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. That is how I understand this report. I would draw attention to what appears on page 2. Here it says: “Sick people and their relatives will travel on the last train.” And at the end of the page it says: “In case of necessity it will also be possible to load 100 people into one car. They can be packed in like herrings, for the Germans need strong people. Anyone who cannot stand up to it, will fall. Ladies of fashion are not needed there, in Germany.”

Presiding Judge: By “herrings” do you refer to salted fish? Why was this translation used?

State Attorney Bach: This is the way it has been translated. At the end it states that Ferenczy said:

“Only the most essential workers, doctors, should remain, with their families. The German advisor will determine who they are. They are doing this expertly, they have the know-how, and consequently the selection is also their task.”

Presiding Judge: Which region is referred to here? Is it the whole of Hungary?

State Attorney Bach: I think that this meeting – I also conclude this from the number of trains – dealt in fact with all the provincial towns.

Judge Halevi: This works out exactly at the total of 330,000 Jews which the Witness Freudiger: mentioned. 110 times 3,000 is 330,000.

State Attorney Bach: Later on we shall submit comprehensive reports from both the German and the Hungarian sides on the total number of Jews deported, when they were deported and in what stages.

Judge Halevi: At the first stage the reference was to 330,000 – and that is it.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. It corresponds
exactly.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1162.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our document No. 1319. Again it is a report of Ferenczy, dated 29 May 1944.  The report was written in Munkacs. Here, in paragraph 2, it says:

“The German Security Police suggests, and even expresses its wish, that the Jews being sent on the transports should take with them food for the duration of the journey – for at least five days.”

“The German Security Police based this attitude on its experience that they would be able to speed up the deportation of the Jews who had thus far been assembled, if the concentration of the Jews did not extend over large areas, but that they should be carried out simultaneously in small areas and there with appropriate forces, and they should be rounded up in the shortest possible time and in the most determined manner and they should be transferred to camps and their deportation should start immediately; forces of the German Security Police led by German officers should take upon themselves the control over the camps and also the technical implementation of future loadings.”

“External guarding and security of the camps would be carried out by Hungarian executive authorities, under their own command. This arrangement was necessary owing to the relations of command which we discovered in the assembly camp at Ungvar.”

He describes here an incident where the deputy town clerk allowed prominent Jews to leave the camp, and under such circumstances a number of prominent Jews and property owners were enabled to escape. In consequence of this action it was decided to transfer the command to the Germans.

I also draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 6. Here it says:

“It is the wish of the German Security Police, for tactical reasons, that the meetings in the Ministry of the Interior should take place only a few days before the commencement of the cleansing operation in a particular region, and only a very limited circle should participate.” In paragraph 7 it says:

“The branches of the German Security Police have received orders to the effect that, contrary to the practice that has existed hitherto, sick people, the aged and their relatives must be the first to be dispatched with each transport.”
Thereafter it mentions the labour service and says that there still are call-up notices for labour service sent to a few Jews, despite the German prohibition. This is stated in paragraph 8. At the end it says: “The German Security Police arrested these members of the labour service at Ungvar on 27 May, confiscated the aforementioned call-up orders and delivered them to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.” In paragraph 10 it mentions the suicide of Jews referred to in the report.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1163.

Judge Halevi: In the previous document it states: “Dated…” and the actual date on which the meeting at Munkacs took place is not mentioned.

State Attorney Bach: Is Your Honour referring to document
No. 1318?

Judge Halevi: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: I understand that it was the month of May. As the Court can see, the date is blurred. If the Court will look at the original document, it will see that a rubber stamp was placed exactly on the spot, and hence it is difficult to read the precise date. At any rate it is clear that it was in the month of May, and that the subject was: Deportations which are to begin on 14 May. It therefore must have been between the 1st and the 14th of May.

Interpreter: This mark is the Roman numeral V and there is no doubt that the word “HO” indicates the month May.

Presiding Judge: Can you not decipher more than that?

Translator: Since there is a stamp here, it is impossible to read anything more. The numbers 94 appear here – that is to say it was in the year 1944.

Previous | Index | Next

Those present were Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann and Krumey, Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Wisliceny and another German officer. Representing the Jews: The President Samu Stern, the Vice-President Dr. Ernoe Boda, Dr. Ernoe Petoe and the counsel, Dr. Janos Gabor.

At the outset President Stern presented certain requests. Following this, Eichmann began his address, and spoke first of all about the Jewish star. He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide the star. There was some discussion on this matter and thereafter he said that as from 5 o’clock all Jews would have to wear the yellow star which would be exchanged afterwards by the one which the Jewish Council had to supply.

He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide about three million stars. He also demanded that the stars should be uniform throughout the country.

Afterwards he passed on to questions regarding housing. He said that in the case of a change of address, they had to notify him about it and receive permission from him. He said he would also deal with matters concerning Kistarcsa – he could not say when this would be.

This was in reply to a request that he release those who were detained in Kistarcsa when the Germans first arrived. He said they could apply to him in this connection, but he warned them not to deceive him. He expressed his opinion that the most important objective was to increase industrial productivity that was so essential to the war effort.

To this end he had created a labour force, and this was comprised of Jewish workers specifically. If the Jews behaved properly, nothing would happen to them, and they would be treated as all other workers, and this applied to work productivity. After that he added that these people would enjoy fair treatment and would receive the same wages as other workers. We said that, for this purpose, we would have to obtain a mandate. To this he retorted that we should have to abandon such liberal attitudes, and that we should not ask but command.

“At a later stage in the minutes Eichmann mentioned that he was taking a very great interest in Jewish artistic works and in Jewish libraries. Since 1934 he had been dealing with Jewish affairs and that he knew Hebrew better than we did. We told him that we had a Jewish museum in which antiquities and libraries were kept. He said he would visit it. Thereafter he issued various instructions regarding the supply of goods to the Germans and concerning the submission of lists of Jewish organizations.

Later on he stressed that these orders would be valid only for the duration of the War (that is to say the orders by the Germans) and that, afterwards, the Jews would be free and would be able to do as they pleased. Everything that was happening in regard to Jewish affairs was only for the duration of the War. When the War was over, the Germans would again be pleasant towards people, as they had been in the past (or, as he expressed it in German: ‘Die Deutschen werden wieder gemuetlich sein‘).

“He would prefer this to be carried out without violence. Only in case of resistance would there be need of force. If the Jews went over to partisan operations – he would kill them off without mercy. The Jews had to understand that nothing was being demanded of them except discipline and order.

If there would be discipline and order then not only would Jewry have nothing to fear, but he would defend Jewry and it would live under the same good conditions as regards payment and treatment, like all the other workers. He would especially appreciate it if they would make his views public amongst all sections of Jewry. He also stated that he would prevent all plunder of Jewish possessions and that he would punish those seeking to enrich themselves from Jewish property.

“After that there came a moment of excitement. Dr.Janos Gabor rose and said that he was very unhappy  because of the wearing of the Jewish star. His father had served in the World War as a mililtary judge, with the rank of major. His grandfather had been a ‘Honved‘* {*Popular name for a member of the Hungarian armed forces.} in the 1848 revolution. The wearing of the star would incite the riff-raff to shame the Jews in the street and to attack them. To this Eichmann replied that he would not permit anyone to suffer because of the star and if such incidents were to occur – he should be notified and he would attend to them.”

The Court will take note that Dr. Boda, in fact, confirms that his minutes are contained in a certain book, and they were printed there in Hungarian. What we have submitted to the Court is a translation of those minutes into German. We shall submit to you, later on, confirmation that this German translation is a correct translation from the Hungarian book which we are also prepared to place at the Court’s disposal.

Presiding Judge: Does not Dr. Boda himself confirm it?

State Attorney Bach: He does not confirm the translation and hence it is still necessary for us to compare the translation with the book.

There is another affidavit by Dr. Ernoe Petoe who also took part in that meeting. He is now living in Brazil. He is also about 79 1/2 or 80 and in a delicate state of health. He actually confirms two matters. Firstly he participated in that meeting and he, for his part, confirms the same details which I have already brought before you, and therein, naturally, there is additional corroboration, and I should like to bring this to your notice.

Apart from that he was the man who at the time established contact with the Regent Horthy and achieved the return of a train for the first time, that train which set out from Kistarcsa. This we have learned from other witnesses who heard it from him. He confirms that he found a way of approach to Horthy’s son and managed to secure the return of the train, and hence there is the additional weight of his evidence also on this point. He made a sworn affidavit about these matters before our consul in Brazil and I request the Court’s permission to submit his affidavit. The number of our document is 1300.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you have to say?

Dr. Servatius: I have received the contents of this affidavit, for my information. It exists only in the Hungarian language. I have no objection to its submission, but I would ask to be given a German translation.

Presiding Judge: [To State Attorney Bach] Will you see to that?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, of course. I have asked someone to read this document to Defence Counsel in German, but we shall also supply to Dr. Servatius a full translation of the document into German.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 56

We permit the submission of the affidavit of Dr. Ernoe Petoe.

State Attorney Bach: To my regret, here too I shall only be able to produce the original affidavit during the recess. We have been given only photocopies of that affidavit.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/1157.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, he also mentions an interesting fact that the son of the witness, the son of Dr. Petoe, was in the company of Raoul Wallenberg in a student hostel in Switzerland in the summer of 1920. This later helped in the joint activity of the witness and Raoul Wallenberg about whom we shall still hear, who extended outstanding aid to the Jewish community, mainly in Budapest.

After that he describes this meeting. Here he only adds one point, that with regard to those goods and articles that Eichmann demanded to hand over to the Germans, Eichmann had at the time promised to make payment to the Jews, and that it never reached the stage of payment. This is on page three of the Hebrew reprint, on page two of the original.

After that there is an account of the meeting. I do not want to go over that again. Then comes the chapter on Kistarcsa. Here he again relates the whole story, including what happened at the Schwabenberg. He too, together with the Witness Freudiger: was at the Schwabenberg and he gives a first hand account of what happened there and what they learned later, in the evening, from Dr. Brody when the latter returned from Kistarcsa. He also mentions that the operation at Kistarcsa was carried out by Novak.

At the end he describes a certain change of attitude on the part of the Hungarian gendarmerie and about his contact with Ferenczy who told him that at first he did not believe that they were really exterminating the Jews in the east, but in view of the behaviour of the Accused, who would not allow them to go there personally to ascertain the facts, he began to believe that this was truly the fate of the Jews. It is on page 6 of the translation.

“In Ferenczy’s presence Captain Lullay delivered a ‘Philippic’ address to us, lasting hours, against the Gestapo and, in particular against Eichmann and his men, in which he said that they were now conducting a campaign of life and death against those who had now become a cause of danger to them as well. They wanted us to clarify to them what the truth was about Auschwitz, for they had asked Eichmann in vain to permit them to go there and personally to ascertain the facts. From this they came to the conclusion that the rumours about the incinerators for the destruction of Jews who were not capable of working, were correct. I pointed out to them the nature of the military situation according to which the defeat of the Germans was a fact.”

“The outcome of this discussion was that Ferenczy offered his assistance in thwarting Eichmann’s plans to carry out deportations.”

And here these are several particulars about the negotiations with Ferenczy.

“On 17 August I was taken to Eichmann’s headquarters
and from there I was put into a German prison. I was
released on 21 August on the intervention of the
Regent. On 23 August, Ferenczy appeared before Eichmann and informed him that, on the orders of the Regent, they would prevent the deportation, even by force of  arms. Meanwhile Ferenczy showed me the deportation schedule prepared by Eichmann, and which was to be carried out between 26 August and 18 September, from the brick industry zone in Csillaghegyi. The first transport was to include the members and officials of the Jewish Council, together with their families.”

“In view of this opposition, Eichmann was prevented from carrying out his plans, and he said that he would fly to Berlin and seek aid from Himmler. I later received a message for Dr. Wilhelm Karolyi from Mor, a Counsellor in the Hungarian Foreign Office, to the effect that Himmler had agreed to defer the deportations. In this way Eichmann’s plan to deport the Jews of Budapest failed. As a consequence of the change in the military situation, Eichmann was no longer capable of carrying out the deportation without the help of the gendarmerie. Thus Budapest Jewry was saved from deportation.”

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, may I be permitted briefly to interrupt the submission of evidence on the question of Hungary, and to request the directives and the guidance of the Court in a matter which is to take place next week?

It is our intention to exhibit in Court a number of documentary films in order to illustrate certain events about which evidence had already been led, and other events on which evidence will be produced next week. Naturally we will ensure suitable authentication of the incidents contained in these films. We shall produce witnesses who will be asked to testify under oath that this is how matters looked in fact.

It seems to me that we have the right to present these films, but in view of the fact that it is not a daily or normal occurrence for films to be shown in a court-room, I thought it would be proper to ask the Court’s guidance in this matter.

Presiding Judge: Is there a precedence for that?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour. Films were also exhibited at Nuremberg on several occasions. This was also the case in the Bergen-Belsen trial. These are two instances which I can recall at the moment, concerning this type of evidence. We sometimes make use of a film for another purpose, in order to identify a place, and so on. But this is not our purpose. Here the intention is to illustrate the events.

Presiding Judge: Were decisions given there – or was the matter simply taken for granted?

Attorney General: I believe that there was some objection, and it was decided that it had probative value and, on several occasions, the showing of films was allowed.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could show us where this appears in the reports.

Attorney General: Certainly. I think that it appears already in the early volumes.

Judge Halevi: What do the films contain?

Attorney General: One film is about Auschwitz after the liberation – showing the appearance of the survivors. One film which we will also show if we can manage to convert it from 35 mm to 16 mm, concerns the Warsaw Ghetto.

I say “if we can manage” for there is a technical problem in bringing a 35 mm projector to the Court. If we cannot manage, we shall be obliged to forego the film because of this difficulty. There is one film dealing with the transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck. There is another one showing scenes of the Mauthausen camp.

Judge Halevi: Was the film of Mauthausen taken after the liberation or before?

Attorney General: There are scenes which were photographed at the time of the event. There is one scene, really apocalyptic, of thousands of people standing at a roll-call, naked, which was certainly shot at the precise moment when it took place. And there will be a witness who will testify that this is indeed what it looked like.

Judge Halevi: Where do these films come from?

Attorney General: From various sources. There are documentary films which were made by various institutions,  immediately after the War. The film on Auschwitz has a Czech commentary. We will remove the sound – we do not need the Czech commentaries, but apparently this film is of Czech origin. There are films which were filmed jointly by Eastern and Western bodies, French and Polish, but these were private organizations, not official bodies. These films were taken immediately after the War.

Judge Halevi: The transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck, for example, that was filmed at the time of the event?

Attorney General: We are not aware of the origin. I cannot tell the Court with certainty who photographed it. We have our assumptions, but I do not want to deal with assumptions. At any rate we shall not exhibit anything which cannot be substantiated by witnesses.

Presiding Judge: Are there amongst these films such as have already been shown in those trials?

Attorney General: This, too, is not clear to us. According to the record of proceedings at Nuremberg, there was some authentication on behalf of the Allied military authorities at the beginning of the film. This authentication does not appear in the films in our possession, and hence we shall require a different method of authentication. There is also a film which the German television prepared towards this trial. It was shown in Germany and called “In the steps of the Hangman.” It was featured on West German television on the occasion of the opening of this trial.

It is a film which we do not propose showing to the Court in its entirety, because it adopts a moralizing tone in order to arrive at certain conclusions and clearly it would not be proper for us to ask the Court to view all of it. But it contains sections on the operations of the Einsatzgruppen, which were apparently filmed at the time they were taking place, and these, too, will be verified by witnesses. We shall extract this portion only and show it to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, before I can take a stand on this, I should have been shown the films, in order to enable me to evaluate them. And a further observation relating to the inclusion of the films in the Court record. I would ask the Court to determine the procedure in this matter, for obviously the films are not going to be annexed to the records of the trial. Therefore, the Prosecution, in my opinion, should have submitted a precis of the contents of the films.

Attorney General: QWe are ready to comply with both requests of Defence Counsel. We shall show him the films before we apply to exhibit them. We shall also prepare a precis for the Court’s use.

Presiding Judge: So when will we be able to obtain Defence Counsel’s reaction – after he has seen the films? In other words, when will you be able to show him the films?

Attorney General: Not before the end of next week, but we wanted a decision in principle before we start expending the sums of money involved in converting the 35mm film to 16mm. It is not a simple matter.

Presiding Judge: This is a sort of vicious circle.

Attorney General: Yes, to a certain extent, but, if I understand in general from the Court that subject to appropriate authentication, there will be no objection to this form of submitting evidence, we shall nevertheless undertake this expense.

Judge Raveh: But is the rest of the material ready?

Attorney General: Yes.

Judge Raveh: If that is so, it is possible to show it to Defence Counsel immediately.

Previous | Index | Next

A. I saw the gardener’s wife, who lived in one of the rooms, I don’t know which one.

Q. And was that all?

A. On one occasion I saw a German sentry inside the building.

Q. How old was this boy Salomon?

A. His age was exactly the same as mine – 16 or 17.

Q. When Slawik and Eichmann entered this shed, did Slawik have anything in his hands – some instrument?

A. I didn’t notice anything.

Q. And in Eichmann’s hands?

A. Here, too, I didn’t see anything. But there were work tools inside the shed – pick-axes and spades.

Q. What kind of noises did you hear from there? Or, more correctly, I would ask: Did you hear any noises apart from the boy’s shouts?

A. I heard shouting. However I could not distinguish words. There was confused shouting. I also heard shouts in German.

Q. Apart from that – any noises?

A. Also the voice of the boy. He cried, he pleaded. It sounded as if they were kicking him. I heard the sound of something heavy.

Q. Regarding that statement you made at Eilat, in what language were you speaking?

A. I spoke Hebrew.

Q. And the policeman wrote it down in Hebrew?

A. Yes.

Q. And afterwards he read out to you what he had recorded?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you actually tell him about your conversation with your brother?

A. I said to him that I had told him on the same day. It simply could not have been otherwise.

Q. And he wrote down “a year later”?

A. Yes.

Q. And he read it to you?

A. He read it to me, but I was simply tired from the conversation and didn’t pay attention exactly to what he was reading back to me.

Q. Were you together with your brother a year after the incident?

A. We were together all the time.

Q. But approximately a year after the event?

A. Even after less than a year I was together with him. We met after the War – after the liberation of Budapest – and met for a second time in March 1945.

Q. What is your present occupation?

A. I am in charge of the watchmen’s department of the Timna Copper Works.

Q. You have concluded your evidence – unless Dr. Servatius wants to ask you something in connection with the questions put to you by the Judges.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you said earlier that in the shed there were work tools with which it was possible to mishandle Salomon. But previous to that you said you heard the lashes of a whip?

Witness Gordon: I didn’t mention lashes of a whip.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps the reference is to that statement, when you said: “After they had entered, they closed the door, and for half an hour I heard blows of a whip or a belt?”

Witness Gordon: I was referring to a trouser belt. I imagined to myself, and it could only have been an assumption on my part, that they had taken off their belts and struck the boy.

Q. With a whip or a belt?

A. According to the sounds it could have been either a whip or a belt.

Q. At any rate, when the two of them went inside, neither of them was carrying a whip?

A. Certainly not a whip.

Q. As far as you were aware, was there a whip inside the shed?

A. No.

Q. Did you enter this shed from time to time?

A. We entered this shed every morning.

Dr. Servatius: It says here “…or blows with a belt.” When one removes a belt, do not the trousers fall down, so that it is no longer possible to do anything?

Witness Gordon: I believe it is possible to wear trousers without a belt as well. But I don’t know exactly that it was, in fact, a belt – I merely assumed this.

Q. I have no further questions.

Presiding Judge: Again with regard to this belt. Are you able to say whether either of the two was wearing a belt when they went inside?

Witness Gordon: I didn’t notice that but I supposed that Slawik who was rather stout, also wore a belt.

Q. Did you, in this regard, notice any change in their apparel when they came out as compared with what it was when they went in?

A. Definitely.

Q. I mean that one of them who had a belt when entering, came out of there without a belt or was carrying a belt in his hand – something of that nature.

A. We were simply too terrified then to be able to notice these small details.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, as the result of these questions do you have anything more to ask of the witness?

State Attorney Bach: No, thank you very much.

Presiding Judge: [To Witness] Thank you.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission I shall now submit to the Court a number of documents.

The Honourable Court will recall that Mr. Freudiger testified about a certain meeting on 20 March, in which Krumey and Wisliceny participated on behalf of the Germans.

I wish to submit the minutes of this meeting. This is a document bearing our No. 813. It was also handed to the Accused and was given the number T/37(241). Authentication of that document, together with authentication of a substantial number of other Hungarian documents, was received by us through the Hungarian Government.

And here I have a batch of documents which came to us bound together. I shall afterwards submit to the Court a number of documents from that collection. Not all of them are relevant to our case, but the authentication is common to them. Inter alia, amongst this batch of documents authentication as documents which correspond to the originals which were found in Hungary, we also have these minutes.

Presiding Judge: Which were found in Hungary?

State Attorney Bach: Which are in Hungary. We have here a number of reports of the Hungarian gendarmerie, which I shall also submit presently. Amongst others there are minutes here in German. The printed copy of these minutes was handed to the Accused and was given at the time No. T/37(24).

Presiding Judge: Who drew up these minutes?

State Attorney Bach: There is a signature at the end, here, of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer and Oberregierungsrat Trenker. He was one of the men from the Accused’s Section – we have several items of evidence to that effect. That is the name which appears at the end.

Whether he was the man who also wrote the minutes or to whom all kinds of applications had to be addressed – that does not emerge clearly from the minutes. But here it seems that these are minutes which were sent to a number of addresses and it was drawn up on 20 March 1944. It states there who were present and what was discussed.

Presiding Judge: Do you wish to submit the entire batch?

State Attorney Bach: At least for purposes of authentication I wanted to submit the whole batch to the Court. After the other exhibits will have been submitted, I can perhaps afterwards mark within the batch which exhibit corresponds to which document.

Presiding Judge: In addition to the Hungarian authentication is there no authentication by our Consulate?

State Attorney Bach: No, we received it in this form.

Presiding Judge: [To interpreter] Please read what is stated here in Hungarian.

Interpreter: The reference number is 43,017. I hereby confirm that this photocopy, consisting of 54 pages, is identical in every respect with the original unstamped document which has been presented to me. Given at Budapest this 17th day of December, 1960. Dr. Paul Ronau, State Notary. Seal: State Notary No. 5, Budapest. With the State Seal.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1154.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be permitted to point out that Obersturmbannfuehrer Trenker, who is mentioned here, was the commanding officer of the Security Police and the SD in Budapest, that is to say he was not under the command of the Accused?

State Attorney Bach: That may well be…

Presiding Judge: We will not argue about the document until we have seen it. Are you submitting it?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1155

State Attorney Bach: Trenker’s name appears here, I believe that he worked for part of the time with Geschke, who was the commander of the Security Police and the SD in Hungary, and that it was very likely that he was in charge of Budapest. I shall check whether he was not also, for part of the time, in the Accused’s office.

At any rate, it says here, above his name, that in the event of possible complaints, they should be referred to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny. This document has already been mentioned.

Presiding Judge: How do you know that these minutes were prepared by this Trenker? That was the question.

State Attorney Bach: I simply assumed this from the printed copy. But I also said that I am not altogether sure that it was written by him. His name appears at the end.

Presiding Judge: His name is mentioned. “Ueber die Pester Israelitische Kultusgemeinde verfuegt einzig und allein der (sic) Kommando der Sicherheitspolizei“(The Unit of the Security Police is in sole charge of the Jewish Religious Community of Pest).

State Attorney Bach: “IVB4″ I thought that SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Oberregierungsrat Trenker was what appeared at the end, but it is possible that this also is connected with the address, in other words, this is the address to refer to. That is why I said that I was not altogether certain that it was he who wrote the minutes.

Presiding Judge: [To interpreter] Here there is something else in Hungarian. Please translate for it us – there is some heading to this document, at the top, which apparently was not translated.

Interpreter: Page 41, 20.3.1944. “List of participants which was distributed at the gathering called by the Gestapo, with the issue of the first orders of the Gestapo.”

Presiding Judge: At the end there are still some more words in Hungarian on the second page.

Interpreter: “Jewish National Collection for History and Religion.”

State Attorney Bach: Most of the details appearing in this document have already been referred to by the witness Freudiger, and I shall not repeat them. I shall only draw attention to the opening where it is stated that all matters affecting the Jews must be referred to the German Security Police IVB4 only.

It is announced that leaving Budapest without permission is forbidden to all Jews. Also, changing apartments without the consent of IVB4 is forbidden. It contains an order calling a meeting of all the chairmen of Jewish Institutions in general, and thereafter a number of instructions, all of which point to the absolute control of Section IVB4 over all affairs connected with the Jews.

And
the final sentence: The Unit of the Security Police IVB4 is in sole charge of the Jewish Community of Pest. It is difficult to know how to link Trenker to what was said previously, since if it was in IVB4, it was not the Security Police and the SD, then it would mean that this is under the control of the Experts (Referenten) on Jewish affairs. At all events I shall look into this question of Trenker exactly and shall inform the Court where he worked in Budapest at the various stages of that period.

Presiding Judge: There is a mistake here in the German text. It gives the impression that the document was not drawn up by Germans.

State Attorney Bach: Possibly this was some kind of reprint which was distributed to a number of persons who participated, to a number of addresses.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1155.

State Attorney Bach: On 31 March 1944 a meeting took place at which the Accused presided. He summoned the entire Judenrat to the Schwabenberg.

Presiding Judge: Is that also stated here?

State Attorney Bach: No, Your Honour. This does not appear in this collection. Minutes of this were drawn up by Dr. Boda, who has already been mentioned here, and who was one of the members of the Jewish Council. He is now living in Budapest, and is 80 years old. He sent us a sworn affidavit in which he confirms the authenticity of the minutes of that meeting which were drawn up by him.

These minutes were printed in a certain book in the Hungarian language. This document bears our No. 785. A translation of those minutes into the German language was handed to the Accused and was given the number T/37(242). I would ask the Court to admit Dr. Boda’s affidavit together with the document constituting the minutes of the meeting.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any comment to make?

Dr. Servatius: No, I have no formal objections.

Presiding Judge: The name is Dr. Ernoe Boda.

Decision No. 55

We allow the submission of the affidavit of Dr. Boda, together with the minutes which he attests, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.

This will be exhibit T/1156.

State Attorney Bach: There are several rather important points in the minutes.

Presiding Judge: Where is the original affidavit? We only have a copy of it. Why?

Previous | Index | Next

Witness Gordon: I think it was the same day.

Q. I want to know what you said before?

A. Before I said: “On the same day” but I did not attach much significance to that. I told him on the same day.

Dr. Servatius: Did you say it was on the same day or the next day that you told your brother?

Presiding Judge: He says that when he was questioned by Mr. Bach he said it was the same day, and now he also thinks it was the same day.

Dr. Servatius: You made a statement, which I have in front of me, although I cannot see the date that is indicated here. It fits, more or less, the evidence you have given here. But they asked you questions there, and in reply to one of the questions you said: “I told my brother about this incident with Salomon a year afterwards.”

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps I may explain?

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, perhaps we shall first let the witness explain.

Witness Gordon: I made this statement to the Police at Eilat. There was a policeman there who was very far removed from all these events, and I was obliged to explain to him, not only my evidence, but the whole background.

I became tired from this, and when he read back my statement to me I apparently did not pay attention to what he had written. And later on I corrected this again, in Bureau 06. Possibly this amounted to negligence on my part for not paying attention to it.

State Attorney Bach: I think perhaps there is an error here. Defence Counsel was misled through no fault of his. It is really written here “Shana” (a year) and this has been translated into “Jahr.” But I believe that there is a printer’s error here. I have requested that the original manuscript be brought here and I will then place it at the Court’s disposal.

Presiding Judge: The witness can tell us. Did you see this statement that you made at the time in Eilat?

Witness Gordon: I made my statement and I saw it, but it is possible that owing to my weariness I didn’t pay attention to the last sentence.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach will submit the original statement when he will obtain it.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you said that this boy, of whom you said that he was beaten and according to your assumption he was dead, was taken to an amphibious vehicle and removed from the place. Is that correct?

Witness Gordon: Yes. I said that he was taken away in an amphibious car-boat.

Q. What did this amphibious vehicle look like? Was it larger than a normal car or smaller?

A. I would say that it was a little longer than a modern jeep and there is a propeller on the rear end of the car. This car was painted in camouflage colours.

Q. Is it easy to put a man into an amphibious car such as this one, when he is dead?

A. I don’t know whether or not it is easy to put a man into such a car; the fact is that they put him into it.

Q. At the time of this occurrence, were other young men of the same age present?

A. Yes.

Q. How did all of them, together, react to this incident?

A. It is difficult for me to speak in the name of others. I can only tell you of my personal feeling. And if the feeling of the others was the same as mine, well – we were all terrified, we experienced a sense of shame and helplessness.

Q. Did you know of the existence of a Jewish Council in Budapest?

A. Yes – this fact was known to us.

Q. Did you inform them of what you had seen?

A. We informed the engineer who was in charge of us – we thought that he ought to deal with this matter.

Q. Was this the only experience of bloodshed which you had in Hungary, or did you witness other events of the same kind?

A. No, sir, this was the first murder I had seen in my life and that is a fact which I remember so well. After that I witnessed many murders, especially in the last three months.

Q. This sketch that you drew earlier – how many times had you done that previously?

A. I was asked to do so once when I was being interrogated, but then I did not draw a detailed sketch; I merely indicated on what side the entrance was from the direction of the street, and on what side there was the fruit orchard…no…I also pointed out the entrance to the shed, I remember that now.

Q. In this sketch you drew various pits that you dug and you said that these were intended for mortar positions. Did I understand you correctly?

A. I said that at the time we dug the trenches we did not know the purpose for which we were making them; afterwards we drew our conclusions. After I had seen other trenches of this kind, I gathered that these trenches, too, were intended for mortar positions.

Q. You said that Eichmann passed by and said: “Superfluous dirty people” and in this way he expressed his contempt. But how do you explain the fact that he told you to jump into the trenches when an air-raid attack was in progress?

A. I don’t remember the exact words by which he told us to go into the trenches.

Presiding Judge: The intention was to show you that he was concerned for your safety, and that he wanted you to enter the trenches when the air attack began.

Witness Gordon: When the bombing began, we apparently expressed our joy every time we saw the American and British bombers, we rejoiced because this was bringing the end of the war closer, and possibly someone even expressed this openly and in a loud voice.

That was the reason – to deprive us of the joy of seeing the oil burning in Budapest. This apparently was the reason why he told us to get into the trenches, and not because he was concerned for our safety.

Dr. Servatius: Would it not have been more logical or more correct, in view of Eichmann’s character as you described it just now, for him to have said: “Come here, I will deal with you now, and give you special treatment for expressing your joy at the air-raid” and not for him to tell you to get into the trenches?

Witness Gordon: I must point out that I have not made a psychological research into the character of Eichmann, and I do not know what is appropriate to his character and what is not appropriate; I simply indicated facts as I saw and heard them.

Dr. Servatius: I do not have any more questions to the witness.

State Attorney Bach: First of all I wanted to tell the Court that I have here the original statement. It looks more like “Shana” (year) than “Sha’a” (hour).

Presiding Judge: Woud you please submit the statement?

State Attorney Bach: I agree that the statement should be submitted to the Court – perhaps as a defence exhibit. I am also prepared to submit it on my part.

Presiding Judge: First of all, Dr. Servatius, are you ready to submit this statement so that we see what is written there – “year” or “day”?

Dr. Servatius: I think it is of importance.

Presiding Judge: Is this statement made at the Eilat police station?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, on 15 June 1960.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit N/1.

I understand this is the place: “Then, when I saw him, it seemed to me that he was 40 years of age or older than that. I was 17. I described the incident of Salomon to my brother Aaron a year after the event. Aaron is now in Kibbutz Kfar Hahoresh.”

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Gordon, were you living with your brother in Budapest?

Witness Gordon: Yes.

Q. In order to clarify the matter, perhaps try to remember and to tell the Court, once more, what really happened and when you told him.

A. After I returned from work that day, I told him and I said that perhaps we should not talk about it in the presence of our parents, but ultimately we could not restrain ourselves and, notwithstanding, told our parents as well.

Q. You told them, or did he?

A. I told them, and he also made some remarks about it.

Judge Raveh: I should like to understand something about your sketch. Perhaps you would take the sketch. There you drew two rectangles – one inside the other.

Witness Gordon: Yes.

Q. What does the inner rectangle show?

A. The inner rectangle depicts the villa, the building.

Q. The outline of the villa?

A. Yes.

Q. I understand. Perhaps you would write alongside it “house” or “villa” so that we may know. These were the walls of the house?

A. Yes.

Q. The other rectangle – what was that?

A. The other rectangle is the garden surrounding the building.

Q. What are these lines?

A. These are fences.

Q. Perhaps you would write that down.

A. But, according to the actual dimensions, this area was much larger.

Q. But, first of all, write down that this is the fence, so that we may know what it is. Was there a fence around it?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of fence?

A. I don’t remember what the fence looked like. I think it was a brick wall with barbed wire on it. But I’m not certain.

Q. You were standing, so you say, inside the trench?

A. Yes.

Q. The trench was inside the fence – between the outside fence and the building?

A. That is correct.

Q. And did you show in your drawing that the trench inside which you stood was opposite the back entrance? This is how I understand your sketch. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Please tell me whether I understand this correctly – that the shed was, in fact, part of the house?

A. The entrance to the shed…

Q. I am not talking about the entrance. First of all, the shed itself – was it inside the rectangle of the house?

A. Yes.

Q. And the entrance to the shed – on what side was it?

A. The entrance was coming from this corridor on the right.

Q. Inside the house?

A. Inside the house.

Q. That means the entrance into the shed was from a corridor which was inside the house?

A. Yes – from the right-hand side.

Q. And this was the only entrance to the shed?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I understand.

Judge Halevi: Apart from your brother, did you tell anyone else about this incident?

Witness Gordon: On the following day we, the boys who worked there, spoke amongst ourselves about this incident.

Q. Is that all?

A. Then we went to the engineer and asked whether we could be released from this work.

Q. Which engineer?

A. Engineer Hegedus, who was directly in charge of our work at this place.

Q. Was he a Jew?

A. Yes. He maintained, then, that he could not take the responsibility upon himself to release us, but in course of time he would see.

Q. To release you on account of the incident?

A. Yes. After I had returned to work on the Schwabenberg – this was after we had already been ordered to go to concentration points, to Jewish buildings in Budapest.

I went to our family doctor and obtained a false certificate from him that I was suffering from tuberculosis. I sent the certificate to the Jewish Council, and by this means I no longer reported for work.

Q. My question was: Did you tell anyone else about the case of the murder of the boy? Did you inform this engineer?

A. Yes, we reported it.

Q. You, and the others, informed him?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he react in any way?

A. I don’t know what he did. I didn’t ask him afterwards.

Q. And when you were concentrated into special buildings, the Jews in Budapest generally, did you believe that the deportation of the Jews from Budapest was drawing near?

A. By that time the Jews had already been taken from the suburbs of Budapest, and we knew it was only a question of time before we, too, would be deported.

Q. Did you do anything in order to prepare for this eventuality?

A. I, for my part, decided, immediately after this murder, to do everything possible to flee and escape, but apart from the desire to escape we were not able to do anything. And at that time some of the members of my family were taken to labour camps – my uncle, and, later on, my brother and my father as well, and I was taken, following that, on 20 October to the sports field in Peshemkiso.

Presiding Judge: Did Eichmann live alone in this whole house?

Witness Gordon: I think he lived alone, except for his staff. But I am not certain, for I never went into the house through the front entrance, nor was I ever inside the house apart from the toolshed.

Previous | Index | Next