The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

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

Attorney General: That is possible.

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

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1084 – the problem of repatriation to Croatia of Jews at present in Hungary. Information is given here, on 10 July 1944, that the Government of Hungary intends to repatriate Jews holding foreign nationality and it states that the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in Hungary (this is in July 1944, about three months after the German invasion) have not been informed of this.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/923.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1085 – an SS Obersturmfuehrer, whose signature cannot be deciphered, writes to the Accused on 22 August 1944 on the same subject and informs him that so far no agreements of the kind referred to in the decree mentioned have been made between Croatia and Hungary. Nothing is known about the repatriation of Croatian Jews from Hungary.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/924.

There are too many quotations. You must recall the remark I made quite some time ago. You are again in fact quoting  entire letters. This is impossible.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I will end this chapter with document No. 166, a letter from Guenther to von Thadden dated 6 April 1944 in connection with the employment of a  certain Jew in the “Petrolej” Company.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/925.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I ask that you now hear the Attorney General.

Presiding Judge: Very well. This concerns Kappel?

Attorney General: Yes. It concerns the interrogation in Italy. I can inform the Court that we shall be able to conduct the interrogation in Italy under the Convention existing between ourselves and Italy. However, we are asked to submit the questionnaire in French, not in Italian.

Presiding Judge: Can we do this?

Attorney General: The Italian authorities are ready to accept the questionnaire from us in French on the assumption that we use one of the official languages. It seems that we cannot be represented there, that the State cannot be represented, but will have to ask for the assistance of the Italian Prosecution with this matter, so we have been told.

Presiding Judge: A Convention does exist at any rate?

Attorney General: A Convention exists, it contains a paragraph about taking evidence, and we can invoke it.

Presiding Judge: Has it been published?

Attorney General: Yes, it has been published in the official Collection of Conventions. I shall let the Court have the details. Our problem was only the procedure, and this is what we found out through our embassy in Rome: The Defence can only be represented by an advocate who is licensed to appear before the Italian Courts.

Judge Raveh: Can the man be located?

Attorney General: He is in prison. There is no difficulty at all.

I have a further announcement after this, about quite a different subject.

Presiding Judge: But we had better conclude this subject. You will have to submit your questionnaire in the matter of Kappel. So far we have only the questionnaire from Dr. Servatius.

Attorney General: If the Court will give us time until tomorrow at this hour we shall submit our questionnaire.

Presiding Judge: Let us do it in Italian. You can prepare the Italian translation, and if you have difficulties I think that Mr. Rosen, the interpreter, will be able to help you.

Attorney General: Until tomorrow we may be able to make arrangements for the Hebrew only.

Presiding Judge: Never mind, submit it in Hebrew and we shall see to it. In order to conclude this subject, Dr. Servatius, do you have any comments? Will you be represented by a lawyer there?

Dr. Servatius: I shall have to engage an attorney there, but the difficulty will be to find a lawyer who is ready to appear in this case. I have myself some experience in this in Germany, so that this may cause a delay.

Things might perhaps be arranged in such a way that the Italian attorney appears officially and that then my assistant puts the actual questions. For it will not be possible, will it, to familiarize the Italian colleague so quickly with the essence of this interrogation. At any rate, I shall do my best in order to expedite the matter.

Presiding Judge: And now the second subject.

Attorney General: The second subject concerns the article in Life magazine. I was asked by the Court to contact the editors of the magazine and ask for the manuscript which it received from Sassen, the journalist, and which contains the memoirs of the Accused, or things which he said. I did as instructed by the Court and approached the magazine. Their reply was that, since under the terms of the acquisition of the manuscript they are not allowed to transfer it, they cannot, to their regret – so they say – comply with my request.

At the same time I can inform the Court that efforts have been made to obtain the manuscript and that it is now in our hands – not from Life magazine.

Presiding Judge: What is is? Is it a copy?

Attorney General: It is a transcript, there also the taped conversations and we shall hear a dialogue with the Accused apparently. We do not have the tape, but the Accused replies to questions and gives explanations about points he was asked to explain. The material is not short, over sixty tapes, not much less than we have here, covering several hundred pages. I have at this moment almost all the tapes except five.

Presiding Judge: Is it the tapes?

Attorney General: The transcripts of the tapes. Because they are typewritten, the question of verification may arise, how to verify that they are in fact connected with the Accused, since I have no other way of authenticating the document I wish to submit. We hope to overcome this difficulty within a few days and then I shall be in a position to submit to the Court the authenticated document.

Presiding Judge: Very well. When you have something to submit we shall revert to this, and of course hear Dr. Servatius on the subject.

I do not remember that a decision was taken in advance on this matter, whether to accept or not to accept anything.

Attorney General: No ruling was given in advance. I shall of course be ready to put a copy of the material at the disposal of Dr. Servatius, as soon as I can. He said at the time that he is also interested in having this material submitted to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: I would be interested, if I am given a copy.

Presiding Judge: Very well, when you are ready, we shall revert to the matter.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bar-Or, please continue.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We pass on to the chapter of Bulgaria. Document No. 1023, a letter, or rather a telegram, from Luther to Beckerle, the German Minister in Sofia. This is the beginning of the negotiations with the Government of Bulgaria about the expulsion of the Jews. I draw the attention of the Court to the remark in the margin.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/926.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Beckerle’s reply to the German Foreign Ministry. He reports contents of his conversation with the Bulgarian Prime Minister on 16 November 1942.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/927.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 127, a document which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(52). The Accused was asked to give his opinion on this document on page 1153 ff. It is a letter from the Accused to Gesandtschaftsrat (Legation Councillor) Dr. KLingenfuss at the Foreign Ministry dated 17 November 1942, in which he uses, inter alia the phrase: “…im Zuge einer umfassenden Loesung der europaeischen Judenfrage…” (in the framework of a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question).

Presiding Judge: Where is this, Mr. Bar-Or, at the end?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the passage before the last sentence. The meaning is that in the course of a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question in Europe he wishes to persuade the Government of Bulgaria to stop giving emigration permits.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/928.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1925, a letter from Klingenfuss of the Foreign Ministry dated 23 November 1942 enclosing copy of a report from the German legation in Sofia and a memorandum from the Government of Bulgaria. Wisliceny is mentioned as Advisor to the legation in Sofia, to the Bulgarian Government.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/929.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 233 which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(53). Again Klingenfuss to Beckerle at the German legation in Sofia. A change of plan: Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker is mentioned in place of Wisliceny. There is also mention of what should be demanded from the Government of Bulgaria as compensation for each Jew expelled.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/930.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1026. There are two papers here: first a letter dated 10 December 1942 from IVB4, signed by Mueller, about the expulsion of the Jews from Bulgaria; and then there is a letter from the Foreign Ministry to Mueller. Here the subject is a request from the Government of Bulgaria concerning the dispatch of a counsellor for the Jewish Question. Wisliceny cannot be spared.

In his place Mueller has designated Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who had served until then as specialist for Jewish affairs with the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in the area of the military government in France. A paragraph on page 2 deals with the official status of Dannecker, who is to serve in practice as specialist for Jewish affairs under the Police Attache, who was there before Dannecker’s assumption of his post.

I should perhaps direct the attention of the Court to the question why Mueller signed this and not the Accused. The reason is that this paper goes directly to Unterstaatssekretaer (Undersecretary of State) Luther.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/931.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1028. On 8 February 1943, Beckerle transmits Dannecker’s first report, dated the same day, about the commencement of his activities. He says that before Dannecker took up his duties he (Beckerle) had already discussed the problem with the Minister of the Interior, whose intention is clear – to expel all the Jews. Dannecker, on his part, speaks of 10,000 to 12,000 Jews who are available for immediate expulsion since they do not hold Bulgarian citizenship.

I draw the Court’s attention to the first paragraph. Here the expulsion of the Jews from Thrace and Macedonia is mentioned for the first time, not the Jews of Bulgaria proper, but the Jews of those parts of Bulgaria which the Germans annexed to Bulgaria. And there are more details about the negotiations between Dannecker and Belev, the Commissioner for the Jews in the Bulgarian Government, who operates from the Ministry of the Interior.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/932.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1029, a telegram from Beckerle to the German Foreign Ministry dated 16 February 1943. Beckerle says that the Bulgarian Prime Minister has informed him that the Bulgarian Parliament has so far only approved the expulsion of 20,000 Jews from the liberated areas, i.e. Thrace and Macedonia. He also says that Dannecker has already fully taken up his duties.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/933.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1030, a letter from Dannecker to the Attaches Group. On top of the letter it says: Seen and signed: Beckerle. He had actually no right to transmit these reports at all; they ought to have gone through Beckerle.

But sometimes he writes directly and then Beckerle signs confirming that he has seen it. So this goes on to Head Office for Reich Security – Attaches Group for IVB4. The Attaches Group acted of course in the name of all the Sections of Head Office for Reich Security, not only of IVB4. If you wanted it to pass the matter on to the Accused, you had to write “for IVB4.”

This is Dannecker’s second report and he writes about the implementation of the first stage of the expulsion. The document is dated 12 February 1943. He also mentions that, without waiting for the decision by the Council of Ministers regarding all the Jews of Bulgaria, the expulsion of the Jews of Thrace and Macedonia is being undertaken immediately. Belev will first seize what he calls “undesirable Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/934.

State Attorney Bar-Or: A letter dated February 1943 from von Thadden to the Accused. Von Thadden transmits a summary of what we have just seen in document No. 1030 to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/935.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1032 – Guenther’s letter of 9 March 1943, to von Hahn at the Foreign Ministry about the first transport of 20,000 Jews from Bulgaria. The technical preparations have been completed and it is expected that the expulsion will take place on 15 March. The Jews will be expelled to the Generalgouvernement in two special trains of 2,000-3,000 persons each week.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/936.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1033. There are actually three letters here which are grouped together. In the last one Rademacher, in handwriting, passes on the gist of the matter to the Accused: A report from Beckerle about further developments in connection with the expulsion, and about negotiations in the Bulgarian Parliament concerning the inclusion of the Jews of Bulgaria itself in the deportations.

Here we find Peshev, who is especially active in the Parliament, before which the above-mentioned Belev who worked directly with Dannecker was of course responsible. In the margin the Foreign Ministry is asked to inform Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about the contents of the letter.

Finally there is a telegram about the Session of the Parliament where the majority passed a vote of non-confidence without stating reasons, in the Vice President of the Parliament, Peshev, because of his intervention on behalf of the Bulgarian Jews. It seems that, in the end, this and similar steps succeeded in preventing the expulsion of the Jews from the border of Bulgaria, in spite of Peshev’s resignation.

Presiding Judge: Where is the name of the Accused mentioned?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The name of the Accused appears on the document entitled Arbeitsexemplar (working copy) which contains the marginal comments I have quoted.

Presiding Judge: I cannot see the name of the Accused here. This begins: “Sofia, den 26. Maerz, 1943.”

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: Were you reading a translation?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the translation we wrote it out in full. There are two handwritten notes here. The typed distribution list was not copied. The handwritten notes have been fully translated and typed.

Presiding Judge: So this is a marginal note.

Previous | Index | Next

7 Sivan 5721 (22 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the forty-seventh Session of the trial open.

Mr. Bar-Or, you had a question in connection with the taking of evidence in Italy.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour, the Attorney General will arrive in a few minutes and make an announcement to the Court on this matter. His car was apparently delayed. I shall then interrupt the submission of documents in order to enable him to make his statement concerning Italy. With the permission of the Court, I shall continue, if I may, and shall in fact conclude the chapter on Yugoslavia.

The first document is No. 660, an urgent teleprinter message signed by Helm and Kasche, addressed to the Foreign Ministry and dated 4 March 1943. Helm informs the Foreign Ministry, for the information of the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, that preparations for the new action against the Jews had been completed that week and that the deportation would be by districts in groups of 20 to 150 persons.

He says that in the operation a total of 2,000 Jews would be seized. He also asks to give the commander in Marburg information in connection with the deportation.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/908.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next document is our No. 1161, a telegram dated 4 February 1943, signed by Kasche. He says that by the end of the week preparations for the action against the Jews in Croatia will have been completed and that the operation will begin in the middle of March.

“Representative of the German Reich Railway Directorate in Agram has promised to supply carriages, which will be joined to scheduled trains. About 2,000 Jews will be seized in this operation.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/909.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This document actually belongs, of course, to the previous document which we have submitted.

Judge Halevi: What is the difference? Is this not the same text?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1161 is the text as finally transmitted by the Foreign Ministry to the office of the Accused, whereas 660 is the version received by the Fernschreibstelle (teleprinter terminal) of the Foreign Ministry. The two demonstrate the procedure for information via the Foreign Ministry used in all cases where there was a Police Attache at the Foreign Ministry.

The next document is our No. 659. Here it was marked T/37(224). The Accused speaks about this document on page 2614 of his Statement. On 10 April 1943 Wagner asks the Police Attache about the deportation of Jews from Croatia to Auschwitz and says:

“With reference to the telephone message at the time, I am asking for information when the start of the announced deportation in groups of the remaining approximately 2,000 Jews from Croatia to Auschwitz may be expected. In this connection I further request a report on the negotiations with the Italian authorities concerning the deportation of the Jews living in the coastal areas occupied by Italy.”

Presiding Judge: Please limit the quotations.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Very well, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/910.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next document, No. 686, contains a request from the Italian Embassy dated 4 February 1943. It deals with the transfer from Zagreb to Auschwitz near Kattowitz of an Italian citizen of Jewish race. The request is that the matter be looked into with a view to preparing her return to Italy.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/911.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In document No. 687, on 13 April 1943, Guenther gives his reply to the Foreign Ministry. He says that, in accordance with the findings of the Camp Management, this Jewess was not in Auschwitz and that there was no way of ascertaining her present whereabouts.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/912.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 342, here marked T/37(104), was shown to the Accused; he speaks about it on page 1379 of his Statement. It is the copy of a letter to the Foreign Ministry dated 26 May 1943, which was also sent to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. It deals with the activities of the Croatian police following the action against the Jew Mario Sasson who was included in a transport to Auschwitz. There is a request to inform IVB4, Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann immediately. The telegram is signed by von Schubert. Here again we actually see a correspondence via the Foreign Ministry which is not intended for the Ministry at all, but rather for an office abroad of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/913.

The document is not complete. There is only the first page here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is not complete. The second page starts with the word “nachtraeglich” (subsequently).

The following document is No. 343, which was here marked T/37(105). The Accused refers to this document in the pages of his Statement which I have already pointed out. Guenther informs von Tadden of the Foreign Ministry that the Jews Sasson was arrested by the Croatian police in the course of the action against the Jews and was transferred to the East for work assignment. No information was given to the authorities who have requested it.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/914.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1048, a letter from the Accused dated 2 July 1943 to von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry about another Jew named Viktor Guttmann. He informs the Foreign Ministry that he (the Accused) has ordered the Police Attache in Agram to bring about the release from custody of the Jew Guttmann and the members of his family and their transfer to the area of the Reich.

Eichmann continues:”…I intend to have Guttmann accommodated under preferred conditions in the old-age ghetto Theresienstadt for the time being.” The document is interesting in connection with the administrative relations between the Accused and the Police Attaches at the embassy outside Germany.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/915.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 655, a letter from Wagner to the German legation in Agram. On this letter of 15 July 1943 we find the signature of Ploetz. This Ploetz was the head of what was called Attache-Gruppe (Group of Attaches) which worked within the Head Office for Reich Security and corresponded with the representatives of the Head Office for Reich Security, who were in fact its own representatives abroad. The correspondence is between the Group of Attaches and the department heads of the Foreign Ministry. This is also the situation here. At the top of the telegram it says:

“The Head of the Security Police for the Police Attache: According to strictly confidential information received here, about 800 Jews, mostly women and children, are said to be still housed in concentration camps, inter alia in Croatia. I request you to start immediately to arrange for the evacuation to the East of these 800 Jews, unless there are guidelines to the contrary.”

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/916.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1082 is a letter from the Kriminalinspektor (Superintendent of the Criminal Police) in Zagreb, transmitted by the Police Attache and the Legation to the Foreign Ministry. The marking there is IVB4. The writer mentions a request by the Jewish Agency for Palestine to transfer to Palestine 400 of the Jews of Croatia.

He bases himself on instructions from the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4 and says that the Jewish Agency is making efforts to enable 400 Jews to emigrate to Palestine because they are threatened with evacuation to the East. He goes on to say that, in the course of the continuing efforts for the emigration of these Jews and the prevention of their deportation, the Jewish Agency has approached the Swiss legations in Ankara, Budapest, Sofia and Agram.

Furthermore, the Vatican has also intervened in this matter. Among these Jews there are apparently a Rabbi and a communal public figure who are singled out for special mention. He is endeavouring to bring about the immediate deportation to the East of the 400 Jews and he is expecting a report. Finally he asks that the Head Office for Reich Security be informed about the issue of such instructions.

Judge Halevi: Who is writing to whom?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Agram writes to the Foreign Ministry for the information of the Head Office for Reich Security.

Presiding Judge: I see that there are two letters here. The first one is included in the second.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is correct, Your Honour. It is actually an internal one. It was sent from that place to the BdS in Zagreb.

Presiding Judge: From what place? Who is this Kriminalinspektor?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is actually under the BdS in Zagreb. He writes to him as his superior. The covering document to the letter from the Krininalinspektor is the document in which this report and the proposals of the Superintendent of the Criminal Police are transmitted to Berlin.

Presiding Judge: The first document looks like a draft, it has no address and no signature.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The first document is an original copy of a letter which was sent to Berlin.

Judge Halevi: What I do not understand is: Who asks that these Jews be sent to the East?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Superintendent of the Criminal Police sums up the position when he says that, in order to avoid possibly successful interventions on behalf of the 400 Jews, it is necessary to head off the efforts by the Jewish Agency, the Vatican and others through the deportation of these Jews to the East.

Judge Halevi: The Superintendent of the Criminal Police is in Agram?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Judge Halevi: And he is the emissary of the Accused, or who is he?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is the emissary of the BdS. This is Helm’s unit which we know. In order to give directives concerning cancellation of a transport or dispatch of a transport they depend of course on instructions from IVB4.

These general instructions are those mentioned at the beginning of the letter, which begins with the words “Das Reichssicherheitshauptamt hat mit Erlass vom…” (the Head Office for Reich Security has, in its order of…).

Judge Raveh: Where were these documents received from?

State Attorney Bar-Or: These documents come from Yugoslavia. We have here copies of the Gestapo files in Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/917.

State Attorney Bar-Or: 1083. That same Kriminalinspektor writes to Berlin on 19 July 1943. I think his name is Huebner. He writes directly to the Accused on the same matter and adds that the above-mentioned order was passed on to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in Croatia, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Hermann, for the issue of further instructions. This Hermann had promised early implementation.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/918.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Ploetz, the Head of the Attachegruppe, telegraphs to Helm, the Police Attache in Agram on 16 September 1943, and asks that the text of the telegram be transmitted to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Abromeit.

He says that, in the light of the changes in the situation in the coastal region of Croatia which was until now occupied by Italian troups, the evacuation of the Jews still present in these regions must be prepared without delay. The change (in the situation) is of course the defeat of Italy in connection with the Badoglio affair.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/919.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1095 was shown to the Accused and given the marking T/37(305). The relevant pages in the Statement are 3464 ff. Ploetz telegraphs to Agram, again in connection with the technical implementation of the evacuation of the Jews in those areas of Croatia hitherto occupied by the Italian army.

A special detachment under the command of Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey is brought up here and this special detachment is instructed to carry out the deportation operations in cooperation with Helm. Ploetz asks on behalf of the Head Office for Reich Security that Krumey be given support in every way.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/920.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 656. Kasche transmits to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin a report dated 18 April 1944 by his Police Attache, Obersturmbannfuehrer Helm. Again on the question of disposal of the Jewish Question in Croatia which, in Helm’s opinion, was already largely solved on 24 April 1944. He explains why there are still Jews in Croatia at all and cites in particular two factors: (a) The many mixed marriages, which are only to a small extent apprehended by the Croatians, (b) The influence of some Jews, especially in mixed marriages, on ruling circles in the government of the independent state of Croatia.

Helm summarizes the situation as follows: “As is well known,” he says in his letter to the Ambassador dated 18 April, “the evacuation of the Jews from Croatia was proposed late in the autumn of 1942 by the Croatian authorities in combination with advisory activities by the Police Attache. The implementation as such was satisfactory, so that Croatia – apart from some occupied areas – could be regarded as a country in which the Jewish Question has on the whole been solved.”

At the end he suggests to propose to the Government of Croatia that stricter criteria be proposed for the award of the right of honorary Aryan (“Ehrenarier“) and to re-examine this question from more exacting points of view. “On the basis of the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS the Jewish Question is again being examined by the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in close cooperation with our Section.” Croatia was one of these countries which coined the peculiar concept of “Arier,” not real Arier, but quasi-Arier for this purpose.

Presiding Judge: Aryan honoris causa.

This will be marked T/921.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1049 – a letter from von Thadden to the Accused dated 17 April 1944. He mentions Guenther with respect to a possible attempt to reopen the Jewish Question. He transmits this for information and adds that in Croatia the main difficulties are apparently the family connections of Croatian leaders which are a serious obstacle to more incisive measures against the Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/922.

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: There is nothing to be added here in this connection.

State Attorney Bach: With regard to the other two, Defence Counsel has said that these two were trying to clear themselves of the responsibility…

Presiding Judge: This is not the right time – that, too, is superfluous at this stage.

State Attorney Bach: That is my reply to Your Honour’s observation.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, I should like to remind you that in the case of a previous witness when the Attorney General said that the witness would not be granted immunity in this country, you replied – and in my opinion rightly so – that, in fact, there was no practical purpose to go on attempting, or examining the possibility, to bring him to Israel. We have heard the same statement from Mr. Bach in the case of Becher as well.

Dr. Servatius: I have no option, in fact, but to revert to my previous position. No witness would actually come here. I have to tell him: “You may go, but you will be arrested.” I therefore have to reconcile myself to circumstances as they are.

Presiding Judge: Is that your position?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, certainly.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, have you already received Dr. Servatius’ application in connection with Juettner and Grell?

State Attorney Bach: It has been handed to me at this very moment, and I was going to rise and mention it to the Court.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 32

In the light of what we have heard from the representatives of the parties, the statements of Becher, Grell and Juettner must be dealt with as were the statements, the submission of which was allowed in Decision No. 11. Accordingly, we admit the statements of Becher, Grell and Juettner, as requested by Mr. Bach. In conformity with Decision No. 11, we permit the examination of these witnesses by a German court in accordance with the Agreements for Mutual Legal Assistance between the State of Israel and West Germany.

And now, it will be understood that the weight of these statements is something that the Court is not called upon to deal with. There is no need to add anything further. Please submit these statements.

State Attorney Bach: I shall, first of all, submit our document No. 774. As I have already said, there are three copies here of the interrogations and the Hebrew translations. The original has already been submitted to the Court; as I have said, it was submitted together with the statement (of the Accused).

Presiding Judge: Does this include the two statements of Becher?

State Attorney Bach: More than that – I believe that this was a series of interrogations on various days, and some continued for more than one day. Generally it was day after day, in the morning and in the afternoon.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/689.

State Attorney Bach: I now submit document No. 827 which contains three interrogations. I submit, here, a photostatic copy.

Presiding Judge: Is this a copy of the interrogation of  Grell?

State Attorney Bach: It is part of the interrogation of Becher – it consists of three interrogations, together with three copies.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/690.

Judge Raveh: Is document No. 744 an examination under oath?

State Attorney Bach: It was not under oath. Now I come to Grell’s statement, our No. 985 – T/37(267).

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/691.

State Attorney Bach: And here we have Juettner’s statement, our No. 1297.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/692.

We already have Dr. Servatius’ questionnaire concerning Grell and Juettner. You will be obliged, or entitled, to submit a questionnaire on your part, as usual.

State Attorney Bach: I believe that, in these two cases, we shall be able to complete our submission by tomorrow afternoon.

Attorney General: Perhaps I may refer to the entire application by Defence Counsel, which he submitted this morning and which has been handed to us, and which I have, in the meantime, managed to read. With regard to Kappler…

Presiding Judge: Perhaps we might first finish with Grell and Juettner.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission – despite Mr. Bach’s optimism – perhaps we may be given an extension of time for a day or two, since today we shall also be busy providing directives and instructions to our representative who will appear before the German court, Advocate Shomron, and it will be difficult for us to find the time for that.

Presiding Judge: Until Thursday afternoon – will that be enough for you?

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: With regard to Becher – I think Dr. Servatius ought to be the first to submit his questionnaire.

Dr. Servatius: I shall draw up the questionnaire without delay and submit it to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Until when, Dr. Servatius? By tomorrow afternoon?

Dr. Servatius: By tomorrow afternoon.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner – and you, thereafter, by noon
on Friday?

Attorney General: If I may be permitted to ask for an extension until Monday, that would facilitate matters for us, since we have a lot of questions here, especially in the light of the Court’s directives that our interrogation must be limited to the questions that we have drawn up – that is how I understood the decision. At all events, the cross-examination ought to be linked or restricted in its range to the questions drawn up and must definitely not deviate from them. We would, therefore, ask for an extension of time concerning the questionnaire for Becher.

Presiding Judge: I only hope that we shall receive it by the time fixed by us.

Attorney General: Judging by our experience so far, we have received information that the German authorities are making intensive efforts to accelerate the hearings. For next week hearings have been scheduled daily before the German courts.

Presiding Judge: Very well, let it be by Monday, at noon.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume there will be difficulties in Germany. The courts there act quickly, and all of them have fixed the examinations for the same day. Thus, an examination has been set down at Neuss concerning von Thadden, and at Nuremberg concerning another witness for the same day.

I would have liked to avoid this by concentrating the hearings in one court, but this question has apparently not yet been settled. Each witness resides within the jurisdiction of a different court, so that the procedure will require ten to fourteen days’ travelling within Germany.

Attorney General: Perhaps I may reassure Defence Counsel, since, according to information I received this morning, the overlapping of hearings which had been expected has been avoided, and now the hearings have been arranged one after the other, commencing on the 17th and continuing until the 26th of May. Those hearings which had already been fixed for tomorrow will apparently be deferred until after the 26th of the month.

Presiding Judge: Have the hearings not been concentrated in one court?

Attorney General: Apparently the German Ministry of Justice did not find it possible to comply with the request of Defence Counsel, despite the fact that we also supported his application.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, this arrangement allows for the appearance of the representatives of the parties before each one of these courts.

Attorney General: Yes – by a special effort and by utilizing the most effective means of transportation, I must say.

Presiding Judge: We do not have the addresses of Grell and Juettner.

Dr. Servatius: My assistant, Advocate Dieter Wechtenbruch, will try to trace them in Germany and to take all necessary steps in order to have them summoned before the competent courts.

Presiding Judge: That means that the application from here will simply be sent to the competent court, without indicating the place.

Dr. Servatius: I would suggest that the application be directed to the Federal Ministry of Justice, together with a request that it be forwarded to the competent court as soon as the address is ascertained.

Attorney General: I agree to that.

Presiding Judge: Now we have Dr. Servatius’ application concerning Kappler.

Attorney General: I would ask that the Court instruct Defence Counsel to do what it instructed us to do – namely to hand in, if he is able to do so, the names of all or the majority of the witnesses he desires to hear, because I am afraid that the investigation is indeed beginning to acquire global dimensions.

We are now leaving the sphere of interrogations in Germany and Austria and passing on to Italy. Dr. Servatius wants to examine Kappler in Italy because he is detained there, in an Italian prison. I am not opposed to questioning Kappler there. But I should like to know to how many additional countries we shall be obliged to wander, and this will perhaps determine our attitude.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, it would be desirable that, already at this stage, you should give us all your applications of this nature, so that we may manage to receive the material back within the proper time.

Dr. Servatius: The significance of Kappler’s evidence arises solely from the account of events which we heard from the Prosecution. I have no intention of prolonging the trial by mentioning the names of innumerable witnesses.

Presiding Judge: At any rate – to the extent that you have already summoned or intend to summon witnesses abroad to be questioned – I would ask you to submit the list already at the present stage. If something will arise for you only as the result of the examination of witnesses here – we shall always be ready to hear further applications at a later stage as well. Of course, the question of time will then arise, which is important to us.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I am somewhat overburdened with work, so that I do not have an overall view as yet. But the moment I am able to survey the full scope of my work, I shall submit the necessary applications at once.

Presiding Judge: Now, with regard to Kappler.

Attorney General: I agree to the request that the arrangements for mutual legal assistance between the State of Israel and the Republic of Italy should be put into operation.

Presiding Judge: Do such arrangements exist?

Attorney General: To the best of my recollection at the moment: yes, Your Honour. But if the Court wishes me to supply this information after I have checked the matter, I am prepared to go into it and give my reply at the beginning of the afternoon session.

Presiding Judge: Yes. It would be important to know that before we proceed.

Attorney General: I shall find out. With each country there are other arrangements, and it is difficult to remember by heart all the data concerning each country. I shall clarify the question and advise the Court at the beginning of the afternoon session.

May I be permitted to add a few words in connection with our applications and the various statements?

Presiding Judge: Before you do so, let me ask: Dr. Servatius, is this the best address that you have – “Kappler, who is under arrest in Italy”? Do you know where in Italy?

Dr. Servatius: No, we do not know that. But the Minister of Justice in Italy ought to know that.

Presiding Judge: Yes.

Attorney General: If I may, Your Honour, it seems to us that these are all the statements which we want to use and which, as far as the Defence is concerned, are likely to give rise to a problem of examining the witnesses.

But there is still one man whose name we have not mentioned and whose statement we have not submitted, since we are still investigating whether we are able to summon him at this time – that is to say, whether he is not involved in offences against Section 1 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. If it should emerge that such is the case, we shall also be obliged to ask the Court to admit the statement made by this man.

If it should turn out that it is possible to bring him here, and that his evidence appears to us to be most substantial and important,  we shall bring him here directly and not make use of his statement. I would, accordingly, still ask for permission, regarding this one man, to apply to the Court at a later stage. I hope it will not be later than next week.

Presiding Judge: Next week?

Attorney General: In the middle of next week there are holidays, both here and abroad, and the enquiry has to be made not only within the State of Israel – that makes it somewhat difficult.

Presiding Judge: In other words, by the end of next week?

Attorney General: Yes, by the end of the week.

Presiding Judge: Very well. We shall allow you to do so by the end of next week.

Now, there is another matter, with regard to Hoettl and Huppenkothen. Dr. Servatius I think we have to ascertain soon whether these witnesses are ready to come to Israel or not. Because if they are not, we shall have to make use here, too, of the same process of questionnaires. By when do you think you will be able to clarify this?

Dr. Servatius: I have asked my assistant to start immediately with investigations to trace them. There are conflicting newspaper reports on this subject.

Presiding Judge: My question was: by when? When will we receive authoritative information on the subject – not newspaper reports?

Dr. Servatius: I shall make the appropriate application by tomorrow afternoon, to cover the eventuality that either of them will not come. Perhaps it would already be possible to submit the application here.

Presiding Judge: Such applications are not before us, if I am not mistaken.

Dr. Servatius: Yes – I remember that. Perhaps it might be possible to go forward with the applications, and in the event of the witness’ coming here, I would need a brief notification to the Court of First Instance that the witness will not appear and that there will be no need to examine him.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps, in order not to waste time, you should submit questionnaires also in the cases of Hoettl and Huppenkothen.

Attorney General: We shall do that, if the Court considers this correct.

Presiding Judge: Provided that they do not come here to  testify in Court.

Attorney General: We shall attend to the preparation of the questionnaires as soon as possible, let us say by next Wednesday.

Presiding Judge: Very well, let that be next Wednesday. Since we are now talking about procedural matters, I want to announce that next Monday, which is the day following Shavuot (the Feast of Weeks), there will be no morning Session and, instead, we shall prolong the afternoon Session somewhat. It will begin at 3.30, as usual, and will continue until approximately 7 – with a short recess in the middle of the session.

Attorney General: My colleague, Mr. Bar-Or, will continue leading evidence.

Previous | Index | Next