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

State Attorney Bar-Or: And on the second page we find Eichmann’s reply, given to the Foreign Ministry on 19 November 1941. Again, “in view of the coming Final Solution of the European Jewish Question,” the emigration of the Jewess to unoccupied France has to be prevented.

And now document No. 119, which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(39). The Accused said what he had regarding this in his Statement on page 744 and following pages. This is one of the rare documents still extant in which we find the last, perhaps the only, record of the attitudes of the Jewish specialists within the Reich area in the Accused’s office.

Here is a report about a meeting, or a consultation, held in the Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4, on 6 March 1942. It is perhaps not superfluous for me to direct the attention of the Court to a few sentences in the report. It begins:

“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann spoke, by way of introduction, about the additional evacuation of 50,000 Jews from the Old Reich, as well as from the Ostmark and the Protectorate. Prague, from which 20,000 Jews are to be evacuated, and Vienna – 18,000 – are to take the largest part in this.”

Then it says:

“In this connection, Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann pointed out that the directives given, especially as regards age, infirmity, etc., have to be strictly followed since, in the transport to Riga, some forty to forty-five cases were reported by the Elders of the Jews to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, through District Party Leaders Liepe and Meyer, as having been deported without justification. Although, after further examination, most of these cases turned out to be perfectly justified, every effort has to be made to prevent complaints of this sort. For this reason, Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich imposes responsibility for the implementation of the directives on the State Police Commanders personally.”

And here is one more paragraph on page 2 of the report. He says (it is the man from Duesseldorf reporting to his superior):

“The Jews must not under any circumstance receive information about the preparations for the evacuation; absolute secrecy is therefore necessary. The so-called Special Account W is at the disposal of Section IVB4 of the Head Office for Reich Security since, in accordance with Regulation 11, that Head Office no longer has access to the property of the Jews.

In order to put enough funds at the disposal of the account, it is requested that the Jews be made to contribute substantial donations to Account W in the near future. It was said that so far small amounts have been received, apparently because of the misunderstanding that the account would benefit the Jews directly.”

Presiding Judge: That is to say, a misunderstanding on the part of the collectors, not on the part of the contributors?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The collectors, men of the Gestapo. We have already seen how the Reich Association announces, by order of the Accused, that these funds will be put at the disposal of the Reich Association. This was also the impression locally. For this reason, there was a misunderstanding which had to be cleared up.

Finally, the last sentence reads: “After this, notes were compared about the experience of State Police Offices which are already carrying out evacuations, and those for whom these are new tasks.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/734.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1189, a request from the Embassy of Italy, dated 20 February 1942, a document which comes, of course, from the files of the German Foreign Ministry. It says that, in accordance with information received by the Royal Italian Embassy, the police authorities in Magdeburg have ordered the confiscation, as of 1 March of that year, of the private dwelling of the Italian citizen, Countess Geltrude Irene Sacconi, aged 72. The embassy asks the Foreign Ministry to help the countess in her predicament.

Presiding Judge: She is Jewish?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It does not say so here.

Presiding Judge: It says: The confiscation is said to be based on the fact that she is supposed…to belong to the Jewish race.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you very much, Your Honour. The Italians write that she is reputed to belong to the Jewish race.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/735.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The matter is cleared up very quickly in our document No. 1190, the reply of the Accused to the Foreign Ministry of 13 March 1942. He writes briefly: “I have instructed the State Police Head Office Magdeburg to refrain from taking any measures whatever against the Jewess of Italian nationality, Countess Sacconi, especially from sequestering her personal dwelling, until further notice.”

With reference to the earlier question by His Honour, Judge Halevi, here also we have, of course, a matter which is not actually relevant, nobody speaks here about evacuation or deportation. This is a matter that was within the general field of activity of the Gestapo in Magdeburg. The Accused orders the Gestapo how to act, when to refuse, and whether to refuse. Always with respect to Jewish affairs, at least inside Germany. When we come to other countries, we shall, of course, also find other cases.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/736.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1279. There are again guidelines about deportations, transports of Jews to the area of the Generalgouvernement (Trawniki near Lublin), guidelines received by Gestapo Wuerzburg on 2 March 1942. Here I want to draw the attention of the Court to three matters which seem important. First of all, under paragraph IV, “Escort of Transports,” it says:

“An additional copy of this transport list must be submitted to the Head Office for Reich Security Section IVB4 immediately after the departure of each transport.” After this, and even more important, in paragraph VI, where matters of reporting, recording, or information are dealt with, detailed instructions are given on how to report about transports carried out. And this is what it says:

“The departure of each transport train must be reported immediately by urgent telegram, as per attached sample (Addendum 1) to: (a) Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4; (b) Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schoengarth, Cracow; (c) Commander of the SS and the Police in the Lublin district, SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, Lublin. The arrival of the transports and their orderly reception at destination will be reported by the receiving office (Commander of the SS and the Police in the Lublin District) by telegram, as per attached sample (Addendum 2) to Head Office for State Security, Section IVB4.”

I place special emphasis on the reporting arrangements, because it seems that here the Economic-Administrative Main Office no part whatever with respect to these transports, as from the beginning of 1942. No information has to be sent to it, and the reporting was exclusively between the  Generalgouvernement and the Section of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Who issued these orders?

State Attorney Bar-Or: These orders were issued by the Accused and his men to all Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo. We have already referred to two of them. The Gestapo Regional Headquarters copied the orders and passed them on to the branch offices. One of these was Wuerzburg, and it was from there that it reached us. In this way, we shall have to reconstruct, with some difficulty, the files of the Accused which were lost, and of which we have no copies.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/737.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we come to document No. 1289. Here it is decided in Nuremberg to establish a special commission in connection with the deportation of Jews from the Reich to Lublin, and the document starts right away: “By virtue of instructions from the Head Office for Reich Security of 31.1.1942, IVB4″ and so on. It refers to information which came by telephone from IVB4 to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo, according to which “a further 1,000 Jews will be evacuated from the three districts of Franconia” which we know already, “and deported to Lublin by a special Reich Railways train.

Simultaneously, the typewriters, bicycles, cameras and binoculars, seized from Jews in accordance with the urgent order from the Head Office for Reich Security of 13.11.1941, IVB4, are to be confiscated and stored.” These orders were issued by the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo on 11 April 1942.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/738.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Prosecution document No. 1288 is a telegram from the Accused sent from Berlin on 17 April 1942. It may perhaps be called a circular telegram to all Gestapo units and emigration centres. It is addressed to the Gestapo units in Vienna, Prague, Berlin, Hamburg, Bruenn, Frankfurt/Main, Duesseldorf, Hannover, Muenster, Koeln, Breslau, Kassel, Dortmund, Osnabrueck, Stuttgart, Nuremberg – from there it reached us – Kiel, and furthermore to the Central Offices for Jewish Emigration in Vienna and Prague, and also to the Liaison Office Bruenn and to the Inspectorate of the D.S. and the Security Service in Danzig.

It says: “With reference to the above-mentioned, I” – the  Accused – “inform you that Jews who hold the wounded soldiers decoration shall likewise not be evacuated to the East. It is intended to transfer these Jews at a later date to a special old age ghetto inside the Reich area. For your information and attention.” At the end of the telegram, there is the marking RSHA IVB4. Signed: Eichmann, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/739.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1290. Here Gestapo Wuerzburg reports about the evacuation of the Jews in accordance with the instructions for reporting, at which the Court has just seen. We find that this telegram was indeed sent to those addresses which were to be informed in accordance with the instructions of the Accused, i.e., first of all it was sent to IVB4 for the attention of Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann; it was sent to the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Police in Cracow; it was sent to the Commander of the SS and the police in the Lublin District.

And in the telegram it says that “On 25 April 1942, at 15.20 transport train No. DA 49 left departure station Wuerzburg-Main Station for Lublin-Izbica, carrying altogether 852 Jews. Another 103 Jews will be loaded on in Bamberg, so that the transport includes altogether 955 Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/740.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us now pass on to Prosecution document No. 1291. This is a settlement of account which Wuerzburg owes to Regional Gestapo Headquarters Fuerth about the collection, and especially the expenses in connection with the transport of 25 April 1942, which we have just mentioned. And here we find various payments which, of course, in the end are covered by the method with which the Court is by now already familiar. It says that on that day, 25.4.1942, 852 Jews were evacuated to the East from the area of jurisdiction of State Police Office Wuerzburg, and another 103 Jews from Bamberg. And then it goes on to list what was received and what was paid out, in full detail.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/741.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we go on to our document No. 1280. A telegram to all Gestapo offices, both in the Greater Reich and in the East. Litzmannstadt, Posen, Zichenau and other places are especially mentioned* {*According to Doc. T/742: “excluded”} here. The telegram is marked IVB4a and signed by Mueller, SS Gruppenfuehrer.

It
deals with lists of additional Jews who are to be included in the transport. He says, inter alia, that “In order to make use of the possibilities for reception still existing in the East, I ask you to report the number of those Jews remaining in your area who can still be evacuated while strictly respecting the existing guidelines.” In this context he mentions the exceptions who must not be included in the transports to the East, and who must be kept for transportation to the Old Age Ghetto Theresienstadt in the Protectorate Bohemia-Moravia when the time comes (zu gegebener Zeit).

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/742.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 730, which actually consists of two documents. These two letters were shown to the Accused and were numbered T/37(218). Somebody, who mentions Dr. Rasche, writes to Advocate Rajakowitsch, whom we know from the office of the Accused, and asks the advice of this lawyer about the treatment of Jewish property; he also mentions the special legal problems which arise in this connection. We find here one more minute for the file concerning immovable property which formerly belonged to Jews, and how this should be dealt with.

These documents are actually not very important for proving the version of the Prosecution; we showed them to the Accused only in order to clarify how it could happen that Rajakowitsch, who was an official in the office of the Accused, receives mail in Vienna, and acts as a private lawyer and appears here in an unusual, non-official capacity.

I have to say that the Accused – who refers to this matter on page 2595 ff. – does not contribute – I am not saying on purpose – does not apparently remember the matter, and he makes no significant contribution to elucidating the strange things that happened here.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/743.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 147, a letter from the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, addressed to Counsellor of Legation Rademacher. Eichmann asks how Jews of foreign nationality inside the Reich area should be treated. And this is what he writes:

“Since, as you know, the evacuation of Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands will also begin in the near future, the question of the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality abroad, in the occupied areas, and in the Reich – with regard to their evacuation – is becoming ever more urgent (e.g., Jews of Hungarian nationality in the occupied areas of the Netherlands). I should be grateful for early, comprehensive information about your attitude in principle on the question of evacuation, including the legal liquidation of property and its inclusion in the general measures taken against the Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/744.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We now go on to document No.1569. This is a letter to which I alluded earlier, a letter to the Accused, Head Office for Reich Security, for Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. Subject: “Reich Association of the Jews in Germany – Sanatorium of the Rothschild Foundation in Nordrach/Baden.

On behalf of the Senior SS and Police Commander “South West,” Eichmann is approached and informed that the Lebensborn has cast its eye on this institution which has been vacated by the Jews. This property, these assets, pass to the Reichsvereinigung of the Jews in Germany. We have already submitted a document in which Eichmann orders this property to be transferred to the Reichsvereinigung. “In case you, Obersturmbannfuehrer, are not competent for this matter, I ask you kindly to forward my request.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/745.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now pass on to document No. 915. It is a letter sent to the Senior SS and Police Commander “South-West.”

Presiding Judge: Is there no reply to this request (in document T/745)?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is the document which I now submit. The letter was sent from Stuttgart on 30 September 1942, and it says, inter alia: “Accordingly, the property belongs to the Reich Association of the Jews, which is subject, as an institution of the Security Police, to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Bureau IV of the Head Office for Reich Security. For the purpose of transferring the building and the assets connected with it to the Reichsfuehrer SS or to Lebensborn, respectively, you would have to contact Eichmann.” It is assumed that it will be no problem to put the institution immediately at the disposal of Lebensborn in Munich, as requested by the senior SS officer.

Presiding Judge: “If they will not get hold of it quickly, the Air Force will get hold of it,” I see here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Judge Raveh: This apparently precedes T/745. This is not a reply, on the contrary. It seems that this was earlier. On the basis of it, the Accused was approached. Is there no date on the previous document, No. 1569?

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1569 is dated 30 September 1942.

Judge Raveh: That is actually the same day.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is actually the same day.

Judge Raveh: But this is not a reply.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It seems to me that these two documents actually run parallel.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/746.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1392. This also came to us from the Wuerzburg file. But this time the Accused writes to the State Police in Nuremberg about deportation of Jews to Theresienstadt.

Writing from Berlin on 31 August 1942, he refers to his telegram IVB4a of 21 May 1942. He says that the Jews still living in the Nuremberg district and who are eligible for evacuation to the Old Age Ghetto Theresienstadt can probably be deported to Theresienstadt by special train in the months of August, September or October. He transmits to Nuremberg a copy of the special guidelines prepared for the evacuation of old people in Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/747.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. I now come to the hearing of evidence in Trial No. 9, in which you, Sir, sat. There you spoke about the accused Bieberstein, Ohlendorf and Blobel. Did any of these accused allege that Eichmann was the one who caused him to perform the acts that he committed? Did he allege that in his favour, against his conviction or to mitigate his punishment?

A. They were accused of actual, premeditated murder. You mention only three – there were twenty-three. They were charged with having killed one million unarmed human beings – men, women and children; and their defence was directed along the line of exculpating themselves in the best fashion they could. Now, in that respect Ohlendorf introduced as part of his case all the testimony that Wisliceny had given in the I.M.T. trial, so that there was an attempt on the part of Ohlendorf to indicate that, to a certain extent, he was under the domination of Eichmann.

Q. Would it be correct to say that no such argument of any one of the accused was included in your judgment, and that you yourself did not mention Eichmann in your judgment by so much as one word?

A. That is true. I did not mention Eichmann in my judgment because I did not see any necessity to do so. Eichmann’s power came by speaking through Himmler and through Heydrich, so in my judgment I referred to what Heydrich did, what Himmler ordered, and I did not mention Eichmann in my judgment because Eichmann was not on trial – he was not a defendant. There was no point in…

Presiding Judge: Excuse me, Justice Musmanno, the question also was whether you mentioned any such defence on the part of any of the accused, that they had acted under orders from Eichmann or under the influence of Eichmann.

Witness Musmanno: I did not.

Dr. Servatius: Judge Musmanno, you said later that there had been a possibility of being released from these Einsatzgruppen, that a man was freely able to get out of this duty and be transferred, let us say, to another department. Do you know what the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg said on this question? I shall quote it to you:

Here it states as follows:

“Throughout the war men of the security police and the SD had no chance to clarify for themselves their position and their duty, and if there were anyone who refused to take upon himself any duty at all, mainly in the occupied zone, the matter was likely to result in heavy penalties.”

Do you concur with this determination of the facts by the International Military Tribunal?

Witness Musmanno: This is a general statement made by the I.M.T. I sat for seven months presiding over the Einsatzgruppen Trial and we took up case for case, and I told you about Erwin Schultz who refused to go along with his superior orders and asked that he might be released. And he was released by no one less than Heydrich. And not only was he released from carrying out these onerous, bloodthirsty deeds as a colonel, but later on he was even promoted to general. So, therefore, he did not suffer by refusing to obey these orders to kill in cold blood.

The same thing was true with Franz Six – and a document has been introduced along that line. The same thing was true with regard to Noske. Noske was in the East as a leader of an Einsatz-Kommando, and then returned to Germany. In Germany he was assigned to Duesseldorf and there he was ordered to kill the Jews and half-Jews.

He refused to obey the order because he felt something quite revolting from his point of view, at killing a person at one German camp. But he refused the order and nothing happened to him seriously. He was subjected to some inconvenience, but he was not even degraded; certainly he was not shot.

Ohlendorf himself stated that he could have gotten out of this assignment by simulating illness, but that he felt that he should not do that. And – well – I can give you a number of illustrations. I do not know just how far Dr. Servatius has asked me to speak on this subject…

But if there is one thing that was demonstrated in this trial of the Einsatzgruppen, it is that, if one really did not feel capable of killing in cold blood, he could be released. That was stated a number of times.

Q. You said this morning that it was possible to extricate oneself from the Einsatzgruppen. Would it not be correct for me to say that there were various ways of doing so: Either a man had good connections or he had already acquired many privileges in the course of his past work in this field, or a man could have feigned illness. But there was no possibility to declare: I object to this on principle; this is an enormous crime and I protest against it. Would you agree with me?

A. I do not agree with you, and the facts are to the contrary. There are many ways to evade performing these horrible deeds. There was one instance where a man got out of it by becoming drunk all the time.

Presiding Judge: Excuse me Justice Musmanno, the question was not about feigning all sorts of excuses, making excuses, for being excused from this service. But the point of the question was, if I understand it correctly, perhaps it did not come through in translation, that you could not say: “I object to this on principle, to killing Jews on principle, because this is a crime.” Nobody got out, or tried to get out of the Einsatzgruppen or any other service on such a ground.

Witness Musmanno: I thank you Mr. Presiding Judge for clarifying the question. Certainly in military discipline no subordinate officer or soldier could say outrightly to his superior officer: “I absolutely refuse to carry out this order!” But he could say to him, and there were many who did say that: “I am incapable of shooting anybody down in cold blood, and so I would like to be excused.” And that of course is what I had made reference to.

One of the defendants, Willi Siebert, Colonel Willi Siebert, who was in Ohlendorf’s Einsatzgruppe, began his testimony by saying that he had to obey his superior’s orders. His attorney put the question to him, Dr. Raul, that isn’t it a fact that the Kaiser once declared that if a soldier is ordered to shoot his own parents, that he must obey. And Siebert agreed with that. He said: “Yes, that is what we understand in the German Armed Forces.”

After he had made that statement, then I said to the defendant: “Let us assume that you are ordered to shoot your mother and your father. Would you shoot them?” He did not reply directly. He said: “I’ll have to think this over a while.” I said: “Take as much time as you wish.”

Then he gave some tentative, ambiguous response and he indicated that he still wanted a great deal more time to deliberate, and so I said: “We will adjourn court and you reflect on this as much as you wish and then tomorrow morning we would like to have your answer, because after all it was not the tribunal who put this question, it was your own attorney and you accepted that that was the norm and the criterion, that you had to obey superior orders regardless even if it meant killing your own parents.”

The next morning he arrived and the question was put to him. “Let us suppose a military situation where you are ordered to shoot your parents, your mother and your father, will you do it?” He said: “No, I wouldn’t do it.”

Dr. Servatius: The reply of the witness is sufficient for me. I have a few questions on another subject. You certainly knew very well the conditions in the Nuremberg gaol. You were there on repeated occasions for interrogations. Who was in charge of security there? Soldiers or prison guards?

Witness Musmanno: Soldiers.

Q. Did the witnesses and the accused have a chance to talk to one another and were they able to try and reach mutual agreement concerning the evidence to be given by them?

A. Sometimes they could shout across the corridor – Schellenberg told me of an episode when Goering admitted to him when they were in the Nuremberg Gaol that Schellenberg was correct in some division of opinion that they had before as to who was right or not, so that evidently at times they could communicate with each other.

Q. Did not a very strict discipline prevail between the accused which ensured that no one could take a line of his own, and if someone had been found taking a line of his own, was there not someone there who would see to it that reprisals would be taken against members of his family and that vengeance would have been visited upon them?

A. Are you speaking of conversations between…

Presiding Judge: No, that there was discipline in the sense that everybody had to toe the general line.

Witness Musmanno: Is he speaking of the prisoners now?

Presiding Judge: No, the accused at the Nuremberg Trial or  Trials.

Witness Musmanno: I was thinking about the prison itself. I did not quite understand. Would you please repeat that question then?

Dr. Servatius: Would I be correct in saying that among the prisoners in Nuremberg there was a general strict agreement as to the taking of one line. If anybody would not take that line in his defence, his relatives outside would be made to pay for it.

Witness Musmanno: I do not know of any such thing.

Q. On another occasion I shall submit to the Court a document from which it will appear that such things happened – it is specifically stated there.

When an accused passed from the accuseds’ wing to the witnesses’ wing, was there any advantage in that? Would he receive any privileges? Did they regard this as one step towards liberty? Do you know anything about that?

A. I know nothing about the prison regulations. I could not comment on that.

Q. On this point, too, I shall submit a document to the Court at a later stage.

You wrote a book, if I understand correctly, about the last days of the Reich Chancellery?

A. The book was called Ten Days To Die.

Q. When was this book published?

A. I think in 1950.* {*First published by Peter Davies in 1951.}

Q. Did you interview many witnesses with a view to obtaining the relevant material?

A. Oh yes, yes. I testified this morning there were over one hundred. It was really over two hundred.

Presiding Judge: The question was, did you bring before you many witnesses in order to obtain material for your book? That was the question.

Witness Musmanno: Well, in this investigation I saw many witnesses and it ran into about two hundred of them.

Dr. Servatius: This was a private research, so to speak, for writing your book, was it not?

Witness Musmanno: My situation was very similar to that of Trevor Roper. Trevor Roper, a professor at Oxford University was in the British Air Corps during the War and he was directed by his General to conduct an investigation regarding the circumstances surrounding the disappearance or death of Hitler.

I was not aware that he was conducting an investigation about the same time that I was. After he had made his report to the British Government, he then published a book and it was called The Last Days of Hitler. My situation was quite similar.

Presiding Judge: But if I may ask, did you make additional investigations with a view to publishing your book, in addition to what you had already investigated on behalf of the United States Navy?

Witness Musmanno: That is true, Mr. Justice.

Dr. Servatius: Is its true to assume that you especially invited all the secretaries of all personalities concerned and that you questioned them?

Witness Musmanno: Oh yes. I spoke to the secretaries, the dentist, the barber, the housekeeper, the butler – all of them, because I wanted to get information about Hitler.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you very much. I have no more questions.

Attorney General: Shall I begin at the end? With regard to the alignment of the accused in the case of the main war criminals at Nuremberg; is it true that there were several groups among the accused, one of which wanted to put the blame on Hitler and another which wanted to keep faith with him to the end?

Witness Musmanno: You are speaking of the I.M.T. trial?

Q. The I.M.T., that is correct.

A. That is correct.

Q. And you spoke to people of all these groups?

A. I was not interested in any schism between the witnesses, and at the time I was not aware of it – and after all – these visits were not long ones: I would go to them, I would put to them two or three questions, three or four, and that was it. Some volunteered information.

Q. No, I am driving at another point. Who was the exponent of the “faithful and loyal” group to Hitler? – Goering?

A. Yes.

Q. And the exponents of the group which denounced Hitler were Frank and Speer?

A. Yes.

Q. These were the two main exponents, weren’t they?

A. Also von Schirach, Schacht…

Q. I see. Now, you wanted to add something, Justice Musmanno?

A. Yes. I spoke to Goering shortly after he had testified, and in his testimony had defended Hitler throughout. I asked him why he did this, in view of the fact that Hitler had degraded him, ordered his arrest and, in fact, was on the verge of ordering him to be shot; and I said to Goering: “Marshal, I do not understand why you would defend a man who would have shot you had we, the Allied troops, not captured you; and you know that he has mistreated Mrs. Goering…”

And he said to me: “Commander, I stood with Hitler when he was alive – I’ll stand with him when he is dead.” And the remark was so insincere, to me, and so pompous and so utterly…annoying, that I could not restrain myself – I laughed in his face. Then he looked about furtively, and he said: “Commander, some day I’ll tell you the real truth.”

Q. Now, Justice Musmanno, did any of those accused people you spoke to, who were awaiting their judgment and sentence at the I.M.T. – did they stand to gain anything by what they told you or by what they said to Professor Gilbert?

A. No. Nothing whatsoever.

Q. You said you did not mention in your judgment the instructions or orders of Hitler to Ohlendorf, but did you mention in your judgment anything about RSHA?

A. I did.

Q. What was that?

A. Well, I indicated, of course, that the Einsatzgruppen were a special operation of the RSHA.

Previous | Index | Next