The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

State Attorney Bach: The witness told us. [To witness] Can you tell us what the value of the Czech krone was at the time?

Witness Steiner: One dollar was 29.29 kronen, about 30 kronen.

Q. Dr. Steiner, you said that after the War you were in touch with the Czech State Prosecution.

Presiding Judge: I did not hear, did he only state the value of the property before it was plundered?

State Attorney Bach: [to witness] Do you know what part of these assets were plundered during the War?

Witness Steiner: Actually nothing was left; houses and agricultural land were nationalized, the factories were transferred to non-Jews, the capital assets had to be handed in to the banks – nothing was left.

Q. Does that mean that all the property was confiscated?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Steiner, were you in Slovakia when Wisliceny’s trial took place?

A. Yes, not only during Wisliceny’s trial, but also during most of the war crimes trials held in Slovakia.

A. What was the judgment passed on Wisliceny?

A. Death.

Q. As far as you know, was the sentence carried out?

A. Yes.

Q. In the course of that trial, during which Wisliceny was held in prison, did certain documents written by Wisliceny come into your possession?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this the result of your initiative? Did you request to ask him certain questions, and did you receive certain documents?

A. As I said, this was part of the documentation operation of that committee. One of our tasks was to collect testimonies from Jews and non-Jews. When Wisliceny was brought to Bratislava, we asked the Prosecutor of the National Court for permission to put questions to Wisliceny, and that is how Wisliceny came to make several statements, which I eventually received, in the original.

State Attorney Bach: If possible, I should like to have exhibits T/84, T/89, T/922 and T/1107 shown to the witness. I understand that Mr. Bodenheimer has them ready.

Mr. Bodenheimer: Yes, please.

State Attorney Bach: My question is, are these the documents you were talking about, that you obtained? Witness Steiner [points to one of the exhibits] This is my secretary’s handwriting, and every page is also initialled by the Prosecutor.

State Attorney Bach: That is T/84.

Presiding Judge: Did they give you the original?

Witness Steiner: Yes, they gave me the original.

Presiding Judge: What else?

State Attorney Bach: This is Exhibit T/85.

Witness Steiner: [points to exhibit] This is a document which I had in my possession before I turned it over to YadVashem .

Q. And now Exhibit T/89 [shows it to witness].

A. This is also one of the documents that I received.

Q. And now, Exhibit T/992, which is also a document shown to the Accused under No. T/37(101).

A. [examines the document at length].

Presiding Judge: What do you say about that, Dr. Steiner?

Witness Steiner: I don’t remember.

State Attorney Bach: If you are not sure, say so. Wisliceny’s signature is on it, confirming it.

Witness Steiner: Is this about Greece? I cannot read it. Yes, yes, it is about Greece.

Q. Yes. Do you remember receiving his report on his activities in Greece?

A. Yes, I received this.

Presiding Judge: Did this pass through your hands?

Witness Steiner: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: The last document is Exhibit T/1107. Perhaps you can tell us whether it was you who asked for, and received, Fiala’s report, the article he published in Grenzbote?

Witness Steiner: Yes, I asked for it and I received it.

Q. Dr. Steiner, do you remember that you had in your possession the report of the Budapest Relief and Rescue Committee?

A. Yes, Dr. Kasztner’s.

Q. Did you get it from Dr. Kasztner?

A. Yes, I got it from Dr. Kasztner.

Q. Did you ask that Wisliceny also give his comments on this report of the Relief and Rescue Committee?

A. Yes, I saw that Wisliceny’s name was mentioned several times, and I wanted to know what Wisliceny had to say about that.

Q. Did you then get Wisliceny’s comments?

A. Yes, I received comments from Wisliceny.

Q. Were they in his handwriting?

A. They were in his handwriting.

Q. What did you do with that document?

A. We made copies of it, not many, I think we made three copies.

Q. In what form, in the handwriting or typed?

A. Typewritten. We sent one copy to Paris, to the Documentation Centre. The other copies remained with me, at home, in my archive.

State Attorney Bach: [hands witness a document] What is the document that I am now handing you?

Witness Steiner: That is it.

Q. That is the copy that was typed at your instructions?

A. That is the copy that secretary made in our office, and which I checked.

Q. Where is the original?

A. I looked for it. Maybe it is at my home, but I have not found it.

Presiding Judge: Here in Israel?

Witness Steiner: Here in Israel. Perhaps I turned it over to Yad Vashem, together with other documents, but I am not sure.

State Attorney Bach: Have you tried to find it, without success?

Witness Steiner: Without success.

Q. Are you certain that this copy was made from the original?

A. That is one hundred per cent certain.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, I ask to submit this document as evidence. As I have said, my purpose here is not to use it in order to verify or contradict one or the other detail, but, as the Court will see – if it admits the report, the comments, and looks into them – the Court will see that the comments represent important and interesting complements to many of the facts cited in the Kasztner report itself.

For example, Kasztner in his report describes a meeting in which he, Eichmann and Wisliceny took part; we then have Wisliceny’s comment to page so-and-so, and Wisliceny says: Yes, Dr. Kasztner does not know what took place afterwards, when Eichmann gave such-and-such orders. So there is no doubt that when we have before us the Kasztner report, and we have already heard explanations from the witness – and will perhaps hear more – concerning these events, it will be very interesting and also important for the Court to know what was the reaction of Wisliceny, who took an active part both in the negotiations and in the actions in Hungary. I therefore request that the Court accept this document as evidence.

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

State Attorney Bach: Just one more thing: We have here, for example, also a description of the help that Wisliceny gave to Freudiger, when Freudiger escaped from Germany. On this point, too, evidence was heard from the witness himself, but this, too, is important for the trial. This document was also shown to the Accused, and he testified on it. It received No. T/37(271).

Dr. Servatius: Witness, when you visited Wisliceny during his interrogation…

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, at present the question is regarding this document. I do not know whether Mr. Bach has completed his examination of the witness.

Dr. Servatius: As for document No. 901. I raise the same objection that I raised as to all the documents emanating from Wisliceny.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 51

We accept as evidence the typewritten copy of the comments made by Wisliceny on the Kasztner report, on the grounds given in our Decision No. 7.

This will be marked T/1116.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I will not now quote from the comments, because they all relate to the Hungarian chapter, and I will refer to them at a later stage. By the way, this is our document No. 901.

Now, Dr. Steiner, do you remember being present when Eng. Andrej Steiner made a certain declaration in which the Mufti of Jerusalem is mentioned?

Witness Steiner: Yes.

Q. Why were you present on that occasion, do you remember?

A. That was a declaration before a notary public – if I remember correctly – given in Bratislava. I was present there as a witness, in order to identify the architect Andrej Steiner.

Q. Was Steiner on trial?

A. No, this was a declaration before a notary.

Q. Why did he give that declaration?

A. This was in 1942 or 1943. At that time Andrej Steiner called on Wisliceny who told him about the children that were to be sent abroad, from Theresienstadt, and said, in Eichmann’s name, that this was not going well because the Mufti opposed it.

Presiding Judge: Has Andrej Steiner’s name been mentioned here?

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps one of the witnesses mentioned him, I think it was Dr. Abeles. He was one of the people in that shadow cabinet.

Presiding Judge: It was not the witness?

State Attorney Bach: No. Perhaps I should explain. This declaration was really made by the architect Steiner, who was reporting on his contacts with Wisliceny concerning the rescue of children, and Wisliceny’s reaction, how Wisliceny told him about Eichmann and the Mufti.

Presiding Judge: What was the purpose of that declaration?

State Attorney Bach: That does not appear so clearly from the declaration. Maybe for use in the Nuremberg Trials, and maybe as information that the Jewish institutions may have wanted to make use of.

Judge Halevi: What declaration?

State Attorney Bach: The declaration itself was made in February 1946. It was later sent to Nuremberg, where it was given to Wisliceny, and below the declaration itself Wisliceny added his own declaration that this was correct, except for two points which he thought not to be accurate.

Presiding Judge: Are you using it now as a declaration by Wisliceny?

State Attorney Bach: Precisely. That is what I wanted to explain. The witness was only present when Eng. Steiner made the declaration. The importance lies not in Steiner’s declaration, but in Wisliceny’s confirmation of it, except for two reservations that he had. It is as such evidence that I am asking this document to be admitted, as a complement to another statement about the Mufti made by Wisliceny, which we have already submitted to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Actually this does not add anything.

State Attorney Bach: It adds details. It shows the influence that the Mufti had, in general, on Eichmann, and also on Himmler, with regard to the annihilation of the Jews of Europe.

Judge Halevi: It also adds to the testimony of Steiner, if you want to use it. About Wisliceny’s credibility there still exist differences of opinion, but here we also have Steiner testifying how the talks were being conducted.

State Attorney Bach: Steiner only states what Wisliceny told him.

Judge Halevi: Told him at the time?

State Attorney Bach: Told him at the time…actually I agree with Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: Is Steiner still alive?

State Attorney Bach: Steiner is in the United States.

Presiding Judge: I now want to know as what you wish to submit this document?

State Attorney Bach: I want to submit it as evidence for Wisliceny’s statement, and to enable the witness to identify it as the declaration that was signed in his presence, before Wisliceny added his comments to it.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Andrej Steiner?

Witness Steiner: Engineer architect Andrej Steiner.

State Attorney Bach: May I add, in addition to the point that His Honour, Judge Halevi, made, also important is the fact that from the document we see that Wisliceny does not just accept anything that is submitted to him because he might think that it is perhaps convenient for those who tender a document to him; he does not accept everything; and when he has reservations about a certain detail, he says that that detail is not accurate.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what about this document?

Dr. Servatius: I object to the introduction of this document for the reasons I have already mentioned. In this case, too, Wisliceny is presented with a document and he signs it, despite the reservations that he has.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 52

We accept Wisliceny’s comments on Mr. Andrej Steiner’s declaration, together with that declaration, on the grounds given in our Decision No. 7.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: The other testimony was just not printed here. I suppose that a record exists, but this one is not complete. They felt that it was enough to quote the testimony of one girl.

I should also like to include the declaration that appears on pages 1038-1039; this is a sworn statement by Hermann Krumey about his own actions with regard to these children.

He says in the declaration that the children were transferred to his office, that some of the children were sent to Germany for “Germanization,” and that the rest of the children were transferred by way of the Gestapo to the Gestapo office in Lodz, and that as far as he can recall the order had come from Bureau IV.

Presiding Judge: Did you include questions on this subject in your questionnaire to Krumey?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Sir, not necessarily in connection with the declaration appearing in the Green Series, but the affair of the Lidice children – who gave the order, on whose order were those children transferred – all that was included in the questionnaire.

Presiding Judge: But you did not mention the declaration?

State Attorney Bach: No, we did not. But perhaps it does not add much. As a matter of fact, we have documents on that. I just wanted to draw the Court’s attention to the existence of that declaration. If Counsel for the Defence agrees that all this material shall serve as evidence in this Court – i.e., the statements made by the officials who were the accused in that trial and the Judgment – then I think there should be no objection to the Court also taking into account this declaration by Krumey.

Presiding Judge: If you will agree on that, we will no doubt consider that request positively.

State Attorney Bach: But, as I said, my main request refers to the testimony of the girl Maria Hanfova.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: I agree that all the material included in the Green Series to which the State Attorney has referred be admitted in this trial. As for the children, it appears that they did well in Germany, as they testified. As to what happened to the other children, that is a subject for later discussion, at which time I will take a stand.

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that you propose that all that is contained in Volume 4 on the affair of the Lidice children be submitted here as evidence? Is that correct?

State Attorney Bach: Maybe also what is in Volume 5?

Presiding Judge: And also the Judgment in Volume 5?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, everything related to this point and to its connection with the Head Office for Reich Security.

Your Honour, that was a slip of the tongue, I did not mean the Head Office for Reich Security, I meant the Race and Settlement Office.

Judge Halevi: Another question to Dr. Servatius. Since you have agreed that all the material on this point in Volume 4 be admitted, please note that Mr. Bach has drawn attention to Krumey’s declaration that he believed that the order came from Bureau IV; as far as I am aware, this is not the Race and Settlement Office, this is the Gestapo.

Dr. Servatius: This is indeed Krumey’s declaration, related to the document submitted here.

Judge Halevi: Do you agree that this should also be brought before this Court?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I agree that that document also be admitted here, and I assume that when the witness Krumey is interrogated in Germany, he will also be asked to answer questions on this subject.

Presiding Judge: Is there anything else in Volume 4, apart from what you have mentioned, in relation to this affair, so that we shall not have to grope in the dark?

State Attorney Bach: Not to my knowledge. I have not found anything.

Presiding Judge: So we could confine the document to the testimony given by Hanfova and the declaration by Krumey, to be more specific?

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps Counsel for the Defence also wishes to quote from the volume; for the time being my request refers only to the two items, the girl’s testimony and Krumey’s declaration.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 48

With the agreement of both parties we decide to accept as evidence in this trial all the material relating to the fate of the Lidice children contained in Volume 4 of the Green Series, as well as the Judgment published in Volume 5 of the Series, relating to the actions taken by the Race and Settlement Office in connection with the children.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps we ought to type the statements on a separate page, so that we can submit them as separate exhibits – with the permission of the Court.

Presiding Judge: In the meantime let me give it a formal marking. This exhibit will be marked T/1100.

State Attorney Bach: On page 1033 the girl describes the events that took place in Lidice on June 9, when German troops came, woke them up at 3 o’clock in the morning, took them away from their mothers, and how the children were later moved to Lodz; she says that they were treated very badly. Then, on page 1034, she is asked:

Q. Where were you taken to after leaving Lodz?

A. To Lodz, to the city.

Q. To another camp in the same city?

A. To another camp in the same city.

Q. How long did you stay there?

A. We were there for about two months.

Q. As you said, there were only seven who were chosen with you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened to the other children after you were separated, do you know?

A. We were not allowed to ask any questions about them. We do not know what happened.

Q. Did you ever see any of these children again, or did you hear about them, after you were separated?

A. I never saw them.

Q. Not one of them is alive today in Czechoslovakia, to your knowledge, is there?

A. I do not know.

Q. And when you left Lodz, where were you, the seven children taken to?

A. We were taken to Pushka, in Poznan.

The girl then goes on to describe what happened to them in Germany, but this does not concern us here. Finally, on page 1038, I wish to quote one question. Here the girl is asked:

Q. At the beginning you mentioned seven children who stogether with you were separated from the others in Lodz, and you mentioned the names of two children whom you met in Pushka. These children – did you see them when you returned to Czechoslovakia?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to these children?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they live in Germany during the War?

A. Yes.

I have already brought to the Court’s attention the passage from Krumey’s declaration I am interested in, and there is no need to repeat it; it appears on page 1039.

Judge Halevi: Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt - is that a part of RSHA?

State Attorney Bach: That is a separate office, in formal terms. As Reichsfuehrer, Himmler was its head; he was, as such, the head of several offices, one of them being the RSHA, which was a mixed – Government and Party – office, another being the “Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt,” which was a pure (if we may use that word) a pure SS office, separate from the RSHA; yet another was the “Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptampt” (Economic-Administrative Main Office, also a separate office within the framework of that set-up, headed by the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Dr. Servatius: Through the simultaneous translation I hear that the girl told what happened to her in Germany. I do not know whether the translation is correct, but for the sake of fairness I want to point out that the children testified that they did very well in Germany, and they said that they did not want to go back; one girl was supposed to go back to her grandmother, but she refused, and in reply to repeated questioning, she insisted that she was better off in Germany than at home.

Presiding Judge: Where do we find that?

State Attorney Bach: The fact is that the girl I was talking about – although I did not mention it – testified just the opposite. She said that there was discrimination between the children, that they were treated very badly, that they were not allowed to speak Czech. I did not mention this because we do not accuse the Accused or his Section with this, and we are not dealing with the Race and Settlement Office.

I do not doubt what Counsel for the Defence said, maybe one of the children said something of the sort, but I have not seen it, certainly not in the testimony of this girl who says that they were badly treated. But I did not bring that up, did not mention it, because I did not think it was of any importance.

Presiding Judge: Where then are those things that Dr. Servatius mentions? In the statement made by the Hanfova girl?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I do not have the document before me, but I have read various statements made by these children, and the State Attorney does not deny that.

Presiding Judge: But does it say that in Volume 4?

State Attorney Bach: I must say that I have not seen it.

Presiding Judge: If Dr. Servatius finds it, he can submit it to us.

State Attorney Bach: I just want to point out that this girl says there was discrimination and that the German children were given better treatment; but, as I have said, I do not attach any importance to that, these things are not part of the Charge Sheet.

With the Court’s permission, we shall now go back to the Holocaust of the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: In that case you will have to bear in mind that we still need a decision on document No. 1149.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 369.

Presiding Judge: Does that again concern Slovakia?

State Attorney Bach: This is again about the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: Lidice is in Bohemia, is not it?

State Attorney Bach: Lidice is in Bohemia. We brought it up at this point because I was presenting evidence relating to the killing of Heydrich, and the Accused happened to be in Slovakia at the time and left straight for Prague, and Lidice of course was a direct result of that incident.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius was apparently referring to another girl, by the name of Bergner, who was not a Czech girl, and her statement is printed on page 1021.

State Attorney Bach: I really checked only what those children said.

Document No. 369 is a report by Ludin which says that Wisliceny, the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, stressed that the “Jewish Action” was in its final stage; 52,000 had been removed and 35,000 are still there, for the time being. At the end he says that Wisliceny supports the retention of Moravek in his post, since he is honest and tolerates no compromise. The report ends with Ludin’s recommendation for a hundred per cent solution of the Jewish Question.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1101.

State Attorney Bach: There is also a description of a meeting with Tuka at that period, which was also attended by Wisliceny.

The next document is Prosecution document No. 1526. This is an invitation to Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny from the RSHA to a meeting in Berlin on August 28, to be attended by all the specialists on Jewish affairs. The Court will recall that meeting, to which Richter from Romania and the specialists on Jewish affairs assigned in Western countries were also invited.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1102.

State Attorney Bach: I now wish to submit three documents concerning a Jewish woman by name of Machalek. The first is our No. 1013. This is a letter from the Accused and signed by him, addressed to von Thadden, in which he states that a Jewess by the name of Machalek had been sent to Theresienstadt in the course of the usual evacuation measures, and that her husband had divorced her, so that he could hold on to his job.

And now, Eichmann continues, the Slovak Consulate in Prague had written a letter, in response to the husband’s application to have his wife declared an Aryan. In that letter there is already mention of “Anna Machalek, Aryan.” Then Eichmann adds: “I am hereby taking the liberty of informing you of this behaviour on the part of the Slovak Consulate General in Prague, which seems to be odd.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1103.

State Attorney Bach: The second document is our No. 1643. This is a note verbale from the Slovak legation in Berlin to the Foreign Ministry, in which the legation explains why Mrs. Machalek is really not Jewish; she is really the daughter of a maid who had been working for a Jewish family and was adopted by that family as their child, but she is really an Aryan and not Jewish. The legation therefore requests that the woman be set free.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1104.

State Attorney Bach: The last document on this case is our No. 1014. We are now in May 1944; the Court will note that the first letter was dated November 1943, and by May 1944 the matter had not been attended to. Guenther now writes to von Thadden that, because Wisliceny was in Hungary, “we were not yet able to check on that and therefore could not ascertain Mrs. Machalek’s racial status.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1105.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document, Your Honours, is No. 1016. This is a letter from the German legation, Ludin, to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, copy to the Accused, concerning a pastoral letter by the Slovak bishops against the governmental anti-Jewish measures. It expresses the Slovak clergy’s profound concern over various reports of what had happened to the Jews. Ludin states as follows: “The Prime Minister, Dr. Tuka, has informed me of his concern.”

At the end he says that he (the Prime Minister) had been informed by one of the bishops that “in the Ukraine masses of Jews were shot to death, not only men, but also women and children, and before they were killed they had to dig their own graves. In one case a mother was shot or stabbed to death, and her baby was thrown live into the grave.” And Tuka said that “the naive Slovak clergymen might lend credence to such atrocity stories and requests that, in order to enable such rumours to be refuted, a commission be permitted to pay a visit to the East.” Ludin adds: “If such a tour could be organized, I would certainly welcome that suggestion.”

State Attorney Bach: This document was passed on to the Accused. Before quoting his response, I request the Court to accept as evidence a document in Wisliceny’s handwriting, in which Wisliceny refers to an article published by Fritz Fiala in Grenzbote, a newspaper. This article was mentioned in testimony given at yesterday’s session, and later on we shall provide the Court with a photocopy of it. At this point my purpose is to prove to the Court the circumstances under which this article came to be written.

Wisliceny gives details of his negotiations with the Accused on this matter, of the talks he had with Fiala and of his joint journey with Fiala to Auschwitz, on the orders of the Accused, and he tells the story of how the article came to be written. As I said, the document is in Wisliceny’s own handwriting and bears his signature. It is of relevance to the entire trial, and I will link the Accused to it by the document I will submit next, in which the Accused mentions that same Fiala article. I therefore request the Court to accept this document as evidence, under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law.

Dr. Servatius: As regards declarations by Wisliceny. I have the same objections to his statements that I have raised before.

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

Attorney General: I should like to say to the witness, in his own language, that, by agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence, we have admitted as evidence the material included both in the judgment and in the affidavits appearing in the transcript, and therefore, we shall not have to question you in regard to these matters.

With the Court’s permission, I shall now turn to facts which are within the knowledge of Judge Musmanno as a result of his judicial activity, relating to people who were able not to carry out instructions for murder, which had no justification. I request permission to ask questions along these lines.

Presiding Judge: Within the ambit of the decisions we adopted. We mentioned this subject.

Attorney General: Yes – within that ambit.

[To witness] Did any of the members of the Einsatzgruppen complain about the work that was assigned to them?

Witness Musmanno: Yes. Some of them complained because they had to travel over bad roads in order to reach the Jews that they were going to kill. And they also complained when bad weather set in, and mud made their transportation all the more difficult.

In very cold weather, when the ground was frozen and it was impossible to dig graves, they complained because the executions had to be postponed until fair weather arrived. Sometimes, they shot their victims in the snow and let their bodies lie in the snow.

Attorney General: Permit me to be more explicit. Do you remember the case of Walter Blume?

Presiding Judge: Was he an accused in the Einsatzgruppen Trial too? Does this appear in the judgment?

Attorney General: I do not believe that the episode appears in the judgment.

Presiding Judge: Or in the fourth volume?

Attorney General: As far as I am aware – no. For these were special episodes.

Presiding Judge: In that case, you will first have to prove that you cannot present, here, the records of that trial itself.

Attorney General: If you wish us to bring evidence in the form of a trial within a trial at this stage – we shall have to do so.

Presiding Judge: That is actually the correct interpretation of this matter.

Attorney General: Then we shall have no alternative.

Presiding Judge: You have a witness here who may be able to say something on this subject. You have mentioned to us a matter of 300,000 pages.

Attorney General: I will interrogate the witness, by permission of the Court. Justice Musmanno, do you know where the records of your case are kept now?

Witness Musmanno: Do you mean the transcript? The daily transcript?

Q. I refer to the exhibits, and the daily record of the proceedings of the Einsatzgruppen Trial.

A. Certainly, there is a set of them in the archives in Washington D.C. and also in London, and I am under the impression that perhaps also in Nuremberg.

Presiding Judge: Will you permit me? If someone wishes to examine the record, to get to a certain witness or to certain evidence, do you think he could practically do so, or would it be difficult?

Witness Musmanno: He could eventually do it, but it would be a very tedious task. Very tedious and it would require many labyrinthian enquiries. Certainly they do exist. But no one could, just by merely reaching out his hand, put his finger on it, I am afraid.

Q. How many pages does the record of the the Einsatzgruppen Trial contain? Can you remember that?

A. Yes. The Einsatzgruppen transcript which I have in my chambers back in Pittsburgh embraces about 22 volumes, each one of about that thickness – that is 2 1/2 inches or 3 inches.

Q. About how many pages would that be?

A. Oh – I would say about 8,000 pages.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, these records are kept in the archives of the German Federal Republic in Coblenz. They also have there a summary of the  contents and a list of the witnesses, for part of the documents. Whether such a summary exists also in connection with the trial which we are discussing here – I do not know. But my assistant is shortly about to travel to Germany, and through him, I shall be able to go into the matter and to seek a reply to the question.

Attorney General: I wanted to say that, naturally, we searched for the material, but to my regret we did not find it.

Presiding Judge: How long would it take you in order to search for this material? We are talking now about the evidence of Blume.

Attorney General: I shall list the names of those concerning whom I want to question the Judge. We are in the same situation concerning all of them. The names are: Walter Blume, Erwin Schulz, Heinz Jost, Franz Six, Willy Seibert and Gustav Noske, whose evidence I have already submitted, but I want to put in one document through the Judge.

Presiding Judge: But not all of them were accused – some of them were witnesses in the trial?

Attorney General: They were also witnesses in the trial. We tried to obtain the material.

Presiding Judge: How much time did it take you? Was this after you got to know about these documents from the witness?

Attorney General: After we learned about it from the witness, we examined only those documents which we ourselves had accumulated; we searched among the material available here relating to these matters, but the material we have here does not include those particulars – the material which is in our possession, with Bureau 06 and the Prosecution. I must admit that, since then, we have not attempted to look for the material abroad.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, if I may be permitted to point to page 90 in this volume 4 which is in my possession, there is a diagram here which was prepared by the persons themselves, and to which – so far as one can see – no objections were voiced.

From this diagram it clearly transpires that the Einsatzgruppen were subject directly to the orders of Heydrich, naturally under the supreme authority of the head of the German Police and the SD, Himmler.

Presiding Judge: This is another subject. We are talking now  – so it seems to me – about somewhat different matters.

Mr. Hausner, we notice that in this volume – we are not fully aware of everything contained in this volume – but, for example, we notice that on page 593…

Attorney General: Perhaps I may have a look at it. Our copy is in the possession of Defence Counsel.

Presiding Judge: This relates, in fact to Case No. 9. This is the very case of the Einsatzgruppen. There is a list of witnesses with an index to the pages of the transcript.

Attorney General: Yes, here it is. The question is – where one can find these pages.

Judge Raveh: You have heard that the witness himself has the complete record. This is proof that it exists.

Presiding Judge: This we can elucidate immediately. Justice Musmanno – a side issue, if I may call it that; are you able to tell us: Is the material in your possession, those 22 volumes, arranged in order?

Witness Musmanno: Yes, they are arranged consecutively.

Q. In other words, with the aid of these lists, the index of the contents and the witnesses appearing in this volume, it would be possible to find one’s way through the labyrinth of the documents of 22 volumes and arrive at the item in its right place?

A. Well, if the Court would permit me, I would say that the Green volume by no means is a complete account of the trial. It is extremely abbreviated, and there are possibly episodes and facts which are not included therein at all.

Q. Yes, it would help us, or rather the Prosecution, if we were to know that it would be possible, with the aid of the list of contents, of the witnesses and the summaries, to find in the archives in your possession- for example in those 22 volumes – each particular reference. Possibly we could make it much shorter! You could have a look at the book yourself and let us have a reply.

A. It is true that the witnesses are enumerated here and their testimony is identified by page numbers, but each defendant presented enormous so-called “document books” and those documents are not indexed here, so that if there is an episode in any of these documents you might not be able to locate it very easily.

Dr. Servatius: It is, in fact, true that defence documents were not, as a rule, included in the official treatment of these trials. However, it will not be difficult to find them, for the documents are kept in the private archives of the defence lawyers who are still alive in Germany. And I believe that in the political archives of the Federal Republic, as well, it should be possible to find these documents, by number and by classification.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, the material which you wanted to produce now by means of this evidence, was that evidence given before the Court or was it in the content of sworn affidavits submitted there? Can you tell us that?

Attorney General: The truth of the matter, Your Honour, is that I myself do not know. I can ask the Judge.

Presiding Judge: I have a suggestion to make to both parties, and also to the witness. In a quarter of an hour’s time we shall have to adjourn. Perhaps you could take advantage of the lunch interval in order to clarify this question with the Judge, and that will assist us to reach a decision in this matter?

Attorney General: Certainly, Your Honour.

Perhaps, in the meantime, merely in order to reach a convenient point, I can submit one more document through the witness?

Presiding Judge: Apart from that you may proceed – if you have further questions to the witness.

Attorney General: Thank you, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: You will be able to check whether the evidence you are seeking relates to matters on which oral evidence was heard in that trial, or to documents which were submitted and are not included. The reply to this question is likely to affect our decision.

Attorney General: Now, Justice Musmanno, you gave me an English translation of evidence taken by you in German from the witness Schulz. I hand you the two documents, the German original and the English translation. Were these the testimonies that you heard and which you handed to me?

Witness Musmanno: I can veryfy that this document was submitted to me in the trial of the Einsatzgruppen Case, in its English translation.

Q. This document was submitted in support of Schulz’ contention with regard to his release from the Einsatzgruppen?

A. That is correct.

Presiding Judge: Who makes this declaration – Schulz himself?

Attorney General: This is a document signed by Heydrich, in which Heydrich writes: I am releasing you from command for reasons of service and I am transferring you to other duties.

Presiding Judge: Are you submitting it?

Attorney General: I am submitting them both. The Judge gave me this one in English, and on the basis of this I identified the German document in our possession.

Witness Musmanno: Would you kindly explain to the Court that the remarks written on the back of the document do not relate to the trial?

Attorney General: Actually we do not need the English copy – only for the purposes of identifying the German copy.

Presiding Judge: Where did you get the original German version from?

Attorney General: We have the Book of Documents No. 1 of Erwin Schulz.

Presiding Judge: We shall mark the English translation T/686.

Do you have further copies of this document?

Attorney General: To my regret, no.

Presiding Judge: And the German original will be T/686(a).

Attorney General: Justice Musmanno, did you talk to Schellenberg about other Einsatzgruppen commanders as well, who – for one reason or other – applied to be relieved of their duties?

Witness Musmanno: In our general conversation, reference was made to this proposition that if one really did not want to kill Jews that there was a way of not killing Jews, that it wasn’t necessary to follow out these orders implicitly and to the ultimate, and that it would be enough to indicate that this person could not kill in cold blood, and, if that was so stated, then one could be actually relieved of that duty.

He said he knew of his own knowledge that there were individuals in the Einsatzgruppen organization who were released, even by Ohlendorf and by Dr. Toms, because they couldn’t go along with the extermination programme, He indicated – I don’t know just how far he wanted to go in this type of testimony – but he stated very clearly that those incapable of performing these executions would be released and sent home, because they were in the way of others who were perfectly ready, willing and able to carry out Hitler’s orders for the extermination of the Jews.

He
pointed out that the Nazi leaders couldn’t generally be accused of great human sympathy, but he said he had to admit that they were men of efficiency, and if a man couldn’t go along with this type of an order then he should be sent back home. And many were sent back home.

Q. Are you able to tell the Court if there was another man named Matthias Graf, whom you acquitted of this charge, and who walked out of your courtroom a free person?

A. Yes. Matthias Graf could not conscientiously go along with the orders and he evaded them at every opportunity. And I acquitted him completely.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission I shall stop at this stage. We shall utilize the minutes remaining at our disposal in order to hand over to the Court the information on the additional affidavits which we intend to submit, if the Court is prepared to hear it. My colleague, Mr. Bach, will do this.

Presiding Judge: Judge Musmanno, we shall interrupt your evidence now, and you may step down from the witness box. You will be invited to return in the afternoon.

Attorney General: I understand, in order that I may receive directives, that if it should be found that all the remaining instances can be proved by the record of the proceedings, the Court does not want me to continue examining Judge: Musmanno on these matters – in which case it would not be necessary to bring him back to the Court.

Presiding Judge: But there is a further examination – I shall clarify this immediately.

Dr. Servatius, do you want to cross-examine the witness, or not?

Dr. Servatius: There will be a few question which I should like to put to the witness.

Judge Halevi: Have we heard all the questions of the examination-in-chief? You spoke about the murder of children – we have not heard about that.

Attorney General: This is included in the body of the judgment. Part of it is here, part is not. At any rate, I shall go into the question.

Presiding Judge: We shall now adjourn and we shall open the afternoon Session with the submission of this information by you, and thereafter we shall continue with the evidence of the witness.

Previous | Index | Next