The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Session No. 55

14 Sivan 5721 (29 May 1961)

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

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

Presiding Judge: Is he Jewish?

Attorney General: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Gustave M. Gilbert.

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

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

Q. What are your professional qualifications?

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

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

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

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

Q. What was your function at the Nuremberg prison?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Did you subject them to psychological tests?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: What was the material that you recorded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Has this now appeared in a new edition?

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you have two more?

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

Witness Gilbert: I have a further copy.

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

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

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

Q. When was that?

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

Q. What was Judge Musmanno doing there?

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

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

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

Q. Did you take him to Goering?

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: With whose mentality?

Attorney General: Of the accused persons.

Presiding Judge: Of the persons who were accused there?

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

Presiding Judge: Were tests conducted here as well?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney General: As the Court pleases.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 58

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

Previous | Index | Next

10 Iyar 5721 (26 April 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the sixteenth Session of the trial open.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, insofar as the fact, whether a particular document was submitted or  extracts therefrom were submitted to the Accused, will have an important bearing on your decision, I am bound to inform the Court that no extracts were read to the Accused from the particular document which I originally tried to submit yesterday, namely “Cell 133.” From the second document known as “Cell 106″ – extracts were read to the Accused. It is my intention to request the Court to admit both documents.

Judge Halevi: On what page of the interrogation of the Accused does the submission of the second document appear?

Attorney General: In the 63rd reel. One moment, I shall check this immediately.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, instead of calling this “Cell” perhaps you would quote the date – on what date was it read to the Accused?

Attorney General: The Court will find this on pages 2491…there were two statements – the one of 27 October 1946 – no portion of which was read to him; and the second was of 18 November 1946 – from which extracts were read to him. This is “Cell 106″ and the Court will find it on pages 2491-2561 of the statement.

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 7

The Attorney General applies for the admission in evidence of two reports written by Dieter Wisliceny when he was in prison in Bratislava, on 27 October and 16 November 1946. In these reports there are accounts of facts relating to the Accused, in connection with matters under consideration in this trial. Wisliceny was tried by a court in Bratislava and executed. The Attorney General bases his application on Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, which reads as follows:

(a) In an action for an offense under this Law, the Court may deviate from the rules of evidence if it is satisfied that this will promote the ascertainment of the truth and the just handling of the case.

(b) Whenever the Court decides to deviate, under sub-section (a) from the rules of evidence, it shall place on record the reasons which prompted its decision.

Counsel for the Defence objects to the submission of the reports on the grounds that they were written by Wisliceny in order to divert the blame from himself to the Accused, who is before us, and in the hope that by so doing he would be able to be released.

There exists a similarity between the idea underlying our Section 15 and the underlying Section 19 of the London Charter, according to which the Court at Nuremberg which tried the major war criminals was established, and similar provisions which came in the wake of the London Charter. See Criminal Appeal 232/55 Piske Din 12, page 2017 and page 2087.

Although it must be admitted that our provision is couched in less extreme language than Section 19 of the London Charter, we are of opinion that two important criteria ought to guide us in seeking to interpret Section 15, viz.:

Whether the evidence which is sought to be adduced is relevant to the subject of the trial, and whether it has probative value. Every case must be considered according to its circumstances, and further possible criteria in addition to these two. Of course, the weight of the evidence, even after it has been submitted, depends upon the evaluation of the Court according to its intrinsic value and how it compares with all the testimony before the Court when the stage of submitting the evidence at the trial has been completed.

These reports were written by a man who is no longer alive and there existed between him and the Accused close relations connected with the matters being examined in this trial. They were written fairly close to the events which are the subject of this trial, events that were spread over a number of years, and they occurred in various localities, and it is difficult to adduce more direct evidence about them from the people who were active together with the Accused. Moreover, according to the remarks of the Accused and his statement T/37, on page 307, the files of his office were destroyed under an order issued in the closing stages of the War, the Second World War in Europe.

As stated, the evaluation of the weight of evidence is always in the Court’s discretion, and in assessing the value of these reports, the Court will also certainly consider the arguments of Defence Counsel as to their authenticity and their value of evidence, and also other factors likely to detract from their probative value. However, this does not prevent their admission as evidence.

For these reasons we are of opinion that the submission of these two reports will be of help in arriving at the truth and in ensuring a just trial.

Accordingly, we decide to admit them as evidence, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 (a) of the aforementioned Law.

Attorney General: I accordingly submit to the Court the original manuscript of Dieter Wisliceny dated 26 October 1946, “Zelle 133.”

Judge Halevi: Why does the word have to be “Zelle” and not in Hebrew?

Attorney General: It is written at the top.

Presiding Judge: Cell [in Hebrew] 133. This will be T/84.

Attorney General: I also submit the other evidence, which is also in the handwriting of Wisliceny, dated 18 November 1946, “Cell 106.”

Presiding Judge: That is the original, and what am I being given here?

Attorney General: These are the copies, Your Honour – in the event of the Court’s requiring copies, when the original is kept in the Court Secretariat.

Presiding Judge: The second report will be marked T/85. Is this the complete one?

Attorney General: Yes. There is an extra page bearing his signature.

Presiding Judge: Why was this page placed here separately?

Attorney General: This is how it reached us, Your Honour, from the archives of . Your Honour will notice that there are some words in Czech on the outer cover. This was the way it reached us – in this form.

Presiding Judge: All right.

Judge Raveh: What are these letters, apparently in Hebrew, near the signature on Exhibit T/84?

Presiding Judge: This, evidently is merely the marking of the copy.

Attorney General: These are, Your Honour, evidently the initials of Mr. Hagag, who examined the signature.

With the Court’s permission I shall read two short excerpts from T/84, firstly from pages 8-9 of the original.

“According to an order by Goering, the authority of all Jewish affairs was vested in the Head of the Security Police and the SD. In this way the power of Eichmann in this sphere was immeasurably increased. By virtue of this order, issued, as I recollect, in the summer of 1941, he could simply overrule all objections and attempts at interference by other ministries and authorities. Until the end of 1941 the preparations for the ‘Madagascar Plan’ continued to exist as the guideline.

From 1941 onwards, Eichmann began the deportations from Germany, Austria, Bohemia and Moravia to Poland. From 1942 onwards [he began] the organized extermination in the camps at Lublin and Auschwitz and the extension of the deportations over the whole of Europe. As Eichmann himself acknowledged to me in 1944 in Hungary, this plan originated with him and with Globocnik, the former Austrian Gauleiter and Commandant of the SS and Police at Lublin, who had suggested the plan to Himmler.

This order was given by Hitler personally. In 1942 Eichmann was promoted to the rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer. After Heydrich’s death he became attached even more closely to Mueller for he assumed that Mueller would take the place of Heydrich. The appointment of Kaltenbrunner as Head of the Security Police and the SD strengthened Eichmann’s standing even more because of the former relationship. Eichmann came to Himmler frequently after 1940, and especially after 1942. Apart from Globocnik in Lublin, he was in especially close contact with Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, and with Brigadefuehrer Glücks. About his other contacts I shall report later.

In 1943 Eichmann was appointed by Mueller to be Head of a department at the Gestapo and the section of the Churches was also put under his control. He expected a promotion to the rank of em>Standartenfuehrer and Oberst of the Police in April 1945. He deliberately limited the circle of his assistants. Most of them were drawn from the Viennese Centre; after his transfer to Berlin, he took Rolf Guenther from Vienna to Berlin as his deputy, and transferred the Viennese Centre to Hauptsturmfuehrer Alois Brunner. Of his assistants only Rolf Guenther had any influence on Eichmann, that is to say the very worst.

“Rolf Guenther totally rejected any concession and even any negotiations over what was called the ‘Final Solution.’ As far as Guenther’s desires were concerned, the rate the deportations were being carried out was always too slow. When Eichmann was in Hungary from March until December 1944, Guenther took his place in Berlin. Similarly, he was the one who, in September 1944, sent Hauptsturmfuehrer Brunner to Slovakia in order to deport those Jews who were still found there.

Eichmann’s principle in his personnel policy was not to release anyone who had once worked in his Section for other activities. Even applications to volunteer for service with the Army or the Waffen-SS – these, too, he rejected as a matter of principle. Once he told me, face to face in Hungary in the course of a heated  discussion on this principle of his, ‘We are all sitting in the same boat, no-one is allowed to step
out. Anyone who wishes to part from me, will be forced by me to be an accomplice, so that for him there will be no way of retreat.’ He applied this personnel policy also to his junior officers and to members of his staff whom he also did not release, even if there were no opportunities of giving them any employment whatsoever.”

I shall read a few more lines from the same document, on page 16 in the original:

“When I proposed in 1942 negotiating with representatives of the Joint with the object of
avoiding what was called the ‘Final Solution,’ he did not dare to reject these proposals out of hand, even
though both he and Guenther were against making any concessions whatsoever. He first of all obtained the decision of Himmler.

There was a similar case in 1944 in Budapest, when I served as intermediary in the talks with the Hungarian representative of the Joint, Dr. Kasztner. Here, too, Eichmann referred the matter to Himmler because he was afraid of the responsibility, but at the same time he endeavoured to counter all chances of an agreement by proceeding with the deportations at the fastest pace and by presenting exaggerated conditions.”

This is the end of the extracts from this statement.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, Presiding Judge, may I be permitted to ask that from the same document a further ten lines may be read. As Defence Counsel I consider this to be important whether these words will be read by me or whether they are read by someone else.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, do you object to the reading of these lines by Dr. Servatius?

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: Would you read these lines?

Dr. Servatius: “I am ready and will at all times have the possibility of cooperating in tracing Eichmann and identifying him. I would recognize him in any disguise or other change. For my own defence it is essential that Eichmann is discovered, without taking into account the legitimate international interest in doing so.”

Attorney General: It says: “Even without taking into account.”

Presiding Judge: The word “even” does not appear.

Dr. Servatius: “I am convinced that I could discover Eichmann within a few weeks, for I know exactly the members of his staff, his family and his connections. Therefore I suggest that you attach me to an American unit, which is to be entrusted with the special task of tracking down Eichmann.”

Attorney General: For the sake of order, I would mention that T/84 bears our catalogue number 6. From T/85 I would request the Court to listen to what it says on page 8 and the beginning of page 9, paragraph 4 “The Commissar’s Order” and the “Final Solution – (1941-1944)”:

“Hitler’s order to get rid of all the commissars and active leaders of the Communist Party, issued at the outbreak of the war with Soviet Russia, signals a new stage in the brutalization of the War. Hitler presumed that, insofar as Soviet Russia was concerned, he did not have to take care, as he did against the Western Powers which recognized the Geneva Convention and the Hague Rules regarding war on land.

This ‘Commissars’ Order’ was extended and applied by Himler and Heydrich to all Russian Jews, in whom they saw, according to their ideology as described above, the exponents of the communist world outlook.

The extermination of Russian Jewry was effected through mass executions by shooting, the carrying out of which was allotted to the so-called Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police. It is not necessary to enter into the details of these matters, as they are well-known owing to the evidence of Ohlendorf at Nuremberg. In this ‘Commissars’ Order’ Eichmann saw a possibility of exterminating the remaining Jews.

By agreement with Mueller and Heydrich he began, in the autumn of 1941, to expel Jews from the
confines of the Reich, Austria, Bohemia and Moravia towards those areas in which the ‘Commissars’ Order’ was valid, principally to Riga and to Minsk. In Riga, Eichmann’s friend Stahlecker was the head of the Einsatzgruppe.

This deportation arose out of the personal initiative of Eichmann, as he himself admitted, and on the other hand Theresienstadt was established at that time as a ‘model ghetto.’ Already in view of this – out of this contradiction – all this development could be traced as part of a gradual process.

From the summer of 1941 Eichmann began in an increasing measure, to deal with the Jews of Poland. In
various instances, he himself, apparently following an order by Himmler, carried out mass executions in Poland too. In particular his relations became closer with the ‘Chief of the SS and Police’ in Lublin, the man who had been the Austrian Gauleiter, Odilo Globocnik, whom Eichmann had already known from Austria.

According to the details which Eichmann himself related to me, Globocnik was the first person who operated gas chambers for the mass extermination of human beings. In  the area under his command, Globocnik set up large work camps for Jews; he got rid of those who were unfit for work in the manner described. According to Eichmann’s explanations, Globocnik’s ‘process’ was ‘less likely to attract attention’ than mass shootings, seeing that in various instances units of the police refused to carry
out the execution of women and children.

Furthermore, for the purposes of removing traces of the killings, a special unit was set up which was formally under the orders of Eichmann – the ‘Commando 1005,’ which was under the command of Standartenfuehrer Blobel. The second wave of intensification took place after the entry into the War of the United States. Even in the internal German propaganda it was possible to discern this clearly. Externally this found expression in the introduction of the ‘yellow badge’ as a sign for recognizing Jews.”

Presiding Judge: In the original this is on page 5. You were referring to the page of the copy when you said 8 or 9.

Attorney General: That is very likely. I have a written marginal note 8 of the handwritten text.

Presiding Judge: This is page 5.

Attorney General: The following extract is a short excerpt and it appears on my page 12 – perhaps this, too, is on the copies, in the middle of the page:

“As the War progressed and it became clear that a German victory was not possible, Eichmann continued to press for the complete implementation of the deportations and exterminations. For this reason he even went himself to Budapest with a unit to which he attached most of his aides.”

On our page 13 Wisliceny says the following:

“In conclusion I should like to define the reasons why Eichmann could have had such success in his operations:

(1) Eichmann enjoyed the confidence of Himmler, Heydrich and Mueller. Also when the Office was headed by Kaltenbrunner, he continued to preserve absolutely his standing of trust.

(2) On the basis of Goering’s order of summer 1941, it was within Eichmann’s power totally to nullify the
objectives of the lower-ranking authorities.

(3) In regard to the occupied areas and the Allied countries, Eichmann’s activities were not interfered
with in any way by Ribbentrop and the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office completely subjected itself to
Eichmann’s initiative.

(4) The Reich Ministry of Transport always placed at Eichmann’s disposal the requisite means of
transportation by giving him priority, despite all the difficulties in securing the required rolling stock.
The whole matter of the deportations depended entirely on the supply of railway waggons. This showed itself most clearly in the case of Greece and Hungary.

(5) Eichmann’s aides were accustomed to obeying his orders blindly. Only Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey in Hungary, apart from myself, tried to object. It was impossible to prompt these people, as I tried to do on several occasions by appealing to their intelligence into quiet sabotage or a slow-down which in view of the swift development of the War, could have meant saving thousands of people. Eichmann’s personal influence over these men, most of them primitive, was too great.”

Presiding Judge: Completely primitive.

Previous | Index | Next