The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Gisi Fleischmann

State Attorney Bach: In Budapest when did you first come into contact with the leaders of Slovakian Jewry, Gisi Fleischmann, Rabbi Weissmandel, in connection with rescue operations for the Jews?

Witness Freudiger: I myself was already in contact with them at the end of 1941, since they were my personal friends, and I knew them all. My wife is from Bratislava – she was the daughter of the late Rabbi of Bratislava – I knew them all personally. But in 1942, when the restrictive decrees began in Slovakia, in the summer of 1942, Dr. Abeles and the late Gisi Fleischmann came as a delegation to Budapest to seek funds for the labour camp there – I think this was in Sered and a few other places.

They asked for money, since they did not have any. It would have cost a large amount in order to supply them with food and other necessities at the labour camp. They did not meet with much success in Budapest, since official Jewry could not – I do not want to say that it was unwilling – but it was unable to help them, for as I have said, there was a strict law against this.

Presiding Judge: What do you mean by “official Jewry”?

Witness Freudiger: The leaders of the community, the heads of the Union of Communities, the Zionist Organization, for example, who had funds and were unable to hand them over. I gave them, from the funds of my congregation, the Orthodox congregation, 100,000 pengoe. This is what they received after their first visit.

Q. How much was 100,000 pengoe?

A. Then it was worth 40,000 Swiss francs. I remember that, since at the time we made the calculation.

State Attorney Bach: Were you also in contact with Dr. Abeles?

Guenter Dieter Wisliceny

Witness Freudiger: Yes. He was my guest for the Sabbath. I can still remember that he told me that they were building bunkers in Bratislava. I simply could not understand it. I asked, “What is a bunker, and why do you have to make one?” Subsequently, in September 1942, we already had the Wisliceny affair.

Q. When did you first know about the negotiations with Wisliceny?

A. Then, in September 1942.

Q. Who informed you about it?

A. Rabbi Weissmandel informed me. He asked us for money and said that they had made a promise to him. I do not remember any more if the amount discussed was 40,000 dollars.

Q. To whom did they promise?

A. To Wisliceny.

Q. For what?

A. To stop the deportations. They had already deported 58,000. But there were another 1,000-3,000 Jews awaiting deportation. They had made a deal with Wisliceny to the effect that, if they gave him 40,000 to 50,000 dollars, he would stop the deportation.

Q. At that stage had you already heard of the name Adolf Eichmann?

A. Yes. I heard at that time that Adolf Eichmann had come to Bratislava and had given instructions to Wisliceny; he had remained there with Wisliceny to carry out the deportation of the Jews and had spent two or three days there in Bratislava, and that he had left thereafter.

Q. And now, Mr. Freudiger, please tell the Court what happened on 19 March 1944, as far as your experience went.

A. On 19 March 1944 I received a personal telephone call at six in the morning – it was a notification which came from one of the senior officials of the Hungarian police. He had phoned my cousin with the information that the German army had crossed the Hungarian border during the night. He phoned my cousin, and my cousin phoned me.

I simply did not want to believe him, and I said: “What are the Germans doing in Hungary? And did the Hungarians allow the Germans to come in?” In the afternoon I wanted to go to the offices of our community, the Orthodox congregation. At the bottom of the stairs I saw a German army car with machine guns. I did not go up – I went to another congregation. I saw the same thing there.

The next morning we received a message that we had to come to the office of the Neologue community – that was the largest community in Budapest – all the community heads of Budapest had to assemble there, together with the rabbis and the community leaders. As far as the Orthodox community was concerned, I did not want our rabbis to go. So two of us went, Dr. Emil Deutsch and I.

Q. Where did you go to?

A. To the office of the Neologue community.

Q. Did you know what was the purpose of this meeting?

A. They told us that we would meet the Germans there. I know that Hofrat Stern had telephoned from the office of the Neologue community to the Ministry of Religions, which was in charge of all the communities, in order to enquire: “We have received the order – what are we to do?” They said they were unable to give an answer. They telephoned to the Prime Minister’s office, where they were told that we would receive a reply the following morning through the police. The next morning, Monday, 20 March, they telephoned the police. The reply was: “Whatever the Germans say – do.” We understood that they were going to hand us over to the Germans.

Q. Did they hand you over?

A. When they replied that we should do whatever the Germans told us to do, and that the Hungarians did not want to intervene, this meant that they were handing us over.

Q. You say that you, together with another person, represented the Orthodox community. How many Jews altogether appeared at that meeting?

A. I think about fifteen. The whole executive of the Neologue community and of the Buda community. There were two rabbis from the Neologue community – about fifteen men.

Q. This meeting took place on 20 March?

A. On 20 March, at 10:00-10:30 in the morning.

Q. What did you fear would actually happen to you?

A. We were not afraid.

Q. Did some of the Jewish representatives come along with suitcases? Do you remember anything about that?

A. No.

Q. Who represented the Germans at that meeting?

A. Three officers came, one man in mufti, and a girl typist. There was one soldier with an automatic pistol. They sat along one side of the table. One of the officers opened by saying:

“You ought to know that, as from this moment, all the affairs of Hungarian Jewry, of the Jews, have been transferred to the authority of the SS.”

Presiding Judge: Were these army officers or SS?

Witness Freudiger: I did not know at the time. Later on I got to know that he was from the SS – I did not know the German army then.

State Attorney Bach: Who was the person who said that?

Witness Freudiger: Krumey. In a conversation he said there would certainly be some economic regulations, but everything would be fine. It would be possible to proceed with cultural and religious life. We should ensure that people remained quiet and maintained order, and everything would be fine – apart from certain things that would occur, for it had to be understood that there was a war on, and that in war sacrifices had to be made. After that he demanded to be given the structure of all the communities; he wanted a profile of all the communities, who their leaders were.

We were to send it to him. Hofrat Stern, who was at the meeting, agreed. I sat by his side – I did not even know with whom we were talking. I asked: “May I be permitted to ask to whom this must be sent.” Then he said: “Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey.” I then asked: “Where should it be sent to?” And he replied: “To the Astoria Hotel.” This was one of the best hotels in Budapest. I asked: “Perhaps we may also be permitted to know who the other officers are?” One of them said: “Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny” – the other did not give his name, but I know who he was, he was Hauptsturmfuehrer Hunsche – I met him subsequently.

Q. The soldier who held the automatic pistol – where did he
point it during the meeting?

A. He pointed it at us.

Q. For the whole duration of that meeting?

A. All the time.

Q. Were you seated or standing at the meeting?

A. We were seated.

Q. How long did this meeting last?

A. Half an hour at the most.

Q. I gather from your remarks that the general tone was reassuring?

A. Yes, definitely.

Q. Did it also have an effect on you people?

A. On us? I do not know how to answer that. I can say how it affected me.

Q. How did it affect you? Was it possible also to sense how it influenced the others?

A. No, no, these are two different matters – for as soon as I heard Wisliceny’s name, my approach to the whole affair was different.

Q. If that is so, what was your attitude?

A. My attitude was that, after what had happened in Slovakia, where Wisliceny expelled all the Jews from Slovakia, now he had come here, to Hungary – they had not sent him for a sight-seeing tour of Budapest.

On the other hand, I knew that he had ultimately received the money I had sent to Slovakia. I knew that we had to find a way to enable us to establish contact with Wisliceny. I informed Dr. Karl Wilhelm, one of the intelligent people of the Neologue community, of this fact – he was a clever lawyer.

Q. At this meeting, were further meetings arranged?

A. Yes. That was on Monday. At the end of the meeting Krumey told us to arrange a larger meeting, with more participants, for Tuesday afternoon at 4:00-4:30, and to invite all the leaders of the Jewish institutions of Budapest – possibly 40-50 people – for he wanted to meet them.

Q. Was anything arranged at that meeting about the setting up of a central Jewish committee?

A. Not at that meeting, as far as I remember. I do not know any more whether it was at the first or the second meeting when they told us that all the community institutions would be abolished. They wanted to have a centralized address, a responsible one, with which they could be in contact.

Q. It is not important, for the moment, whether this happened at the first meeting or the following one, but how many people, how many representatives were supposed to be on that committee which was to be responsible to the Germans?

A. They said there ought to be four or five persons. They did not call it a “Judenrat.” They wanted to reassure us, for we knew what a Judenrat meant. They called it the “Central Committee” – the Central Committee of the Jewish Community. In the end, on the following day, the Central Committee was appointed (let me also use this term), consisting of seven persons. At the head of this committee was Hofrat Stern. There were seven of us, and I was one of them.

Q. Were you one of the members?

A. There were two representatives of the Orthodox community, and I was one of them.

Q. When were the first Jews arrested by the Germans?

A. They began making arrests already on the night of the first day they came. But, as far as I recall, on that first day the action was not against Jews. Anti-Nazi politicians were seized, Social-Democratic leaders, certain journalists – they began with them. On the second and the third nights, they commenced detaining hundreds of prominent, distinguished Jews in all spheres – industrialists, financiers, anyone who was well-known in the Jewish community of Budapest – they arrested almost all of them.

Q. Do you know anything about searches and arrests conducted and carried out at the railway stations?

A. Yes. They had entered on 19 March, and forthwith – I was informed of this on the following day – all the Jews who were found at the railway station that night – the night of 19 March – and thereafter on the Monday morning – all of them were arrested and sent, first of all, to the police station. At the police station there was a temporary gaol.

Later on, a day or two later, they were sent to Kistarcsa. They numbered about 1,500. My brother-in-law was also amongst those seized. He was arrested simply because he had with him a Slovakian Jew whom he was accompanying to the railway station, and whom he thought he could smuggle out to Oradea. The Slovakian Jew was in the forests together with non-Jews – he left, but my brother-in-law was arrested.

Q. Mr. Freudiger, you wanted to say something about your brother. When did they arrest him?

A. On Tuesday morning, they wanted to arrest my cousin – they came to him at night but did not find him. They came to our factory where they found my brother, Shmuel Freudiger; they seized him and took him to the Rabbinical Seminary, which they had converted into a temporary gaol.

It was a very large building, and it also had a dormitory – which could be turned into a prison building. This actually brought me to the beginning of my contact with Wisliceny.

Q. This is really my next question: When, and under what circumstances, did you have your first private conversation with Wisliceny?

A. This was on the Tuesday when my brother was arrested at the factory. I was also at the factory, but they did not find me.

Q. Mr. Freudiger, perhaps you can tell us briefly, when did you go to Wisliceny, and what was the object of your meeting?

A. I went to Wisliceny because I wanted to do something for the sake of my brother. I said to myself that I would go to Wisliceny.

Q. Where did you go to?

A. I went to the Hotel Astoria. An SS soldier was standing outside and asked me – I was wearing a beard, which was still red then, and not white, and he could see I was Jewish – he asked me: “What do you want here?” I told him that I wanted to speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny. He allowed me to enter. I came up to him and said that I wished to speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer von Wisliceny, to Baron von Wisliceny.

Presiding Judge: Baron von Wisliceny?

Witness Freudiger: He knew that we had written about him in letters from Slovakia in a code, either as “Baron” or “Willi” – that was his cover name.

State Attorney Bach: Was he actually a Baron?

Witness Freudiger: I do not know – I think he was Dieter von Wisliceny. Later on, after he had looked at me, he said: “Didn’t I see you yesterday at the meeting?” I told him I had been there, my name was Philipp von Freudiger, I had come to tell him that I would not be able to come to the meeting in the afternoon, as they had arrested my brother.

My brother had left a note for me to the effect that I, too, had to come to the Rabbinical Seminary, and if I failed to come, he did not know what they would do to him. He had written this at the demand of the SS which had taken him into custody, and they had demanded that he should leave a note for me that I should also come. I informed Wisliceny that I could not come to the meeting in the afternoon, since I had to go to the Rabbinical Seminary. Then Wisliceny said to me: “They will not do anything to your brother – I am the  commander there. Come to the meeting this afternoon, and I want to speak to you after the meeting.”

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, is this evidence going to continue?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour, it is still going to continue.

Presiding Judge: We shall adjourn the Session now. The next Session will be tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock. The witness must also be present.

Previous | Index | Next

Judge Halevi: Is this a sworn statement by Wisliceny? What is it?

State Attorney Bach: This is actually not a sworn statement. Before the day is over we will call to the stand a witness who was in Bratislava during and after Wisliceny’s trial; as a matter of fact, the documents that we have submitted “Cell 133,” “Cell 106,” were brought to Israel by this witness who, through the Czechoslovak prosecution, asked Wisliceny to reply to questions concerning certain specific subjects, such as the Mufti; one of these questions was: “What do you know about the Fiala affair and the article in the Grenzbote?”

Wisliceny gave his replies to these questions in writing; the original document is in our possession, here.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 49

We accept Wisliceny’s statement concerning the article that appeared in the newspaper Grenzbote, on the grounds mentioned in our Decision No. 7.

State Attorney Bach: Wisliceny states here that he has known the editor of Grenzbote, Fritz Fiala, since 1940. In the spring of 1942, during the deportation of the Jews of Slovakia, he met Fiala who asked him for information where the Jews were being expelled to, and said that it would reassure the population if at some point a newspaperman would be able to see a labour camp in Poland and would then publish appropriate articles in the Slovak press.

Wisliceny mentioned this to Eichmann, who at that point did not take a stand on Fiala’s request, but in the summer of 1942 Eichmann called Wisliceny and told him that Himmler, with Ribbentrop’s agreement, had ordered that articles be published in the foreign press about the Jewish labour camps, as counter-propaganda.

Eichmann was considering a visit to Theresienstadt, but still he asked what sort of newspaperman that Slovak was. Wisliceny then gave Eichmann the details, and Eichmann decided that they would also visit Auschwitz and said that he would tell Hoess that Fiala be permitted to talk to Slovak and French Jews in the labour camp.

The program for the journey was drawn up by Eichmann. Wisliceny then describes the journey. First they went to  Zilina, where Fiala made a tour of the place, and from there they proceeded to Katowice, where they had to report to the Stapo post, to meet with a Kriminalkommissar whom Eichmann had appointed to be their guide.

From there they went to Sosnowiec, and finally to Auschwitz. There they were received by Hoess who showed them a sleeping hall, a wash room, a very modern kitchen, and a hall in which the camp orchestra was just at that time having a rehearsal. Fiala was also given the opportunity to talk with some Jews from Slovakia and France, and to take their photos. The tour ended in the afternoon.

Wisliceny adds: “We did not see anything in Auschwitz that gave even the faintest hint of the existence of gas chambers and crematoria.” On their return to Bratislava Fiala mentioned to Wisliceny that he was an honorary member of the Security Service, something that Wisliceny had long been aware of.

The articles Fiala wrote were sent to Eichmann by courier, and Eichmann passed them on to Himmler; Eichmann then sent  Regierungsrat Bosshammer, a member of the staff of his  Section, to Vienna, where he met with Wisliceny and demanded that certain changes be made in Fiala’s articles. But Fiala, as a well-known journalist, was reluctant to accept stylistic changes, and Bosshammer waived most of the objections. The articles were then published in the Slovak press. Wisliceny is of the opinion that Fiala thus was a victim of deception.

The next document is No. 143 which was handed to the Accused and given No. T/37(70). This is the Accused’s reply to the letter I submitted earlier, on the deportation of Slovakia’s Jews, the pastoral letter of the Slovak bishops. In his letter Eichmann informs von Thadden of the tour in which the editor-in-chief of the Grenzbote, Fiala, had taken part on the Slovak side, and of the article which was published in a large number of newspapers; Eichmann lists them and adds that the newspapers can be obtained from the Adviser, Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny.

He then adds: “In addition, in order to counter the atrocity legends about the fate of the Jews who had been evacuated from Slovakia, one can also point to the postal communication of these Jews with Slovakia which pass centrally through the Adviser on Jewish Affairs at the German legation in Bratislava which, e.g. in February-March this year, added up to to over 1,000 letters and postcards, for Slovakia only.”

To quote the original German: “Im uebrigen kann zur Abwehr der ueber das Schicksal der evakuierten Juden in der Slowakei umgehenden Greuelmaerchen auf den Postverkehr dieser Juden nach der Slowakei verwiesen werden, der zentral ueber den Berater fuer Judenfragen bei der Deutschen Gesandschaft in Pressburg geleitet wird und fuer Februar-Maeerz ds. Jrs. beispielsweise ueber 1,000 Briefe und Karten allein fuer die Slowakei betrug. He adds that, on the part of the Accused’s office there are no objections to these letters and postcards being read. Signed: Eichmann.

The Accused’s reaction to this document appears on page 1222. On page 1230 Inspector Less asks him: “Was it not the practice that the expelled Jews who were brought to extermination camps were forced to write postcards in which they said that they were well, and then the Jews were killed and the postcards arrived?”

The Accused answered: “I, too, have heard about that, but it was not done in every case.” Question: “But such things were done?” Answer by the Accused: “Yes, yes.”

Judge Halevi: The pastoral letter, the “Hirtenbrief, which was attached to the document that you submitted – is that here?

State Attorney Bach: The pastoral letter itself is not here, only its contents are given in that letter.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1108.

State Attorney Bach: Next is our document No. 144, which was also handed to the Accused and given No. T/37(71). This is a response to Eichmann’s above-mentioned letter, from Ludin, who reports to the Foreign Ministry that Eichmann’s letter, dated 2 June 1943, the last Exhibit, was not satisfactory, and that Dr. Tuka insists on a visit to the camps; Ludin asks whether it is nevertheless possible to arrange for a visit to the camps in the East, in one way or another.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1109.

State Attorney Bach: Ludin writes that Tuka told him that many of the members of the Council of Ministers are of the opinion that sending Jews to camps outside Slovakia means their physical liquidation. And now the final reply on this subject, a letter signed by Eichmann – our document No. 145, which was handed to the Accused and given No. T/37(72). In this letter to von Thadden, in reply to the latter’s letter of 30 November 1943, Eichmann states:

“Wisliceny, the Adviser on Jewish Affairs at the German legation in Bratislava, who had been temporarily sent to Greece, has been ordered to resume his duties in Bratislava without delay. He has received appropriate instructions and will again raise with Minister of the Interior Mach the implementation of the deportation of Slovakia’s Jews. After results of these talks will be reported, the possibility of a Slovak Commission visiting the Jewish camps will be reexamined.”

This is not the last letter on the subject; it is an interim reply, in which Eichmann says that he will again look into the matter.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1110.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1017. This is again a reply by von Thadden to Eichmann’s letter, in which he states that refusal to permit visits to the camps or delay in giving a reply to that request will hamper the further deportation of Jews and may put an end to any further deportation of Jews to the East.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1111.

State Attorney Bach: And now the final document I referred to earlier, our No. 146, which was handed to the Accused and given No. T/37(73). Here the Accused says that a visit to the Jewish camps would be difficult to arrange, but there would be no objections to a visit by a Slovak commission elsewhere, for example to Theresienstadt, and the date for such a visit could be fixed. Let me quote the final sentence, which is characteristic:

“It may be assumed that this will allay the concerns voiced by various members of the Slovak Government – which in themselves are completely unjustified – and that the negotiations that are now envisaged will be brought to an appropriate conclusion” (entsprechenden Ziel).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1112.

Dr. Rudolf Kastner

State Attorney Bach: I had intended to call a witness, but perhaps first I should like to submit as evidence at this stage the report of the Budapest Relief and Rescue Committee, by Dr. Kasztner.

Presiding Judge: Are we now dealing with Hungary?

State Attorney Bach: Actually no; that report contains very many facts relating to the Slovakian chapter. I am submitting this document at the present stage for a further purpose. The witness whom I intend to call next will be asked to submit to the Court another Wisliceny document, which contains Wisliceny’s comments on that report of the Relief and Rescue Committee. I do not intend to submit that document in order to confirm or contradict the report, but the facts as related by Wisliceny add to the Kasztner report and complement it.

Logic dictates, however, that before submitting to the Court comments on a report, the report itself should first be submitted. The report, of course, deals primarily with the Hungarian chapter, but it contains many facts on the course of the negotiations with the Germans that began in Slovakia, Rabbi Weissmandel’s negotiations, of which we have heard, and the entire chapter of Gisi Fleischmann, her activities, her ultimate fate, and the efforts made by various quarters to save her life.

The report was also handed to the Accused, and he commented on it; it is already before the Court and was marked as Exhibit No. T/37(237). The Accused made comments on certain parts of the report that were pointed out to him. I believe it is hardly necessary for me to ask the Court to base itself on Section 15. We are speaking of the author of a report which was actually submitted by the person heading that committee, by virtue of his office, to the Zionist institutions who had appointed him, and who is no longer alive. The only thing that could perhaps in the ordinary way make the report not admissible as evidence is the fact that the law demands that such a report has to be contemporaneous with the events it describes.

Presiding Judge: When was this report written?

State Attorney Bach: The report was written in 1946, and it contains a wealth of details – first of all, of course, about Dr. Kasztner’s own activities, but also about the activities of the German authorities, the activities of the Accused and of Wisliceny and all those who operated in Hungary and Slovakia, about the struggle against these forces, and about the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry. With  the help of the report, we shall endeavour to present to the Court a very broad and exceedingly detailed description of those events, all the more so because the documents that we shall submit to the Court accord with the facts contained in the report.

I will mention, for example, something to which I had not attached importance on first reading. For example, Dr. Kasztner mentions that Wisliceny came to see him on a certain day and made a certain announcement to him; we have in our possession telegrams that the German authorities had received that same morning – telegrams that Kasztner could not have known about, but which together illustrate Wisliceny’s trustworthiness, and also the meaning of the events that were taking place at the time.

I mentioned earlier that generally such a report is accepted as evidence. I should now like to quote from Archbold, 33rd Edition, page 396: “Declarations by deceased persons in the course of duty or business,” where it says that such declarations and reports are admissible as evidence. “But such statement or entry is only admissible to prove those acts which it was the duty of the person making the statement or entry to include in it.”

There is no doubt that it was Dr. Kasztner’s duty to report on his mission and the actions that he took; but, as I said, it is there stated  that the report actually has to be contemporaneous. It is always a question of appraisal and of the discretion of the Court, what exactly does the term “contemporaneous” mean, and there, in order to be sure, I am asking the Court here, too, to base itself on the authority it has under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law.

Actually, in a decision in Criminal Appeal to which the attention of this Court has already been called, the Supreme Court has held that in crimes of this nature hearsay evidence and other types of evidence are admissible, which  otherwise would not be admissible. That decision concerned this very report, by Kasztner himself.

Presiding Judge: On which page is that?

State Attorney Bach: I refer to Piskei-Din, Volume 12, pp. 2084-2088. The Court also considered the date of the report and found that the date was close enough to the actual events, and that there was therefore no risk in admitting it as evidence. The Court decided to accept it.

If this applied in a case of libel, it applies all the more in the case of crimes of the kind we are dealing with here, when the reference is to the very same activities, the same events, that Dr. Kasztner’s report deals with, and when the Accused has already commented on very important portions of the report. I am therefore asking the Court to admit the report as evidence.

If the Court will accept the report in principle, I will also submit a Certificate by a Public Official, made by the Deputy District Attorney, Jerusalem District, Mr. Tel, who had submitted the report in the case I mentioned, Criminal Case No. 124/53, before the District Court of Jerusalem. Mr. Tel, through me, passed a copy of the report on to Bureau 06.

Presiding Judge: Where is the original now? Is it T/37?

State Attorney Bach: The copy that was handed over to Bureau 06 by Mr Tel – which is a photostatic copy of the original – is the one that is now in the Court file, under T/37, the original that was submitted to the District Court at the time is still in that District Court’s file, but the Court will note that the photostatic copy, which bears Mr. Tel’s signature on many of its pages, was delivered to Bureau 06, which fact is certified by the Certificate by a Public Official that was submitted to the Court together with the statement made by the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Did Mr. Tel appear in Criminal Case..?

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Tel appeared in Criminal Case 124/53 in the District Court of Jerusalem, and there the report was submitted as an exhibit; Mr. Tel confirms that the report that was submitted to this Court is a correct copy of that report.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have doubts about this document being admitted as evidence. First, it is not clear from the report itself who is the person making this report. It says in the introduction that the Budapest Committee is hereby submitting a report on its activities. I do not know who bears the responsibility for the whole of the report.

I hear from the State Attorney that it was Dr. Kasztner only; it also says in the document “presented by Dr. Kasztner.” But it is not a report that was made at the time in the performance of a duty, but it appears to me that the report was prepared rather in order to justify one single person. This is also borne out by the last pages of the report, which mention other reports by Philipp von Freudiger and Ludwig Levai – which are said to contain contradictions to this document of justification.

These two reports should be produced here, so that it can be established whether Dr. Kasztner was authorized to submit such a report as a report on behalf of a committee. In addition, it is my opinion that this report is largely irrelevant to these proceedings.

We are not concerned here with disputes between various groups on the Jewish side – we are concerned with the Accused Eichmann and not with disputes and differences that may have arisen at a time of distress. I therefore think that it would be better to do without this report in large measure, and to rely on the other testimonies that are supported by documents. In any case, I object to the admission of this report.

Presiding Judge: [ to State Attorney Bach] We do not usually  hear you in reply.

State Attorney Bach: That was an objection, and I wish to reply.

Presiding Judge: Only by way of exception, if you have something to observe.

I have a question, Mr. Bach: Do you have any proof that this document was composed by Dr. Kasztner and not by anyone else?

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Kasztner testified on that point in that trial. We can submit evidence on that, too. Apart from that, there is clear evidence that he was chairman of the committee, and that the report was submitted by him – not only submitted, but that he also bore the reponsibility for it. When a committee submits a report, then it is clear that, whether or not he wrote the report in its entirety or in part, it is the chairman who, of course, bears the responsibility for the report as such. He submits it, and he is responsible for it.

Moreover, we know that he did, in fact, write the whole report. Counsel for the Defence admits as much. I do not want to touch upon the question of credibility. Counsel for the Defence mentioned the report by Philipp von Freudiger. Mr. Freudiger will be a witness in this Court, maybe already today, and Counsel for the Defence will have the opportunity, of course, to question him also about the credibility of the report – so that he should have no problem with that.

Presiding Judge: What about Levai?

Previous | Index | Next