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

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

Judge Halevi: It may be worthwhile to read out the preceding sentence.

Attorney General: Very well.

“According to circumstances there are no longer any objections to Jews unfit for work to be liquidated by means of Brack’s appliances. In this way events like those that took place during the killing of Jews by gunfire in Vilna will be avoided. But those fit for work will be deported for labour in the East.”

We have something that was attached to it written by hand, if Your Honour will look at the handwritten notes following the document. We have deciphered these notes.

Presiding Judge: This is missing here.

Attorney General: I can give you mine.

Presiding Judge: It is missing in the original.

Attorney General: Actually I can submit the original signed by the Accused. That will complete the document that Your Honour has before you. It is a transcript of his handwriting. Your Honour will see that the matter has been settled and finalized.

Presiding Judge: The supplement will be marked Exhibit T/308a.

Judge Halevi: The handwriting is difficult to decipher.

Attorney General: We have deciphered it and the typed version is before the Presiding Judge.

Presiding Judge: Do you have another copy?

Attorney General: Unfortunately not. The Court may peruse the transcribed copy in document T/37 (188) presented to the Accused. His name is mentioned again in connection with the scheme for the extermination of Jews by the use of gas, because direct shooting ought to be avoided.

Judge Raveh: Whose handwriting is it?

Attorney General: I don’t know. The question concerned killing by gas in motor vans. They are the same vans which the Accused admitted having seen in which Jews were killed. The Court may remember this part of the statement we played back.

Presiding Judge: Was this with Globocnik?

Attorney General: No, this was in the Chelmno region. He stated that he saw naked Jews being loaded into these vans, gas being pumped in, and then the vans moved off; he described how the doors were opened and what the bodies looked like. Apparently these vans didn’t always function properly. There is a document containing criticism, complaints, and requests for repairs and supply of spare parts. This is our document No. 1099. It is from the Nuremberg proceedings.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/309.

Attorney General: It refers to vans for special treatment (Sonderbehandlung). The Court will see extensive correspondence concerning their condition and their disguise. On typed page 2 the subject is camouflage. They painted the vans like small houses with windows so that people could be duped and go in willingly. As mentioned before, we do not possess the central archives of the Gestapo. In this matter we rely on correspondence kept in other archives.

Here is a document dated 5 March 1943 addressed by IVB4 to Einsatzgruppen B and D, Commander of the Sicherheitspolizei Kiev; at that time the Einsatzgruppen already belonged to the Sicherheitspolizei, as the Court has heard from one of the witnesses. This communication went to Krakow, Riga, Mogilev and Kiev. Subject: Treatment of Jews of foreign nationality in the Generalgouvernement and in the occupied Eastern areas. At the end it says that the letter is a follow-up of a previous directive dated 30 September 1942, also issued by IVB4.

But we do not have the letter of 30 September, only this one. And what is the directive – although it bears Kaltenbrunner’s signature – concerning the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality in the occupied areas of the East? “To remove any doubt on questions that arose, I have to advise that Jews of nationality of the following foreign countries [here follows a list of the countries] and Jews without nationality are to be included in measures generally applied, or about to be applied, against them in that area.”

Department IVB4 remarks at the end: “I reserve the right to issue further instructions in due course.” In other words, they issue instructions concerning Jews to the Einsatzgruppen, to the Generalgouvernement, to the Commanders of the Sicherheitspolizei in the occupied areas of the East.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/310.

Attorney General: I turn to our document No. 1105, which relates to the previous document.

The Foreign Ministry Representative in the Ostland dwells again on the question of how to deal with Jews of foreign nationality. He is against taking Jews of those countries into consideration for an exchange with other foreign nationals, because they are likely to spread news in foreign countries which will serve as anti-German horror propaganda, if indeed they would enter the countries of exchange.

Towards the end he states: “Since in the course of time many local Jews and Jews from the Reich have been killed by gunfire in the Riga zone, as is well known, it seems doubtful whether any Jews could be taken into consideration for exchange purposes. They would use the killings for the purpose of propaganda against us abroad. The quota of such Jews could not be filled from the Eastern territory.”

Judge Halevi: What is the name of the signatory?

Attorney General: This is from the Commander of the Security Police.

Presiding Judge: The signature here is that of Windecker.

Judge Halevi: It says: Representative of the Foreign Ministry.

Attorney General: Representative of the Foreign Ministry at the Reichskommissar fuer das Ostland. Various ministries had representatives to the Kommissars.

Presiding Judge: Liaison Officers. The document will be Exhibit T/311.

Attorney General: Here is the testimony of Ohlendorf before the International Military Court. Our No. 776. He also mentions the killings by gas vans; he recounts that Stahlecker was head of Operations Group A; Nebe, of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt, Chief of Office V, was head of Operations Group B; at first Rasch was Chief of Operations Group C, and afterwards Thomas. Ohlendorf himself was Chief of Operations Group D.

He states plainly that Himmler had declared that one of their important tasks was the liquidation of Jews, men, women and children, and of Communist Party officials. This instruction was given four weeks before the attack against Russia.

He describes how he organized matters, how the victims were forced to hand over their valuables, how they were made to undress and were taken to places of execution. In his Group he was opposed to killings being carried out by one man since he did not want a particular person to bear direct responsibility. He, therefore, issued orders for a whole squad to shoot together.

He had seen Stahlecker’s report on the killing of 135,000 Jews and Communists by Operations Group A during the first four months. “I knew Stahlecker personally” – Ohlendorf states – and I believe that the document is authentic. Stahlecker’s report is before you, Your Honour, it is Exhibit No. 302. And now to the reports of the Operations Groups. Here I have to say something in advance. There are dozens of such reports. We shall not submit all of them, just some of them.

Presiding Judge: Where were they found?

Attorney General: They were found among the files of the Foreign Ministry, but they were among the N.O.s of the No. 9 proceedings – which is to say, the same documents that were in the files of the Prosecution, and some of them were presented as exhibits in the proceedings against the Operations Groups of Ohlendorf and his associates.

There are summaries, summing up special activities. Nevertheless it seems to us that the language of some reports is so important that we have to ask the Court to accept some partial reports together with the summaries.

I shall generally proceed in chronological order. Report dated 13 July 1941, our No. 1465, on activities in Minsk, where 1,050 Jews were liquidated; on Vilna where at first 321 Jews were liquidated, on the plunder of property, about 460,000 roubles worth; on Bialystok where 215 Jewish officials and Bolsheviks were shot, and about Grodno – it says that only 96 Jews were killed initially. “I have issued orders to intensify activities considerably,” the report states.

Presiding Judge: Do we know who wrote the report?

Attorney General: One of the commanders of the Einsatzkommando, since the report was sent to Department IVA1. The Court may remember from the statement by Noske, this Department of the “Hauptamt” received all the reports and sent them on to the various units. From the place of operation it may be assumed that this was Group A which was active in the North.

Presiding Judge: Yes, it says Einsatzgruppe A. I am not sure whether I announced earlier that Ohlendorf’s statement was T/312, and this report is T/313.

Attorney General: On 29 July 1941 a further report was sent about Zhitomir where four hundred Jews were shot, about the cooperation with Beltsy and the Rumanian police in Beltsy and the surroundings.

Presiding Judge: Where is Beltsy?

Attorney General: In Bessarabia.

Judge Halevi: Was it under German occupation?

Attorney General: Einsatzgruppen operated there.

Judge Halevi: Rumanian police nevertheless were there?

Attorney General: Rumanian police collaborated. This time a copy of the report is directed to IVB4. Will the Court please note, it is addressed to several Sections of Department IV, including IVB4.

Presiding Judge: This is T/314. On T/314, what is the reference on top, it is not clear at all.

Attorney General: IVA1. This is before you as T/37(280), that is where the original is.

Presiding Judge: The one you submitted just now?

Attorney General: At the moment we have our No. 864, you have it before you as No. T/37(280).

Presiding Judge: This will be T/315.

Attorney General: Will you please note that here, too, IVB4 is being informed about the shooting of 682 Jews in Czernowitz out of 1,200 detainees. Concerning 20,000 Jews in Lithuania and Latvia…

Presiding Judge: Is this No. 864?

Attorney General: It is in the original. Please see T/37(280), the complete document is there.

On 7 August 1941 a further report was dispatched with a copy to IVB4. Following an uprising and attacks against the Wehrmacht, the report states, a search for Jews was carried out, 97 were shot and 1,756 were taken hostage. In Kishinev 551 Jews had been liquidated thus far.

Presiding Judge: Is this about Bessarabia?

Attorney General: Yes, Sir.

Presiding Judge: T/316.

Attorney General: On 9 August 1941 there was another report, again to IVB4. Here the author of the report tells of his “ingenious” trick in the town of Vinnitsa, where the Jews did not want to go of their own accord.

Presiding Judge: This is almost illegible, it cannot be deciphered. How many pages are there?

Attorney General: May I ask the Court to kindly peruse the Hebrew version translated after great effort by the person who deciphered the original German, it would make things easier.

Presiding Judge: Which page now?

Attorney General: Page 9 of the original, first page of the Hebrew translation, reporting on a search in Vinnitsa where difficulties were encountered in ferreting Jews out from their hiding places. The commander of Einsatzkommando B4 then introduced a new system. He ordered the rabbi in authority of the town to bring all the Jewish intelligentsia to him within 24 hours, for clerical work.

When these intellectuals arrived they were told to come back the following day with more such people. The goal was achieved when this was done for the third time; the entire Jewish intelligentsia was seized and liquidated.

The report goes on with the liquidation in Berdichev, Tarnopol, Zhitomir, Plonsk. At the end it states that the hunting out operation in Rovno has ended, 370 Russians, 1,643 Jews were shot as instigators and collaborators.

Presiding Judge: T/317.

Attorney General: On 29 August 1941, a report is issued on operations in Smolensk, Mogilev, Orsha, Voroshilov, Mogilev-Podolski and Jampol. There, 27,500 Jews were driven back to Rumanian territory; 1,265, some of them youngsters, were shot.

Presiding Judge: T/318.

Attorney General: Here we have a report – also addressed to IVB4, summing up events for the fortnight of 15 to 31 August 1941. It mentions that 25,000 Jews of Kovno were interned in ghettos, that the Jew Kieper from Chernigov cynically admitted to have acted as Zionist propagandist from 1905, to have organized gangs against the Czar’s government and to have committed 25 murders. Kieper and his henchmen were publicly hanged on 7 August 1941 at the Zhitomir marketplace in the presence of a great part of the population.

Subsequently 402 Jews were shot. In Mogilev only 4,000 Jews remained. In Zhitomir, the report goes on, Jews remained after the entry of the German army; they were taken to clean the barracks but behaved with great impertinence and even refused to work. Out of one thousand who were told to work in the fields, only seventy appeared one day.

The Jewish Council of Elders even spread rumours that the Russians were approaching again. This was immediately used to threaten the Ukrainians. In addition, they began to traffic in stolen goods and cattle. Necessary retaliatory measures were taken in hand at once. This went to IVB4.

Presiding Judge: This summary report will be T/319.

Judge Halevi: This is a summary of only two weeks?

Attorney General: Yes, it is a summary of two weeks.

Another general report of events is dated 25 August 1941. As for the solution of the Jewish Question the report reads on page 6 of the original: “This is one of the most important problems; measures were taken to tackle it, though somewhat hesitatingly. Before the War Kishinev had 60,000 to 80,000 Jews. Many of them left when the Russians retreated:” and then we read: “At present 9,000 Jews are in the ghetto; they are grouped in labour gangs and put at the disposal of German and Rumanian authorities for salvage work, removal of wreckage and other duties.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/320.

Attorney General: We turn to September 1941. On the fourth of the month activities of the Einsatzgruppe were reported. The total of killings by Group B until 20 August 1941 was 20,000. Nor was the plundering forgotten – 1.5 million roubles. And the usual formula: Jews were rendered harmless, liquidated. There follows a detailed enumeration for how many killings of Jews each unit takes credit.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/321.

Attorney General: On 11 September a report is dispatched detailing the acts perpetrated against the Jews of Kamenets-Podolski, when 23,600 Jews were killed in three days, and 1.5 million roubles were collected.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/322.

Attorney General: 12 September 1941. We read again about Zhitomir. The local population could not be induced to act against the Jews, out of fear that the Red Army might return. As a matter of special interest they mention the discovery of Jewish Kolkhoz farms between Krivoi Rog and Dnepropetrovsk to which lower class people were sent. In order to keep them as labourers for the German conqueror they were left alive after their leadership had been liquidated and replaced by Ukrainian leaders. Their lives of course were spared only for the time being.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/323.

Attorney General: On 20 September 1941 we read about the fate of 5,000 Jews in Nikolayev and Kherson. 5,000 Jews were seized and their problem was solved. Einsatzgruppe I reports that their area of Kommando activities was cleared of Jews between 19 and 25 September. 8,890 Jews and Communists were executed.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/324.

Attorney General: On 23 September 1941 we learn again about the fate of the Jews in Minsk and other towns and townships. Complaints were received regarding insolent and provocative conduct of the Jewish lot (Judenschaft) in Monasatyrshchina and Cheslavitchi. The report reads: “It became necessary to shoot the present Judenrat and twenty other Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/325.

Attorney General: A raid was carried out in the Minsk Ghetto. About 2,500 Jews, a number of women among them, were arrested. 2,278 of them were executed within three days.

Total liquidations reported are 23,804.

On 25 September 1941 a report of Unit A is dispatched concerning the Riga Ghetto and the unpaid employment of Jewish labour by all German authorities in the towns.

Difficulties with such employers were a daily occurrence when measures by the Security Police had to be taken against these Jewish labourers. Such economic authorities in many cases submitted requests to exempt Jews from wearing the Star of David and to grant them admission to public restaurants. The Jews in question were considered indispensible for economic enterprises. Naturally such attempts are objected to and suppressed by the Security Police. The total by now has reached 75,000 Jews killed.

We are passing on to the month of October 1941.

Presiding Judge: The last document for September was T/326. The document of October will be T/327.

Attorney General: The murder of 33,371 Jews of Kiev on 29 and 30 September is contained in the report. Money, valuables, linen and clothing were secured and part of it delivered to the NSV* {*NSV = Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (National-Socialist Welfare Association)} for equipping the local “Volksdeutsche“; some of it was handed to the Town Administration. The report was drawn up by Standartenfuehrer Blobel whose name has already come up in these proceedings, Sir.

Presiding Judge: What was he then?

Attorney General: He was connected with Einsatzgruppe C, Sonderkommando 4a.

Judge Halevi: Do all these reports come from Berlin?

Attorney General: They reach a centre in the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and are distributed from there to the various units for information. There was an office which collected them. May I refer Your Honour to Noske’s statement when he explained in detail how matters were arranged. The various units sent their own reports and then a condensed report was distributed for information.

Presiding Judge: But formally every one of these documents was edited again in Berlin.

Judge Halevi: Yes, edited again and distributed.

Presiding Judge: Yes, it says so.

Attorney General: 9 October 1941. We read about executions in Minsk, Mogilev and other towns, twelve places. Something new was mentioned here. Because 21 German soldiers were killed, 2,100 Jews and gypsies were rounded up, 100 for each German, and were shot; this time by the Wehrmacht. All the Sicherheitspolizei had to do was to place the required number at the disposal of the killers. The report states a total of 30,094 dead.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/328.

Attorney General: On 25 October 1941, 3,000 Jews were killed in Vitebsk, 2,014 elsewhere in Belorussia, including Shklow  and Mogilev.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/329.

Attorney General: And now to the summary report of Einsatzgruppe C, dated 3 November 1941 and addressed to IVB4. It contains a description of the killings in Kiev. Public notices were put up on the city walls in which the Jews were ordered to register for resettlement. It was anticipated that 5,000 to 6,000 Jews would report, but to their surprise more than 30,000 reported.

The report continues in self-congratulatory style: “Owing to skilled organizational tactics, the Jews, up to the last moment before their execution, still believed that they were actually going to be resettled.” With their organizational skill they succeeded in deceiving the 31,000 Jews until the last minute by pretending that only a transfer was intended.

On page 4 we read: “Although only 75,000 Jews were liquidated until now, it has become evident that the Jewish Question cannot be solved in this manner. Initially small towns and villages were successfully made judenrein; it has been observed in the bigger towns that after each execution the Jews disappear; yet when the Kommando returns after some time, they discover that the number of Jews by far exceeds the number of those executed.” Page 4 of the original. By the way, this is T/37(277).

Presiding Judge: Here it will be T/330.

Attorney General: On 14 November 1941 again a summary report: 4,000 Jews in Mogilev, 2,200 in Gorki, 900 in Mistislawl. Einsatzgruppe B reports that a total of 45,567 were killed until November 1941.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/331.

Attorney General: And of course they requisitioned money and property, as was always done in connection with the murder. On 19 November 1941 the report cites 10,000 Jews killed in Dnepropetrovsk, 10,000 in Chernigov, where only 260 Jews remained. The 10,000 Jews of Dnepropetrovsk were shot on 13 October 1941.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/332.

Attorney General: We pass to the month of December. On 8 December 1941 a further report is sent. Again place names which were mentioned before, there are additional murders.

In Zhitomir and Rovno a total of 15,000 Jews. In connection with this report I wish to submit the statement by Hermann Friedrich Graebe which was submitted at Nuremberg, where he described the extermination of Jews in and around Rovno which he personally witnessed.

Presiding Judge: This report will be T/333.

Attorney General: I wish to point out that Graebe worked for a German company operating in that area. He saved Jewish lives, and now resides in the United States. We had in mind to bring him over for testimony. Since we have eye witnesses on the Einsatzgruppen I think we may dispense with it. I shall submit his sworn statement, which also served as a basic document for the Nuremberg judgment.

Presiding Judge: The Nuremberg judgment in the matter of Einsatzgruppen?

Attorney General: No, a description of the atrocities against Jews.

Presiding Judge: He is the man who saw the executions?

Attorney General: Saw them with his own eyes and moved
around in the area.

Judge Halevi: A German?

Attorney General: Yes, a German.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/334.

Attorney General: On 12 December 1941 a summary of Einsatzgruppe D is dispatched. We learn of the murder of 10,000 Jews in Odessa,* {*No mention is made of Odessa in Document T/335.} 2,910 Jews in Simferopol, the number up to 12 December 1941 totals 54,698 Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/335.

Attorney General: On 19 December a summary report of various units. The murders relate to various places, Mogilev, Gomel, Smolensk, Ljubawitchi, Krivoi Rog.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/336.

Attorney General: And now to the report of 14 January 1942  ith the last summary for the year of bloodshed, 1941. It says: “Estonia is judenrein”.** {**In the document: “judenfrei.“}

The Court will recall that some days later Heydrich declared at the Wannsee conference “Estonia is judenrein.” 20,000 Jews of Riga and 31,000 Jews of White Russia were killed. Progress in murders at other places. It is interesting to read what the report says about the Jews of Zagare.

“An extraordinary act was undertaken by the Jews of Zagare. On 20.11 fifty Jews escaped from the ghetto there, which had been closed already. A widespread search was immediately undertaken and most of them were apprehended and shot. For this reason preparations were made for the execution of all the Jews of Zagare. When they were transported to the place of execution the Jews, at a prearranged sign, attacked the guards and the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police.

Some Jews whom the Lithuanians had not searched thoroughly enough, drew knives and pistols and attacked the attending police crew with cries of ‘Long live Stalin, down with Hitler’ and wounded seven of them. The resistance was immediately suppressed. After 150 Jews were shot on the spot, the transport of the remaining Jews to the place of execution proceeded without disturbance.”

The total, Sir, which is not mentioned in these reports, but has been compiled by us from the various reports, amounts to more than 400,000 Jews murdered and slaughtered by the Einsatzgruppen from the day Russia was invaded until the end of 1941.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/337.

Previous | Index | Next