The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Attorney General: That is possible.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps Dr. Servatius will define his final position before us on the admissibility of the part that is ready, without waiting for that single film.

Attorney General: We shall be able to arrange a showing of the film to Dr. Servatius at any time convenient to him.

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned the narrow size reel will be sufficient for this viewing, and there will be no need to enlarge it. But with regard to the time of showing, I would request you not to deprive me of the little time available to me for the work of the defence, for the showing of the films. Otherwise I shall really not be able to carry on my duties in the time allotted to me.

Presiding Judge: How much time will all the films take?

Attorney General: Not more than one hour. But we are not going to show them all at once, but section by section, which will also be authenticated section by section.

Presiding Judge: Would you not be able to screen this film, which apparently has to be converted to another size, on another projector?

Attorney General: This can be done in a cinema hall, because the machines are built into their cabins. These are not machines that can easily be moved around. Nevertheless we shall make all the arrangements that are possible.

Presiding Judge: This means that screening this particular film will not involve you in expense before it is converted?

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: So let us raise this matter again on Tuesday morning and by then you will have been able to show the films to Dr. Servatius, and in the meantime you will be able to show us the references in the law reports.

Attorney General: Of course, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume that it would be desirable that the Accused should be present when the films are screened for inspection, for he would be in a better position than I to identify the uniforms.

Attorney General: This is feasible in regard to the screening of those films which can be shown here on the wall of this court-room, but, would not be practicable in the case of the film which would have to be shown in a cinema hall.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, will you be satisfied with that?

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned, this is likely to be sufficient.

Attorney General: We shall see to it that these films are shown to Defence Counsel here in this hall in the presence of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Not during the course of a session.

Attorney General: No, not when a Session is in progress.

Presiding Judge: What do we have next?

State Attorney Bach: First, I should like to submit now the original affidavit of Dr. Petoe which I did not have previously. It is document No. 7.

I now have, Your Honour, a number of reports in the Hungarian language, together with a copy of the Hebrew translation. These documents are contained in that same collection which I submitted to the Court earlier. I would suggest that perhaps the Court could return this volume to us at a later stage and then we would be able to mark the appropriate exhibit number on each page.

Presiding Judge: That was report T/1154.

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Later on. Mr. Bodenheimer, please give this to Mr. Bach so that he may mark the extracts submitted by him.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1314. These are the minutes of a meeting which took place in the office of the Mayor in the capital of the Nagybanya Province. Actually the only significance here is in what is said at the end of the second paragraph of the translation.

The meeting took place on 26 April 1944, and at the bottom of the second page, it says who participated in this meeting. Here there is the name of the Hungarian police officer, and after that an officer of the Hungarian gendarmerie, and on the last page appears SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit.

Dr. Servatius: I have before me only the Hungarian report and since we are here dealing with this important Hungarian matter I would ask to be given a German translation.

State Attorney Bach: We supplied the German translation of all these reports to Mr. Wechtenbruch, Defence Counsel’s assistant. Perhaps they are not at the moment in Dr. Servatius’ file, but they were translated and given to him.

Dr. Servatius: It is quite possible that they are in my files, but I do not have them here. I shall check this. Consequently I do not wish to voice my reservations for the time being.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, if Dr. Servatius does not find it – please give him another copy of the German translation.

State Attorney Bach: Certainly.

[The Accused passes a document to Dr. Servatius].

Dr. Servatius: Meanwhile I have received it from the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1158.

State Attorney Bach: Prosecution document No. 1315 is a report by the officer Ferenczy, of whom we have already heard, a liaison officer of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie attached to the German security police. Here he submits a report from Kolozvar dated 3 May 1944. He speaks here of camps for the concentration of Jews in various areas, and amongst them Kolozva, and he says:

“In these localities and also in the areas annexed to them, representatives of the local authorities and officers of the police were conducting the operations of rounding up the Jews in conjunction with a committee consisting of officers of the headquarters of the gendarmerie and in cooperation with the German consultative bodies who were sent to them.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1159.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is Prosecution document No. 6316. Once again, it is a report of the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, this time dated 9 May 1944. Here he gives details of the number of Jews in the various assembly camps. And in paragraph 3 of the report he says that “The joint Hungarian-German committee has drawn up the plan for deporting the Jews. The deportations will begin on the 15th and will end on 11th June.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1160.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is Prosecution document No. 1317. Once again it is a report by the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, dated 10 May 1944. Once again it is a report on the number of Jews in the camps, and thereafter, on the second page of the translation, he writes:

“The local commander of the German Security Police – who relied on an agreement with the Honved Ministry – this morning received a telephonic instruction from the headquarters in Budapest, to the effect that in those areas in which Jews were being rounded up, they would not be called up for labour services. In view of the fact that for men of the labour services there exist two conflicting orders, I have given orders – pending final instructions – to forbid the serving of calling up notices in the camps.”

This refers to the Hungarian labour service, to which the Jews in the end were eager to be summoned. And here, therefore, an order is given by the commander of the representative of the Security Police and the SD in Kolozvar to stop serving out those call-up orders.

Judge Halevi: Kolozsvar – is that Cluj?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1161.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is No. 1318. This is a meeting that, again, took place in the office of the Mayor of the district capital, Nagybanya, and here there is a discussion about a meeting that had been held in Munkacs – a place we have heard about from one of the witnesses. It says here that it was a meeting in which Ferenczy participated, for the one side, and for the German side a Gestapo officer, Dr. Marton Zoeldi, took part.

The subject of the discussion is stated: Deportation of the Jews – which would begin on 14 May – and the nationality of those Jews whom it was possible to deport. Thereafter it says that 110 trains would transport the Jews and that they would be marked “D.A. Umsiedler” (persons resettled).

Presiding Judge: One hundred and ten trains?

State Attorney Bach: One hundred and ten trains. The mark “D.A. Umsiedler,” “the transfer of German labourers, 40 “G” freight-cars, 70 persons in each one together with their effects. The commander at the place of loading, who is to be a German officer or a Hungarian officer of the gendarmerie, is to request the railway station-master for the freight-cars five hours before loading and he is further to request him to fix a place for loading at some distance from the station itself.

Presiding Judge: This was for co-ordination with the Hungarians, but there is no mention of Slovakians here.

State Attorney Bach: No, here only Hungarians are mentioned.

Presiding Judge: This was on the question of transportation, is that not so?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: This was preceded by some agreement with the Slovakian railway management by Hungary, Slovakia and Germany. But here they have already reached the stage of implementation, assuming that they have 110 freight-cars and all that.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. That is how I understand this report. I would draw attention to what appears on page 2. Here it says: “Sick people and their relatives will travel on the last train.” And at the end of the page it says: “In case of necessity it will also be possible to load 100 people into one car. They can be packed in like herrings, for the Germans need strong people. Anyone who cannot stand up to it, will fall. Ladies of fashion are not needed there, in Germany.”

Presiding Judge: By “herrings” do you refer to salted fish? Why was this translation used?

State Attorney Bach: This is the way it has been translated. At the end it states that Ferenczy said:

“Only the most essential workers, doctors, should remain, with their families. The German advisor will determine who they are. They are doing this expertly, they have the know-how, and consequently the selection is also their task.”

Presiding Judge: Which region is referred to here? Is it the whole of Hungary?

State Attorney Bach: I think that this meeting – I also conclude this from the number of trains – dealt in fact with all the provincial towns.

Judge Halevi: This works out exactly at the total of 330,000 Jews which the Witness Freudiger: mentioned. 110 times 3,000 is 330,000.

State Attorney Bach: Later on we shall submit comprehensive reports from both the German and the Hungarian sides on the total number of Jews deported, when they were deported and in what stages.

Judge Halevi: At the first stage the reference was to 330,000 – and that is it.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. It corresponds
exactly.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1162.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our document No. 1319. Again it is a report of Ferenczy, dated 29 May 1944.  The report was written in Munkacs. Here, in paragraph 2, it says:

“The German Security Police suggests, and even expresses its wish, that the Jews being sent on the transports should take with them food for the duration of the journey – for at least five days.”

“The German Security Police based this attitude on its experience that they would be able to speed up the deportation of the Jews who had thus far been assembled, if the concentration of the Jews did not extend over large areas, but that they should be carried out simultaneously in small areas and there with appropriate forces, and they should be rounded up in the shortest possible time and in the most determined manner and they should be transferred to camps and their deportation should start immediately; forces of the German Security Police led by German officers should take upon themselves the control over the camps and also the technical implementation of future loadings.”

“External guarding and security of the camps would be carried out by Hungarian executive authorities, under their own command. This arrangement was necessary owing to the relations of command which we discovered in the assembly camp at Ungvar.”

He describes here an incident where the deputy town clerk allowed prominent Jews to leave the camp, and under such circumstances a number of prominent Jews and property owners were enabled to escape. In consequence of this action it was decided to transfer the command to the Germans.

I also draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 6. Here it says:

“It is the wish of the German Security Police, for tactical reasons, that the meetings in the Ministry of the Interior should take place only a few days before the commencement of the cleansing operation in a particular region, and only a very limited circle should participate.” In paragraph 7 it says:

“The branches of the German Security Police have received orders to the effect that, contrary to the practice that has existed hitherto, sick people, the aged and their relatives must be the first to be dispatched with each transport.”
Thereafter it mentions the labour service and says that there still are call-up notices for labour service sent to a few Jews, despite the German prohibition. This is stated in paragraph 8. At the end it says: “The German Security Police arrested these members of the labour service at Ungvar on 27 May, confiscated the aforementioned call-up orders and delivered them to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.” In paragraph 10 it mentions the suicide of Jews referred to in the report.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1163.

Judge Halevi: In the previous document it states: “Dated…” and the actual date on which the meeting at Munkacs took place is not mentioned.

State Attorney Bach: Is Your Honour referring to document
No. 1318?

Judge Halevi: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: I understand that it was the month of May. As the Court can see, the date is blurred. If the Court will look at the original document, it will see that a rubber stamp was placed exactly on the spot, and hence it is difficult to read the precise date. At any rate it is clear that it was in the month of May, and that the subject was: Deportations which are to begin on 14 May. It therefore must have been between the 1st and the 14th of May.

Interpreter: This mark is the Roman numeral V and there is no doubt that the word “HO” indicates the month May.

Presiding Judge: Can you not decipher more than that?

Translator: Since there is a stamp here, it is impossible to read anything more. The numbers 94 appear here – that is to say it was in the year 1944.

Previous | Index | Next

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

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

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

Attorney General: Yes – within that ambit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Or in the fourth volume?

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

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

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

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

Attorney General: Then we shall have no alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. About how many pages would that be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness Musmanno: Yes, they are arranged consecutively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney General: Certainly, Your Honour.

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

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

Attorney General: Thank you, Your Honour.

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

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

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

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

A. That is correct.

Presiding Judge: Who makes this declaration – Schulz himself?

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

Presiding Judge: Are you submitting it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have further copies of this document?

Attorney General: To my regret, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next