The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Attorney General: Now, Professor Gilbert, you say that you took Judge Musmanno to Goering and acted as translator. What was said in that conversation?

Witness Gilbert: Well, Goering said more or less the same things that he had said to me, namely that he was sure that Hitler was dead and that his political testament was genuine. This was the political testament, I’m sure you all know, in which Adolf Hitler accused the Jews of starting a war and admitted ordering their extermination as punishment.

There is psychology behind that, but we need not go into it. Then Goering, of course, was asked what he thought about this crime of extermination and he immediately said: “Well, this, of course, was not any business of mine, it was not in my jurisdiction, it was under the jurisdiction of Himmler and his boys, Heydrich, Eichmann and so on.”

Q. Did you introduce Judge Musmanno to other accused persons?

A. Yes, there were some others, but frankly I don’t remember the details at this point. There were other interpreters available, enlisted men, and some of the other accused did speak English.

Q. Did Judge Musmanno also see other accused men, such as Ribbentrop, Frank, von Schirach, von Papen and Kaltenbrunner?

A. I believe so, but frankly, I don’t remember all the rest of the details.

Q. Did you talk to Judge Musmanno about Eichmann?

A. No, we didn’t. There was really no occasion to speak about Eichmann at the time. Frankly, he wasn’t thought of very much by the major Nazi war criminals, and anyway, I had reason to believe that he was dead, at that time.

Q. What led you to the conclusion that Eichmann was dead?

A. Well, his own boss, Kaltenbrunner, told me he was dead. I remember this conversation very vividly, because it was the one day on which, I’m afraid, I lost a little of my professional aloofness. This was a day on which a survivor of Auschwitz testified how the children born in concentration camps were taken from their mothers and never seen again, and then, in the rush season of 1944, children were thrown alive into the furnaces of Auschwitz.

This was too much, even for a psychologist, and I went to Kaltenbrunner at lunch that day, and I said: “Herr Kaltenbrunner, now do you really mean to tell me that you know nothing about these things?” And he said, “No, no, really. I didn’t have anything to do with the extermination programme as such. This was done by Heydrich and Eichmann and the people in that context – Heydrich, Eichmann and the others involved in this chain of command, from Himmler on down. And,” he added, “they’re all dead.”

Q. Is that to be found on page 163 of your book?

A. Yes, this is a correct recording of the conversation I had with Kaltenbrunner, right out of my diary.

Q. Eichmann’s name is mentioned here on a further occasion, after Wisliceny’s evidence – I think on page 102. This is Goering’s response when already in gaol, after Wisliceny’s evidence.

A. Yes, I remember that conversation.

Q. What did Goering say then?

A. Well, his comment on Wisliceny’s testimony was that Wisliceny looks like a big Schweinehund only because Eichmann isn’t here – or to make it exact, that “Wisliceny is a little Schweinehund who looks like a big one, because Eichmann isn’t here.”

Q. Does this appear in your book?

A. Yes, this can be found in the original diary – all of these notes that are in the public version can be found in the original diary which I kept at the time.

Q. Did anyone else in the Nuremberg gaol talk to you about Eichmann when you were on your official mission?

A. Yes, the name came more and more into discussion, not so much amongst the main Nazi war criminals, but among the SS men of whom we had practically the entire military and police power in gaol in Nuremberg. There were many higher SS police officials, and I frequently ran across Eichmann’s name there – at first, somewhat to my surprise, but more and more a clear picture emerged.

Q. Did you speak to Oswald Pohl about Eichmann?

A. Yes. Oswald Pohl – I believe his title was Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, the Chief of the WVHA – was also in Nuremberg, and I, of course, discussed the atrocities with him.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. Well, he tried to get into a jurisdictional dispute about who had charge of the extermination programme. He, of course, disclaimed responsibility for himself, insisting that this was under Kaltenbrunner’s jurisdiction, but he made it quite clear that Eichmann was involved.

In other words, both Kaltenbrunner and Pohl tried to shove on to the other the responsibility for being in charge of the bureaucracy, but both agreed, automatically, that Eichmann was the one involved, at least one of those involved.

Q. Pohl was kept in the witness wing in the Nuremberg gaol – is that correct?

A. Yes, in the witness wing there was the rest of the top hierarchy of Nazi Germany, and they were interrogated at times, called at times as witnesses by the defendants, sometimes by the prosecution; I had access to all of those – just as free access as I had to the top Nazis themselves.

Q. Is that where you also met Ohlendorf and Rudolf Hoess?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any contact between the witnesses detained in the witness wing and the principal accused who were imprisoned in their cells?

A. No, that’s why they were kept in a separate wing. They could only be called to discuss particular cases, if they were needed as witnesses, and then the attorney might call the witness to discuss something with the defendant. Otherwise they were kept quite separate.

Q. You said that other people spoke to you about Eichmann. Who were they?

A. Well, the main one was Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz.

Q. What did Hoess say about Eichmann?

A. Well, he seemed to be unable to discuss the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, and at first I hardly noticed this, but when I started to get written statements from him for psychological purposes, the name came in more and more, and it gradually dawned on me that this man must be a key figure in the whole extermination programme.

Q. What do you mean by “it dawned on me”?

A. Well, I was starting to investigate something else. What I was really interested in was what makes these Nazis tick. So I was trying to find out what made Colonel Hoess tick, how could he do things like this? And in the orderly procedure of getting a case history on a subject, I asked Colonel Hoess to write an autobiography telling his entire history from childhood up to the present time.

Q. Are you referring to that autobiography which was published under the title “Commandant of Auschwitz”?

A. Oh, no – I am speaking of the original autobiography which Colonel Hoess wrote for me in Nuremberg, for purely psychological purposes, in his own handwriting.

Q. You have kept it in your possession until now, and it has not been published so far?

A. That’s right – that is one of the original written documents I had to confirm my conversations, and it hasn’t been published except for excerpts which I used in analysing the case of Rudolf Hoess in my second book, The Psychology of Dictatorship.

Q. Did Hoess write it before he wrote his autobiography in Poland?

A. Oh, yes – definitely; he had not yet been brought to Poland to stand trial, and I was the first one, I believe, to ask him for his case history.

Q. I notice there is a date at the top – 10 April 1946. And Hoess ended it on 12 April. It took him two days to write – would that be correct?

A. Yes, that would be about right.

Q. And it has not yet been published?

A. Not as such, no – as I said – except for brief excerpts.

Q. Is this the original handwriting of Hoess?

A. This is the original.

Q. Signed by him?

A. Yes, this is Rudolf Hoess’ signature, and this is exactly the document which he wrote for me.

Presiding Judge: Did the witness receive this from the hands of Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: I received this from Hoess himself and have kept it in my possession ever since, except that I showed it to Mr. Hausner when I came here.

Attorney General: I submit this document. To my regret we have not managed to make copies. We shall make copies for the Court. We shall ask for the document to be returned to us so that we may print it. The handwriting of Hoess is quite legible.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1169.

You will receive it back after the session, in order to make copies of it. Has Dr. Servatius seen the document?

Attorney General: Dr. Servatius has received from us a copy of the English translation, since Dr. Gilbert made an English translation for himself. And I gave him the complete translation.

Presiding Judge: Please also give him the German original.

Attorney General: Certainly.

Dr. Servatius: May I request a photocopy of the handwritten document, in order to show it to the Accused?

Attorney General: I have no objection to Defence Counsel receiving the document and showing it to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: The document will be returned to you, and you can submit it to Defence Counsel.

Attorney General: I have a manuscript of Hoess which has also not yet been published. I shall let him have it immediately.

I understand that Eichmann is mentioned in the autobiography written by Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: Yes, I noticed that. That is how I began to get the impression that Colonel Hoess cannot describe the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, even though he is only supposed to be writing a personal autobiography for psychological purposes.

Q. At a later stage we shall draw the Court’s attention to what it says there.

Tell me, Professor Gilbert, did Hoess testify in Court?

A. Yes. He was a witness for Kaltenbrunner.

Q. He gave evidence, or at any rate evidence was led, showing that 2,500,000 men, women and children had been exterminated in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

A. Yes.

Q. What was the effect of this evidence on the other accused in that trial, as far as you remember?

A. Well, this was one of the main psychological problems at the trial. The atrocity evidence of the extermination and the films of the atrocities and concentration camps sometimes had a very shocking effect on the defendants themselves, and I was very anxious to find out just how genuine this was, and what their guilt reactions were from a psychological point of view.

Q. Do you remember what Hans Frank said to you?

A. Yes. In connection with the testimony of Rudolf Hoess, he stopped me in the hall on the way to lunch or from lunch and said: “Captain Gilbert, this was the lowest point of the trial. Just imagine a man sitting there and saying out of his own mouth: I murdered two and a half million men, women, and children.” Oh yes, I remember the additional comment: “People will talk about this for a thousand years.”

Q. Do you recall the testimony of Keitel who, I believe, was the Chief of the German General Staff?

A. That’s right. I recall Keitel’s reaction to the atrocities particularly vividly in connection with the atrocities films. And when I saw him in the cell later, he said: “Those dirty SS swine! If I had known what they were up to, I would have told my son, I’ll shoot you rather than let you join the SS.” He was, of course, at the same time trying to indicate that it was not the army that had committed these horrible atrocities. But he did react emotionally and with great shock.

Q. Do you remember any unusual reaction on the part of anyone else?

A. Well, there were a number of them. We could, of course, go on and on, but I think we want to come back to the documents that form the picture that I gradually formed of the role of Adolf Eichmann.

Q. That is correct.

A. Well, in connection with getting these guilt reactions, I would have to present the reaction of Goering, which leads to the next document which I received from Colonel Hoess. Goering’s reaction was to try to brush it all aside, to tell everybody that this was all exaggerated propaganda. “Oh, they are a bunch of SS Schweinehunde doing some dirty things, but it is all exaggerated, it’s all propaganda.”

So, I would engage Goering in conversation in front of the others and say: “Well, now, you can’t just brush off the murder of two and a half million people. The German people themselves will demand to know how did this happen. The conscience of the world demands to know how did this happen. Do you want to go down in history as a man who just laughed it off?” …And we would argue along this line.

You see, the only way of appealing to Goering was not through conscience, but through his egotistical role in history. And I knew that he was trying to brush aside the crimes, so that he would not lose his chance to get his picture in the German history books, because he knew that even the German people would be horrified by it. Particularly because women and children had been murdered. The killing of the men would not damage his picture in the German history books, he told me.

Now then, realizing that he was determined to try to blot out the memory of this horrible crime from history, I felt that, psychologically, historically and humanly, it was absolutely necessary to see to it that this was properly documented – both from the historical and the psychological point of view.

Q. And then, what did you do?

A. I therefore told him…I’m sorry. No, the next step was his clinching argument, namely, that it was technically impossible to exterminate two and a half million people inside of the three or three and a half years that Colonel Hoess was Commandant of Auschwitz. This seemed to be very convincing to some of the other Nazi leaders.

Q. What did you do, then?

A. I then told him that, of course, I was no expert in mass production of extermination, but that there was an expert in the witness wing, and I could get the details from him. I was, of course, referring to Colonel Hoess.

Q. And then you took a sheet of paper and you wrote at the top certain words in German?

A. That’s right. I wrote a question in German.

Q. And you gave it to Hoess and got his written reply?

A. That’s right. I handed it to him, and he wrote the reply in his own handwriting.

Q. You gave it to him on 23 April 1946, and you received his reply on 24 April 1946?

A. Yes. I believe the dates are recorded on the document.

Q. Kindly read out to the Court the question and the answer (I already have a printed copy here – it is a short document).

A. The question which I wrote down in German was: Goering wants to know how it was at all possible, from a technical point of view, to destroy two and a half million people in the course of three and a half years.

Q. What was Hoess’ reply?

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, this is going to take very long, with the translation.

Previous | Index | Next

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

Attorney General: “….On the basis of my personal experience, I again assert that despite the fact that Eichmann was covered by the orders of Hitler and Himmler, his share in this deed, the decimation of European Jewry, is decisive and the full responsibility for this must be attributed to him, in view of the fact that other possibilities existed for circumventing Hitler’s order.”

It is my request now that the Court permit me to submit the declaration written by Rudolf  Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, which we possess in his own handwriting, confirmed by the Polish Government Body for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes. I submit here the Polish law dated 10 November 1945, which set up this Supreme Committee for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland.

Amongst its powers were the examination and gathering of material relating to German crimes perpetrated in the years 1939-1945 in Poland or beyond its borders, affecting Polish subjects or persons who belonged to the Polish nation and also regarding foreigners who were in Poland at that time. A further part of its functions was the conduct and co-ordination of the activities of district committees and of institutions carrying out similar activities, the publication of material and the findings of its research into German crimes. This was a Polish Government body, and from it – and with its approval – we obtained Rudolf Hoess’ written statement on Eichmann. I shall first submit the Polish law. This is our document No. 1374.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/86.

Attorney General: Now I would ask to submit the document confirmed by this official body – the written statement of Rudolf Hoess, who was also executed as a war criminal – he, too, collaborated with Eichmann. His statement was written close to the time of the events in November 1946, while he was imprisoned in Cracow.

The Court will find that the complete autobiography of Rudolf  Hoess, including the portion which I mentioned, and which I intend to read now, was published by that same Polish governmental body in Bulletin No. 6.

Presiding Judge: He wrote an autobiography?

Attorney General: He wrote his autobiography while he was in the Cracow prison.

Presiding Judge: In his handwriting?

Attorney General: In his own handwriting. It was published by the Polish Government in its official translation into Polish, and subsequently the statement was published in other languages, including German and English. It will be evident to the Court from the prefaces to the English and German editions that the translators were able to refer to Rudolf Hoess’ original in German, since this is a translation – albeit official – but a translation into Polish. I am supported by this in proving all the material, for it is an official publication. Apart from this I have in my possession the extract on Eichmann in a photocopy of the original itself. I would ask the Court to admit the volume.

Presiding Judge: On what page does it appear there?

Attorney General: In the seventh volume, from page 59 onwards.

Judge Raveh: At the time of recording this statement, did they read from this book or from these extracts to the Accused?

Attorney General: They read to him extracts from the writings of Hoess. They also read to him from the evidence of Hoess at the trial, and we shall submit this later on.

Presiding Judge: They read him the whole of this section?

Attorney General: I am not sure of that. I am sure that they read him extracts from Hoess’ evidence.

Judge Raveh: Can you tell us where this appears in the statement of the Accused?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour, this appears on pages 3042-3045.

Presiding Judge: In T/37?

Attorney General: Yes, in T/37. Part of the remarks of Rudolf Hoess are to be found in a book which I ask to submit. The Court will find that there are several appendices to this autobiography on various persons, amongst them on Eichmann. And this is what I request at the present time to submit to you as part of the personal file.

Presiding Judge: Is this what appears there on page 59?

Attorney General: This is what appears on page 59 onwards. It appears as an appendix. From page 59 the autobiography of Hoess himself appears.

As justification for my application to deviate in this matter from the rules of evidence, I would like to add that this matter also links up with what is mentioned in the statement of the Accused in regard to his visit to Auschwitz – he spoke about his meeting with Rudolf Hoess, and what according to him, was known to him about Auschwitz.

Hence there is also relevance to this matter and also probative value to this document in the sense of the decision which the Court gave here. I would ask you to admit the document.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have anything to say in this matter?

Dr. Servatius: For the present I have no objection to the document as such. But I would be grateful to the Attorney General if he could tell us whether he knows that together with the submission of this account, there was attached a request for clemency?

Attorney General: I must say that I have no knowledge about that. From the autobiography itself it emerges, so Hoess writes at any rate, that he had no hope of remaining alive and he knew what lay in store for him. This he writes explicitly.

Presiding Judge: [pointing to the photostatic copy] Is this a photostatic copy of the manuscript?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour, this is a photostatic copy of the manuscript under discussion.

Presiding Judge: [Pointing to the book] And is this the chapter relating to the Accused?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour. There is another chapter I shall wish to submit from that autobiography, “The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” which is contained in that book.

Presiding Judge: Is that also a photostatic copy?

Attorney General: No, we do not have a photostatic copy of this.

Presiding Judge: It is only a translation?

Attorney General: What I have with me is a translation. And that portion was translated into German from the Polish translation of the official Polish edition.

Presiding Judge: Where was this translation made?

Attorney General: We were aided in this translation by the German translation as well. This book was published both in German and in English.

Presiding Judge: Is this actually the original?

Attorney General: The original was German. If the Court will recall, Captain Less gave evidence about this here, when he read extracts to the Accused from the book and he even submitted the English version as an exhibit before the Court. Captain Less produced extracts from it to the Accused and asked him to react to it.

Presiding Judge: The German original was not in his possession at that time?

Attorney General: The difficulty arises from the fact that the German original was not published by the Polish Government. The book was published in its Polish translation.

Presiding Judge: And you did not receive the photostat of the second part?

Attorney General: We did not obtain the second part.

Presiding Judge: If that is the case, this is a German translation of the Polish translation?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius: After the clarification of the manner in which this was brought before us here, I must voice an objection relating to the translation, and I request that  perhaps with the documents that have been submitted in translation here, there should also be submitted a photocopy, for I have doubts as to whether certain remarks which were thought to be necessary, were not eliminated.

Presiding Judge: First of all we shall dispose of the two first documents, and thereafter I shall make a note of these remarks relating to the third document and we shall see what to do about it.

Decision No. 8

We decide to admit the official Polish Bulletin containing the autobiography of Hoess and the photostatic copy of the manuscript of Hoess in regard to the Accused before us. We do so for the same reasons we stated in our Decision No. 7 of today concerning the reports of Wisliceny.

The Bulletin will be marked T/87.

The photostat of the manuscript of Hoess will be marked T/88.

Attorney General: Perhaps I should read T/88. I request permission to read some extracts, not many, from the book – from T/88:

“Eichmann was a man full of life, always active, at the age of 30 with his full energy. He always had new plans and always sought innovations and improvements. He never knew rest. He was wholly and compulsively obsessed with the Jewish Question and with the ‘Final Solution.’ Eichmann was obliged constantly to make a direct oral report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS on the preparations and implementation of individual operations.

And only Eichmann had the ability to pass on exact information regarding numbers. He remembered
almost everything. Amongst his files were a number of files with notes, with markings which were
unintelligible to others, which he always carried with him. Even his permanent deputy, Guenther, could not always provide full information. Eichmann was always travelling on duty. Only on rare occasions could one meet him in Berlin in his office. His staff who were in the relevant countries had to supply Eichmann with the required data regarding the country in question for the purpose of preparing the operations against the Jews. Thus, for example, Wisliceny was active in Slovakia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and in Hungary.”

Perhaps one other passage, the one before this:

“I myself got to know him for the first time, after receiving an order from the Reichsfuehrer-SS to destroy the Jews, when he came to me at Auschwitz to discuss with me in greater detail the operation of extermination.”

And later:

“Eichmann’s headquarters had to attend to transport trains and to fix the transportation charts with the Reich Ministry of Transport. On the orders of Pohl, I went to Budapest three times in order to determine on the spot the number of the people who were fit for work. On this occasion I was able to see Eichmann at the time of the negotiations with the Hungarian Government authorities and with the Hungarian Army. He behaved with decisiveness and with precision. Despite this he was pleasant in his manner and polite. He was liked and welcomed everywhere. The many private invitations from the heads of these authorities prove this. Only with the Hungarian Army Eichmann was not welcome.”

I pass over a passage and read:

“Eichmann was absolutely convinced that if he succeeded in wiping out the biological foundation of the Jews in the East by means of total extermination, Jewry as a whole would not be able to recover from a blow such as this, for it would not be possible for the assimilated Jews of the West, including America, to replace once again that tremendous loss of their blood, nor would they want to, especially when a natural increase worthy of the term could hardly be expected from such Jews.

In this opinion he was strengthened over and over again by the Elder of Hungarian Jewry, who while being a fanatical Zionist always tried to obtain Eichmann’s approval for the rescue of families with many children from being handed over. Eichmann used to talk at length with this Zionist leader on the Jewish Question.

Incidentally it was interesting to hear that this man was exceptionally well-informed on the affairs of Auschwitz and the numbers of transports, the selection and the extermination.”

Presiding Judge: Who was this, Eichmann?

Attorney General: I think the reference was to the Jewish Elder.

Judge Raveh: The “fanatical Zionist.”

Attorney General: Yes. The “fanatical Zionist.”

[Continues reading]

“Eichmann was totally obsessed by his mission and convinced that the campaign of extermination was essential in order to rescue the German nation in future from the desire of the Jews to destroy it. This is how he saw his mission and he devoted all his energy to the realization of the extermination plans of the Reichsfuehrer-SS.

“Eichmann was also a sworn opponent of the selection of Jews fit for work. He saw in this a constant threat to the ‘Plans for the Final Solution’ by means of mass escape or by means of some events that might occur. His  view was that one had to operate with the maximum possible speed and in a decisive manner in order to implement all the operations against the Jews which could be included in any way, for one never knew how the War would end.

In 1943 he already had doubts about the total victory of Germany and believed that it would result in a stalemate.

“Because of this attitude I was not able to secure from Eichmann any help for Auschwitz. All the entreaties, all the reasoning, the evidence on the spot, were not able to change his opinion. He always sheltered behind the orders he had received from the Reichsfuehrer-SS to carry out the operations at the maximum possible speed and not to allow them to be delayed at all. Despite the fact that nevertheless I was on good social terms with  Eichmann, we clashed on this subject, sometimes
violently.

Often I had to struggle over every transport train I wanted to delay, in most cases in vain.
Furthermore, he often surprised me by transports over and above the quota. He did everything to implement the Final Solution of the Jewish Question with the greatest possible speed. Every day was vital for him. He did not allow himself to consider difficulties. This he learned  from the Reichsfuehrer-SS. The Final Solution of the Jewish Question was Eichmann’s life mission.”

Presiding Judge: Would you please hand in a third copy of the German original of the documents you submitted today?

Attorney General: We shall do so.

Now with regard to the second extract from the book by Hoess, entitled “Die Endloesung der Judenfrage im K.L. Auschwitz” (The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz).

Judge Halevi: This has already been referred to at length in the first volume of T/37, on page 382. I asked you whether this is exactly what was then shown to the Accused – the extract beginning with the words “Ich habe hier ein Buch das heisst ‘Kommandant von Auschwitz’,” and thereafter came the words “Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen
(Autobiographic Notes), Rudolf Hoess, 1959, Seite 153.”

Attorney General: That is it exactly, but what happened here? There are a number of appendices to the autobiography. In the Polish and English editions all of them are included. In the German edition published in Stuttgart, not all of them were included, to the best of my knowledge. And this I shall be able to clear up in the light of Defence Counsel’s objection. This appendix “Die Endloesung der Judenfrage im K.L.Auschwitz” appears in its original German edition. This is actually a reprint of Hoess’ words.

Judge Halevi: Is the book in your possession?

Attorney General: This book was in our possession. We returned it to Yad Vashem, but we can obtain it in a short while.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you can obtain it from them in order that Dr. Servatius may be able to see it.

Attorney General: He received it some time ago. He examined it a long time ago.

Presiding Judge: But in order that he may be convinced.

Attorney General: Very well. Meanwhile I shall submit other material.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you.

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: No. 800 is identical.

Attorney General: Identical, in regard to this principle – identical. I want to show that this was no deviation from the principle of deviation. There was consistency. The “British Royal Warrant, Regulation 81″ which the Court will find in the same volume on page 897 also contains the same principle. In other words, two countries of the Common Law, both England and the United States, departed in this instance from the Rules of Evidence. In volume 15 in various places, where the question of the Rules of Evidence is discussed, the Court will find the decisions that were handed down. For example, on page 88, the “Pohl Case” is discussed, and this is what the Court says, towards the bottom of the page:

“The trial was conducted generally along the lines usually followed by the trial courts of the various States of the United States, except as to the rules of evidence. In compliance with the provisions of Article VII of Ordinance No. 7, great latitude in presenting evidence was allowed prosecution and defence counsel, even to the extent at times of receiving in evidence certain matters of but scant probative value.”

Judge Raveh: You told us that this document was submitted to the Accused; he reacted to it – he confirmed part, denied part. Do you not think that it would be worthwhile at this stage to be satisfied with the directions of the Court in respect of documents of this sort? For perhaps it would be difficult as of now to give us some idea in respect of all the potential documents that you are able or likely to submit to us. Perhaps at this time you will be satisfied with a directive concerning the category such as the one which you yourself have indicated?

Attorney General: The difficulty, Your Honour, is that I want to argue at length in respect of the first document and to receive a general directive. It is clear to me that every subsequent document will be considered on its merits, according to its circumstances, according to its contents. For the Court, to my regret, under sub-section (b) of section 15 must decide in respect of each document separately. Therefore I shall be obliged to convince the Court in regard to each document, separately, that it has probative value. But at this moment I am asking for a general directive in the spirit of what was stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Judge Halevi: You are now asking for the common denominator for all the documents.

Attorney General: Exactly so, Your Honour, this is the exact term.

Presiding Judge: Nevertheless, so that we may not become involved in generalizations, perhaps you could tell us, in your opinion, what aspects qualify this document, that is placed before us now, to be submitted as evidence under section 15?

Attorney General: Clearly I have to do so since I must find some basis in regard to the contents of this document. Wisliceny was a man who, as we know, was one of the Accused’s closest assistants. When he wrote these words, he was facing a death sentence, which was also put into effect eventually, and those very normal motives, on account of which it is usually dangerous to rely on hearsay evidence as we do not know the self-interest of the man giving it, do not apply fully in the case of a man standing in the shadow of execution.

Presiding Judge: Was this after he was found guilty?

Attorney General: In any event it was at a time when he was held under arrest for a very grave crime, and certainly he could only have had very few illusions, in October 1946, as to his personal fate in the Bratislava prison. And he gives a detailed account of all his collaboration, throughout his deposition, with the Accused. He begins with the period in which he, Wisliceny, was the Accused’s superior, and afterwards when he became his subordinate. It is possible that the Court will say at times: This part is not credible to us, this part does not accord with other testimonies. Possibly when it comes to deciding the issue, the Court will wish to have corroboration from a source other than Wisliceny’s statement; but such corroboration will be forthcoming.

It is my intention to submit a statement by Hoess, his evidence in a Polish court. He was in a similar situation. We have a statement of a third person, named Hoettl. The three of them made their statements without any contact between them. We will ask the Court to believe remarks emanating from different sources, each fitting in with the other in spite of the fact that there was no contact between the men, and consequently any fear that the whole thing was the result of a conspiracy, or that the men were talked into giving false evidence, is exceedingly slight. But testimonies of this kind, such as that of Wisliceny and Hoess, and a few other collaborators, have a probative value of the highest order.

The Court will appreciate the fact that we do not have any way of establishing in fact the general events except by means of the general, cumulative purport of the various documents.

Certainly, any document by itself would be inadequate to give grounds for an indictment, but the combined
significance of all these documents – thus we are going to contend – enables us to establish with sufficiently moral certainty the matters which are in dispute in this trial.

Furthermore the Accused asked of his interrogators to be given material such as this, so that he could react thereto.

Presiding Judge: He asked for this at his own initiative, or after he was told that such things existed?

Attorney General: Not on his initiative. At the beginning he asked: “Give me material, I want to see it – many years have elapsed.” Then it was given to him.

Presiding Judge: He asked for material in a general way, not especially the testimonies of Wisliceny and Hoess, shall we say?

Attorney General: I am not sure for the moment. I think he also asked for the material relating to his Department, and the statements of members of his Department. Thus, for example, when the Accused – we heard this in the recording – gives an explanation:”I did not say that I would jump into my grave because five million Jews were exterminated, but because five million enemies of the German Reich were destroyed.” The Court will recollect that passage. Here Wisliceny says something different. This must be established.

Judge Halevi: How will the Prosecution prove the circumstances under which the report of these various testimonies was given – for example, that he was in prison, that he was liable to…

Attorney General: It says here “Cell 133″; on another document, more important to us, it says “Cell 106.” It is known that Wisliceny was under arrest, and it is known that he was in the hands of the Allies, this is not a matter of dispute; it is known that he was sentenced by a Slovakian Court and executed following this sentence. The connection between the one declaration and the other will, ultimately, constitute convincing evidence, in our view, unless the Accused will be able to refute it. But at this moment I am speaking not of the weight of these matters, but of their admissibility. And may I be permitted to draw the Court’s attention to what is said on page 822 of the 15th volume, towards the end of the remarks of the Presiding Judge: Shake:

“The Tribunal is not impressed with the thought that this deprives the defendants of any substantial right. As to the effect of conclusions, opinions and hearsay, that is quite a different matter.

“As we have observed before, the basis of some of those rules of which you are all more or less familiar is that evidence of that character may be harmful when it goes before a jury of laymen. We can assure you again that this Tribunal considers itself competent to distinguish between evidence that has no probative value.

“The objection to the introduction of the exhibits is now overruled.”

A court, after all is said and done, which is a professional court and not a court of jurors, will be able to consider, after all the material will be before it, what portion can be depended upon and what portion cannot be taken seriously.

Therefore I request the Court to determine the admissibility of Wisliceny’s report of 27 October 1946, known as “Zelle 133 Bericht” and also to determine, as a directive to the parties in the trial, the Court’s attitude on those documents concerning which it would be ready to exercise its discretion under section 15. And my request is that the Court, following the precedent laid down at Nuremberg, should determine that at this stage and until its consideration of the evidence, any matter which, prima facie, appears to be of probative value, is suitable for submission. What its value will be – this is a matter for the final argument.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you have to say about this request of the Attorney General?

Dr. Servatius: I ask the Court to reject the application. A document coming from a deceased person can be admitted, if it contains facts or a description of occurrences shortly after the event, as in that case which was presented here by the Attorney General. But here these are not facts that are contained in the document, but the allegations of Wisliceny. Not apologetics, but a transfer of guilt to someone else, to the Accused here.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, is there no account of facts there?

Dr. Servatius: There are, indeed, facts as well, but they are of a cumulative character and they are included in other testimonies. The purpose of the written document appears clearly from an examination of what is said from page 17 onwards. There is, there, a personal description of details of the Accused, and suggestions how to locate him, and the expression of the readiness to participate in the search. This is, therefore, a quest for a way how to get out of cell 133 and find a chance to live. For this reason I ask you to reject the application.

Attorney General: If the Court wishes to be satisfied whether there are facts or not, naturally before taking a decision, the Court may examine the documents before it decides whether to admit them as evidence: my contention in reply to the remarks of Defence Counsel is that in Wisliceny’s two documents there is an account of facts that we do not have from any other source. But they are supported by portions of the evidence from other testimonies.

Presiding Judge: Why do you say “two documents?”

Attorney General: Because there are both “Cell 133″ and “Cell 106.” These are the two documents that Wisliceny wrote in the Bratislava prison.

Judge Halevi: On the same date?

Attorney General: No, on different dates. “Cell 133,” the one I have already referred to, on 27 October 1946…

Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius, do you agree to the Attorney General’s statement that this document was shown to the Accused and he reacted to it, part of which he confirmed and part he denied?

Dr. Servatius: We may suppose that he confirmed those sections which contained facts, and that he rejected those sections containing allegations.

Judge Raveh: But the fact that the Accused was shown the document and that he reacted to it – is that correct? You do not deny this?

Dr. Servatius: He marked with his signature all those documents submitted to him, and this fact can easily be ascertained, and immediately. I presume that this was shown to him.

May I add an observation in regard to the declaration of Rudolf Hoess? The Attorney General said that these two declarations, or these two witnesses, support each other and that in this way their declarations could have considerable value as evidence, and that there was no contact between the two. I must point out that, previous to this, the two spent a long time together in the Nuremberg prison, and it was argued against them that they drew up a common line of defence. There was a similar argument on many occasions by the defence in German courts in trials of this kind.

Presiding Judge: Did they have a chance to talk things over between themselves?

Dr. Servatius: Such a possibility, in my experience, existed in large measure.

Presiding Judge: I believe we still do not have the date of the second report.

Attorney General: The date was 18 November 1946.

Judge Halevi: Why? Did they interrogate him twice?

Attorney General: At that time, when the war criminals were in goal, many countries and various organizations took an interest in them, and the countries detaining the criminals freely allowed the possibility of an interrogation. The men themselves were also requested from time to time to write themselves, in exactly the same way as the Accused was invited here to write various matters by himself – so these men were invited to write. Sometimes they did so completely on their own free initiative, as did Rudolf Hoess who wrote his autobiography, and subsequently, in an appendix, a number of chapters are devoted to various persons with whom he worked and in whose company he was.

Judge Halevi: At whose initiative, or upon whose request did Wisliceny write these two reports?

Attorney General: We shall bring a witness who perhaps will be able to shed light on this question as well, when the time comes. Incidentally, we have the original, actually, in Wisliceny’s handwriting. That is to say, not only a photocopy but the actual handwriting.

Presiding Judge: We shall go into this question and hand down our decision tomorrow morning.

Attorney General: If that is the case, it will not be possible, at this stage, to continue with the submission of documents.

Presiding Judge: That is right. If we decide to admit this document, this should not inconvenience you, for you will be able to continue with the submission of documents at a later stage. Do you still have many documents?

Attorney General: I still have a number of declarations and documents that we wish to submit before we begin hearing the first witness. But it is very likely that the one will be connected with the other, and, therefore, it is most probable that the Court’s decision will apply to the other documents as well. Hence it would be better for me to refrain at this stage from submitting additional documents, until I know the Court’s decision.

Presiding Judge: Correct – I also think so.

Attorney General: At this point we ask the Court to allow us to proceed with the calling of witnesses.

Assistant State Attorney Jacob Bar-Or: May it please the Court, I shall now call Mr. Grynszpan. Might I ask the Court to instruct any witnesses that have been summoned to appear and who might be present in this courtroom, to leave and wait in the lobby, outside the courtroom.

Presiding Judge: Any witnesses in Court who have not yet given evidence are requested to leave and to await their turn outside the courtroom.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The witness is on the witness stand, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: Does he speak Hebrew?

Witness Grynszpan: [in Hebrew] Not well.

Presiding Judge: What language does he speak well?

Witness Grynszpan: [in German] German.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: If the witness is more at ease in Yiddish, we shall find an interpreter to interpret in Yiddish.

Witness Grynszpan: No difference, Yiddish or German.

Presiding Judge: Very well. What is his full name?

Witness Grynszpan: Zyndel Grynszpan.

Presiding Judge: And in Hebrew?

Witness Grynszpan: Shmuel.

Presiding Judge: Zyndel Shmuel Grynszpan.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Sir, when and where were you born?

Witness Grynszpan: In 1886, in Radomsko, Poland.

Q. When did you come to Germany?

A. In April 1911.

Q. When you got to Germany, where you a bachelor, or married?

A. Already married.

Q. When did you get married?

A. In April 1910.

Q. Where did you go to in Germany, in 1911?

A. Hanover.

Q. And you stayed there till…?

A. I stayed in Hanover till 1928, till we were expelled from Germany in a barbaric manner. On 27 October 1928. All Polish Jews. To Sbenszyn!

Q. Mr. Grynszpan, did you mean 1928 or perhaps another year?

A. Twenty eight years! Since 1911. 28 years. Till 1938.

Q. Until 27 October 1938.

A. Correct.

Q. How many children were born to you in Hanover?

A. Eight.

Q. How many sons?

A. Four.

Previous | Index | Next