Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-04-04 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 I should like to comment that this document also shows the falseness of what Eichmann says about having to deal with foreign nationals' affairs. There was a Foreign Ministry representative with Frank, and you can see this on the second page of T/346. This is signed by a man called Jelisch, who is the "Foreign Ministry Representative to the Generalgouvernement." But today, of course, Eichmann knows that we can depend on the Foreign Ministry Archives, which fell into Allied hands at the end of the War, and these created for the Court a new image of Adolf Eichmann, one which is made up of all those documents that we have. He would like to protect himself by using these, and he wants to display such an image to the Court as is reflected by these documents. But there is also other evidence which attests to his image. President: Did the Prosecution itself not argue that the Appellant took all kinds of steps and action against Jews who were foreign nationals? Attorney General: He acted against all the Jews, including the foreign nationals. But what happened here? He burned his archives. Where did this documentation come from? It is based primarily on German Foreign Ministry documents, which in their entirety - hundreds of tons of paper - fell into the hands of the Allies after the War. Obviously the documents of the Foreign Ministry provide an image of his actions in which he was in touch and contact with the Foreign Ministry. And in which matters was there contact between the Foreign Ministry and him? The contact concerned actions in foreign countries or actions concerning foreign nationals in Germany. And in any case we draw our material primarily from these documents. This explains the fact that the dealings with individual cases primarily concern foreign nationals, because it is the Foreign Ministry Archives which survived and reached us. President: Concerning the area of the Generalgouvernement, were the relations between the Reich and the area of the Generalgouvernement not handled by the Foreign Ministry? Attorney General: No. President: If that is the case, how would you explain document T/277 dated 18 February 1942? In this document Eichmann writes to the Foreign Ministry that a greater separation must be made between the Jewish population in the Warsaw Ghetto and the other population, and that foreign nationals must also be placed in the Ghetto. He writes this to the Foreign Ministry. Why does he write this to the Foreign Ministry if this is in the area of the Generalgouvernement? Attorney General: That is precisely my argument. He dealt with Jews anywhere and everywhere, including the Generalgouvernement. But the problem of how to deal with foreign nationals had to be co-ordinated and agreed with his Foreign Ministry, because there were English and American nationals and nationals of neutral countries. We will see how cautiously the Foreign Ministry deals with Hungarian Jews, it did not want to hand them over to Eichmann. And in the Warsaw Ghetto, when they adopt radical measures, there was the problem of how to get those foreign nationals out, how not to include them in the overall operations. The Foreign Ministry is in touch with Eichmann over this matter. This proves my argument. If Eichmann had nothing to do with the Warsaw Ghetto or the entire area of the Generalgouvernement, there would have been no need for this correspondence. Then the correspondence would have been between the Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Governor General, Frank. And it is precisely the fact that we see him dealing with these matters that proves that his Section had a hand in Jewish matters everywhere, without geographical limits, as was decided at Wannsee. Justice Silberg: Was there not a link between Eichmann's Section and the Generalgouvernement through General Krueger, who was both a BdS man and a member of Frank's Government? Attorney General: How exactly the link operated, through Krueger or Schoengrath, how the link between Eichmann and Globocnik operated, that is very difficult to find out. Nor did this always pass through precise command and service paths. Frank wrote in his diary towards the end of the war, "We established a network of authorities in the Reich which are an anarchy unto themselves," or, as someone put it, "the Nazi regime was the most organized chaos." Justice Silberg: Who said that? Frank? Attorney General: No, Frank talks about "the garden of illusions of the authorities," one of which would act without the knowledge of the other. Thus in letter T/355 Eichmann's Section informs the German Foreign Ministry that the Hungarian Jew Sillec, a Jewish journalist, is not to be allowed to leave Warsaw, because he was a witness to the events that took place there. The letter has a marginal note by von Thadden from the Foreign Ministry, basing himself on a comment by Krischak, a man from Eichmann's Section, that it is absolutely out of the question for Sillec to leave and that the easiest way is to send him to a concentration camp. T/345 is a letter from Eichmann's Section to the Foreign Ministry about the Jewish family Zuckermann, Romanian nationals. The Section refuses to allow the Zuckermann family to return from the Generalgouvernement to Romania. This is also referred to in the internal Foreign Ministry note (T/357) and here too von Thadden's memorandum is typical: "There is no point in making any further representations in this matter." In T/345, Eichmann's letter to von Thadden, he announces that he is unable to locate the whereabouts of the Jew Hersch Reifer, a Romanian national who lives in Lvov. T/266 is a letter from the Section to the Head of Himmler's personal staff concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in the Generalgouvernement, and it says there that "the Jews currently working in the oil fields in the Beskides Mountains are not to be deported - an instruction has been given to the BdS in Cracow." The letter is signed by Mueller and was sent by Section IVB4. In the light of all of this, and given Eichmann's long arm which reached as far as the Jews of this country too, it will come as no surprise that the German Foreign Ministry passed on to him the reports on atrocities which were published abroad concerning what was going on in the Generalgouvernement, such as in letter T/272. This is a letter from the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann, concerning a Jewish report on atrocities about what was happening in the Warsaw Ghetto. And it says: I am enclosing what was published in a book by the Jewish community in Switzerland about atrocity stories in the Ghetto, for your information. Justice Agranat: What is the date of this document? Attorney General: 12 August 1944. And in this connection the German Foreign Ministry provides Eichmann with the articles published abroad, in the Palestine Post and the Egyptian Gazette, about atrocities perpetrated against Polish Jews (T/1285). And Eichmann himself testified about everything, about the orders for extermination which he passed on to Globocnik, two or three times, which the District Court discussed in detail in Paragraph 142. When I questioned him on this matter, at first he tried to be evasive and said that he acted in this connection like a messenger boy, in those words, he only passed on the papers. After that he corrected his story and said that his action was like that of an officer who has personally to hand over a secret state matter (Session 96, Vol. IV, p. 1674). Justice Silberg: Where in the Judgment is there a reference to the Beskides Oil Company? Attorney General: In Paragraph 136, Your Honour. In another examination, when I was questioning Eichmann about the orders to Globocnik, he admitted that he dictated them, and he admitted that he handed them over and passed them on. I shall read out a passage of the record of Session 99, Vol. IV, page 1711. I said to him: "I am going to read out a passage to you. Will you please tell me whether this is correct or not? `I was given orders to produce a letter for Globocnik. A letter I would have to hand over in person, I constantly kept an eye on. I dictated the letter to Mrs. Werlmann, after which this letter was received by Unterscharfuehrer Martin as Head of Registry, who gave this communication its number as Secret State Business and entered it into the Registry. No copy was made, there was only the original, and then I took this letter with me and either handed it to Heydrich in person or gave it to Mueller, who in turn handed it to Heydrich, and then I received this letter back through official channels.' "Is what you said here correct? "A. Not verbatim, but the meaning is correct. Things were as follows: As I explained, I received orders to draft a letter of this kind which either Mueller or Heydrich - I believe Heydrich - signed, and I had to deliver that to Globocnik." The argument put forward here that in the Warthe District some special conditions existed, is utterly unfounded. The Accused was active in that area as early as 1939, with the authorization of the Head of Section IVD4. When he was first questioned about his activities in this Section and was still unaware of how many documents we had in our possession, he said to Inspector Less that IVD4 must be a mistake, that there had never been such a Section (T/37, page 1514): "L. IVD4? E. No, no,{[sic]} das hiess es, glaube ich, nie, das hiess es nie" (I believe it was never called that, never, it was never called that). He repeated his argument that it was a typing mistake to Inspector Less at the bottom of page 1646: "Dieses IVD4-2 ist selbstverstendlich ein Tip-Fehler." This is of course a typing mistake, he is saying. And only when he was shown further documents, did he begin to remember. Justice Silberg: Was it IVD4 from 1 January 1940 until 1 March 1941? Attorney General: Yes, from the beginning of 1940. The Accused's first version of events is thus utterly false. He was involved with this deportation operation for months, and was specially appointed to deal with this as early as 21 December 1939, as proven by Heydrich's letter, T/170. In a meeting on 30 January 1940, which dealt with deportations, he was already a participant. Together with him there were senior figures of the reegime, headed by Heydrich and Minister Seyss-Inquart, and commanders of the Operations Units then operating in Poland. All of these are mentioned in the Judgment in Paragraphs 73 and 74, and there is no need to elaborate. Counsel for the Defence indicated Slovakia as a country where the Accused apparently did not intervene. There Ambassador Ludin allegedly acted as he saw fit. It is not my intention to clear Ludin of all guilt. He is a murderer. But we cannot ignore the large number of documents submitted in this connection. Paragraph 104 of the Judgment mentions some of these. The Appellant here completely ignores his admissions concerning his visits to Slovakia, the pressure he brought to bear on the Slovak Government, the negotiations he conducted about the deportations. I would simply refer here to one secondary episode which sheds its own light on the affair, the episode of Fritz Fiala, the Slovakian journalist who worked for the Nazis, and the deceptive and mendacious tactics adopted in respect of Slovak Jewry and even in respect of the Slovak Government in this matter. T/1107 is a detailed report by Wisliceny about his employing Fritz Fiala as a journalist who was sent to Auschwitz, ostensibly on a visit, in order to publish a reassuring article to the effect that things were fine in Auschwitz and that no murders are carried out there and there is nothing to fear. I do not know whether Fiala was or was not in Auschwitz, but we know what he published from T/1119. Auschwitz is described as a rest home. All the Jews declare - according to Fiala - that they are treated fairly, and in all respects humanely, and if there is anything that they see as unfair, it is that not all European Jewry is here yet. And one of the Jews with whom I spoke - adds Fiala - put it this way: I must tell you frankly that we can easily come to terms with our life, and I, who was previously in Palestine, now state that our life here differs only for the better from how it was before, and that we are freed from the feverish competition I encountered there. These are the stories which journalist Fritz Fiala published in the Slovak press. He was hired to do this by Eichmann. President: What is the link between this and the Accused? Attorney General: I will get to that in a moment. First of all he hired him to do this - Wisliceny testifies to this. But when the Slovak Government wants to visit Auschwitz, and when there is panic, then Eichmann writes: What panic? Look at Fiala's articles, everything is fine. T/1108 is Eichmann's letter to the Foreign Ministry, in reply to which the Slovak Prime Minister, Dr. Tuka, insisted on representatives of the Slovak Government visiting the camps to which Slovak Jewry had been deported. President: In this exhibit does he mention Fiala? Attorney General: Yes. He says: Such a visit was made recently by a Slovak, by the journalist Fiala. He published his report in the newspaper Der Grenzbote , it can be read, there is no need for any visit. There are postcards which were sent from Auschwitz to their relatives. There is no cause for any panic. President: He suggests to them a visit to Terezin instead of visiting Auschwitz. Attorney General: Yes. President: What is interesting here is that the letters...for example when he wants to inform Wisliceny, he does not write to Wisliceny, but to von Thadden, to the Foreign Ministry. Attorney General: Yes, because when Wisliceny is attached to an embassy abroad, he has to go through normal channels, through the Attaches' group, or through an appropriate group in the Foreign Ministry. This is what he must do, of course. When a new operation was to be carried out in Slovakia, Eichmann announced in a letter to the Foreign Ministry, T/1110, that he was sending Wisliceny and that he had already provided him with all the requisite instructions. And in order to eliminate all the unjustified worries of the Slovak Government about the fate of its subjects who had been transported, he suggests, as the President indicated, that they should visit Terezin (T/1112). Another chapter of which Counsel for the Defence wanted to make use is the chapter of Killinger in Romania. The truth is that Eichmann's Section planned the expulsion of Romanian Jewry which was due to be implemented on 10 September 1942. President: First of all he opposed this. The Romanians wanted to start deporting Jews, and he opposed it. Attorney General: He said: "I am not ready yet, the time will come." He also opposed early action in Hungary. He said: "Your turn will come." But their turn came, and the lot fell on Romanian Jewry. And this was fixed for 10 September 1942. We know this from documents T/1021 to T/1023. T/1021 is a letter sent by his Section to the Foreign Ministry concerning a deportation scheduled for that date. T/1023 is a telegram from Rintelen, an official of the German Embassy in Bucharest, to the Foreign Ministry. We can see from this that the Accused informed Himmler that all the Jews were to be deported. President: What does the telegram say? Attorney General: It quotes here what Eichmann told Himmler in this matter. He informed the Foreign Ministry that only able_bodied individuals were to be deported, he informed Himmler that non-able-bodied persons would also be deported. Justice Sussman: Where does it say that? Attorney General: Both in T/1023 and also in T/1021. Justice Sussman: But T/1023 does not refer to the Appellant. Attorney General: In T/37 on page 1737 he admits that he drafted document T/1021. He was asked about this letter: who drafted this letter, and Eichmann says: "I drafted it, I dictated it (ich habe das abdiktiert), this is natural because it says IVB4 and apart from that it went to Luther." The same thing is to be found in T/37 page 2222, where he is asked who was this Richter who dealt with these matters, he says Richter was my man in Bucharest. President: I do not understand. My colleague asked you a question concerning exhibit T/1023, which is a telegram from Rintelen to the Foreign Ministry. Attorney General: And there Rintelen bases himself on T/1021. And this is how he starts. Justice Agranat: The connection between the two cannot be seen. Attorney General: Perhaps you would read the first lines of T/1023.
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.