Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Written-Defence-Summaries-03
Last-Modified: 1999/06/15

SECOND COUNT OF INDICTMENT

Crime against the Jewish People

I. Argument for the Prosecution

(a) Subjecting the Jews to living conditions which were
bound to bring about physical extermination, during the
period       1939-1945.

1. and 2. Employment in forced labour camps,  ghettoization.

     Means of Proof:
     
      1.  Testimony of Lichtman, 28 April 1961, Session 20
      2.  Testimony of Pachter, 1 May 1961, Session 21
      3.  Testimony of Zabludowicz, 1 May 1961, Session 21
      4.  Testimony of Beisky, 1 May 1961, Session 21
      5.  Testimony of Wells, 1 May 1961, Session 22
      6.  Testimony of Ross, 2 May 1961, Session 23
      7.  Testimony of Shiloh, 2 May 1961, Session 24
      8.  Testimony of Buzminsky, 2 May 1961, Session 24
      9.  Testimony of Lubetkin-Zuckerman, 3 May 1961,
     Session 25
     10. Testimony of Zuckerman, 3 May 1961, Session 25
     11. Testimony of Auerbach, 3 May 1961, Session 26
     12. Testimony of Masia, 4 May 1961, Session 27
     13. Testimony of Dworzecki, 4 May 1961, Session 27
     14. Testimony of Karasik, 4 May 1961, Session 28
     15. Testimony of Peretz, 4 May 1961, Session 28
     16. Testimony of Karstadt, 5 May 1961, Session 29
     17. Testimony of Aviel, 5 May 1961, Session 29
     18. Testimony of Neumann, 8 May 1961, Session 30
     19. Testimony of Ansbacher, 12 May 1961, Session 38
     20. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45

He testifies that in the Theresienstadt Ghetto he saw a
number of SS officers, one of whom was pointed out to him as
being the Accused.  He no longer remembers whether the
Accused - as alleged - or the Commandant of the camp, Rahm,
selected a certain number of inmates for deportation to
Auschwitz by ticking off their names on a list.

     21. Testimony of Rosenberg, 24 May 1961, Session 51
     22. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52

He testifies about the arrests in Budapest, the Kistarcsa
camp under Hungarian command; Novak, Hunsche and Lemeke are
said to have frequently attended arriving and departing
transports.

     23. Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53

3. and 4.  Detention in transit camps, mass deportations
and transport under inhuman conditions.

     Means of Proof:
     
     24.  T/447-1  - Document 696
     25.  T/447-2  - Document 695
     26.  T/447-3  - Document 752
     27.  T/447-4  - Document 691
     28.  T/447-5  - Document 692
     29.  T/447-6  - Document 690
     30.  T/447-7  - Document 271
     31.  T/447-8  - Document 257
     32.  T/447-9  - Document 256
     33.  T/447-10 - Document 244
     34.  T/447-11 - Document 453
     35.  T/447-12 - Document 275
     36.  T/447-13 - Document 276
     37.  T/447-14 - Document 273
     38.  T/447-15 - Document 250
     39.  T/455    - Document 37
     40.  T/457    - Document 272
     41.  T/258    - Document 254
     42.  T/459    - Document 258
     43.  T/460    - Document 259
     44.  T/447    - Document 276
     45.  T/545    - Document 590
     46.  T/558    - Document 592
     47.  T/557    - Document 603
     48.  T/561    - Document 602
     49.  T/563    - Document 1352
     50.  T/540    - Document 623
     51.  T/541    - Document 621
     
II. Argument for the Defence

As to 1. and 2.:

None of the witnesses 1-19 could testify about any act of
the Accused or about actions which were carried out at the
orders of the Accused or his Section.  The dispatch to the
forced labour camps, the ghettoization, and the herding
together into transit camps and places of concentration were
not within the Accused's competence.  Some witnesses
mentioned names of those responsible for specific actions.
For instance, the witness Karasik testified that the man
responsible for a specific action in Poland had been
sentenced and executed.  As submitted under Count I, the
Accused was not one of those who planned the entire Final
Solution.  Therefore he cannot be held responsible for those
specific acts for which no elements of the offence were
proved against him.

The witness Diamant, who alleged that he had heard that the
Accused was the SS leader whom he saw in Theresienstadt,
could not confirm that the person said to be the Accused
carried out the selection for Auschwitz.

     Means of Proof:
     
      1. Testimony of Diamant, 18 May 1961, Session 45

The witnesses Brody and Szenes, who alleged that they had
seen subordinates of the Accused (Novak and Hunsche) in the
Kistarcsa camp, were not able to testify about the
competence of those men.

      2. Testimony of Brody, 25 May 1961, Session 52
          Testimony of Szenes, 25 May 1961, Session 53

In addition, Novak denies in his evidence that he had ever
anything to do with the Kistarcsa camp.
 3. Testimony of Novak (XII)

As to 3. and 4.:

Rounding-up and the concentration in the East were carried
out by the local offices (see the items of evidence of the
Prosecution under 1. and 2.) and in the West through the BdS
and their emissaries (see document T/258).

      4. Testimony of the Accused before the Police, Vol. I,
     pp. 402-404.
      5.  T/447,  1 - 15.

If the Accused's Section urged acceleration of the
transports, that was not done of its own accord, but because
it received directions accordingly.

     Means of proof:
     
      6.  N/12  - Document 3
      7.  T/544 - Document 1356
     III. Submission for the Defence

As to 1. and 2:

The criminal responsibility of the Accused extends only to
the point to which he carried out the tasks he was ordered
to fulfil.  His participation in the total plan has not been
proved; therefore, insofar as he did not commit acts which
constitute elements of the offence, or did not take part in
an act as per one of the formulations set out in the
sub_sections of Section 23 of the Criminal Code Ordinance,
he cannot be found guilty.

Neither does his presence in Theresienstadt, which has not
been proved beyond doubt by the evidence of the witness
Diamant, suffice to prove a criminal act or complicity in
it.  The same applies to the presence of his subordinates
Novak and Hunsche.

As to 3. and 4.:

The rounding-up and the deportations were executed on orders
from above.  The Accused's Section took part in those
deportations, but only in regard to the technical
implementation of the transports.  The rounding-up of the
persons to be deported was carried out by the local office
under directions from the Reichsfuehrer-SS.  The Inspector
of Concentration Camps determined which were to be the
reception camps.  The participation of the Accused, and
therefore his responsibility, were thus limited to the
implementation of the transportation.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor