Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Written-Defence-Summaries-04
Last-Modified: 1999/06/15

THIRD COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT
Causing physical and mental harm

I. Argument for the Prosecution: Crimes against the Jewish
People

Para. III a-c: General description of the facts

(a)  Statement (see para. I)

(b)  Bodily harm

(c)  Ghetto and concentration camp

Facts in detail:

Para III d

 1.  Rounding-up en masse

     Means of Proof:
      1.  T/713 - Document 1275
      2.  T/717 - Document 1276
      3.  T/720 - Document 1277
      4.  T/730 - Document 1278
      5.  T/737 - Document 1279
      6.  T/742 - Document 1280
      7.  T/664 - Document 1281
      8.  T/765 - Document 1282
      9.  T/724 - Document 1283
     10.  T/753 - Document 1284
     11.  T/718 - Document 1285
     12.  T/721 - Document 1286
     13.  T/783 - Document 1287
     14.  T/739 - Document 1288
     15.  T/738 - Document 1289
     16.  T/740 - Document 1290
     17.  T/741 - Document 1291
     18.  T/750 - Document 1292
     19.  T/650 - Document 1293
     20.  T/752 - Document 1294
     
2.  Crystal Night III d (2)

     Means of Proof:
     
     21.  T/37/124 - Document 108
     22.  T/137    - Document 69
     23.  T/136    - Document 72
     24.  T/113    - Document 1503
     25.  T/138    - Document 85
     26.  T/151    - Document 91
     27.  T/140    - Document 89

3.  Social and economic boycott. III d (3)
(a) Marking

     Means of Proof:
     
     28.  T/682  - Document 197
     29.  T/814  - Document 1150
     30.  T/209  - Document 1064
     31.  T/684  - Document 948
     32.  T/685  - Document 949
     33.  T/819  - Document 1154
     34.  T/751  - Document 1027
     35.  T/405  - Document 457
     36.  T/406  - Document 1259
     37.  T/511  - Document 1344
     38.  T/413  - Document 444
     39.  T/414  - Document 1358
     40.  T/529  - Document 1359
     41.  T/415  - Document 1360
     42.  T/955  - Document 997
     43.  T/961  - Document 425
     44.  T/962  - Document 237
     45.  T/970  - Document 1003
     46.  T/1156 - Document 785
     47.  T/1226 - Document 870
     48.  T/1253 - Document 1367
     49.  T/1250 - Document 1186
     50.  T/1410 - Document 168

4. Nuremberg Laws.  III d (4)

     Means of Proof:
     
     51.  T/678 - Document 910
     52.  T/267 - Document 940
     53.  T/271 - Document 9
     54.  T/766 - Document 932
     55.  T/767 - Document 174
     56.  T/762 - Document 15
     57.  T/310 - Document 788
     58.  T/761 - Document 535
     59.  T/772 - Document 230
     60.  T/773 - Document 933
     61.  T/603 - Document 302
     62.  T/775 - Document 103
     63.  T/774 - Document 729
     64.  T/779 - Document 107
     65.  T/781 - Document 906
     66.  T/784 - Document 537

5. III e: Intention to exterminate the Jewish People

(Cf. Exposition in the oral argument)

II. Argument for the Defence

As to 1. (III d (1))

The arrest and deportation were carried out by the local
police headquarters (Stapo(leit)stellen).

     Means of Proof:
     
      1.  T/717 - Document 1276; T/720 - Document 1277

The Accused's Section in the Head Office for Reich Security
was brought up to date as regards the deportation.

     Means of Proof:
     
      2.  T/730 - Document 1278

The class of persons to be seized was determined on a legal
basis.  The Accused had no influence on creating this order,
nor were the measures of the deportation ordered by him.
They emanated from the highest governmental authorities and
were only transmitted through the Accused's Section.

     Means of Proof:
     
      3.  T/185 - Document 74

Record of Proceedings of the Wannsee Conference of 20
January 1941. [This should read "1942".]  Here the
deportations were discussed by the competent central
authorities, at Hitler's direction.

     Means of Proof:
     
      4.  T/179 - Document 461

The superiors of the Accused intervened also in details of
the deportation.

     Means of Proof:
     
      5.  T/742 - Document 1280

The Accused attempted to act, within his competence, as
correctly as possible.

     Means of Proof:
     
      6.  T/713 - Document 1275

As to 2. III d (2) Crystal Night

The Accused did not take part in the planning or the
execution of the Crystal Night.  Neither his Section nor his
name is mentioned in the text of any of the documents
produced by the Prosecution.  Only one document contains a
written note with his name.

     Means of Proof:
     
      7.  T/37-124 - Document 108

The Accused testified on that credibly that he got to know
of the action only when it was already in progress.  At the
beginning of his activities in Vienna, he re-activated the
Jewish Religious Community and the Palestine Office, in
order to promote emigration.  The destruction of equipment
within the building of the Jewish Community ran contrary to
his intentions.  In order to counteract excesses, the
Accused, on 10 November 1938, posted an SS guard in the
building of the Religious Community.

     Means of Proof:
     
      8.  T/154 - Document 783

The Crystal Night action had begun in Austria already before
the Security Police and the Gestapo were informed of it.
The Police offices in Vienna - the seat of the Accused -
were notified already on 9 November, at 11 p.m.  On 10
November, at 4 a.m., the Police offices received orders from
their superiors to arrest wealthy Jews.

Immediately after the Crystal Night, the foreign exchange
investigation office gave instructions that Jews were to be
allowed to draw only limited sums from their bank accounts.
Only the Jewish Religious Community, which furthered
emigration of Jews with the help of the Accused, was allowed
to dispose freely of its assets.

     Means of Proof:
     
      9.  T/151 - Document 91

That the measures of the Crystal Night ran counter to the
plans of the Accused is also shown by the following:

     Means of Proof:
     
     10.  T/140 - Document 89
     
     As to 3. III d (3)

The social and economic boycott against the Jews was carried
out primarily under a large number of emergency decrees.

The marking of the Jews was based on the Police Decree for
Marking the Jews, of 1 September 1941, Official Gazette I,
p. 547.

     Means of Proof:
     
     11.  T/635 - Police Decree on marking of Jews

The Accused did not plan this marking, nor did he have any
say in the implementation of this decree.

In spite of Hitler's negative decision at first, on 14
August 1941 the Ministry of the Interior had no objection to
marking the Jews in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

     Means of Proof:
     
     12.  T/831 - Document 503
     13.  T/209 - Document 1064
     14.  T/685 - Document 949
     15.  T/685 - Document 949, page 2
     16.  T/751 - Document 1027

The marking of Greek Jews was carried out by the  authority
of the Commander of Salonika--Aegaeis of 6 February 1943,
signed Merten.

     Means of Proof:
     
     17.  T/916 (should read T/960) - Document 424

In the Western areas (France, Belgium, the Netherlands), the
question of marking also depended on co-operation among the
local authorities.  Dannecker and Lages were able to carry
out the marking by agreement with the diplomatic and
military authorities.

     Means of Proof:
     
     18.  T/414 - Document 1358

Concerning questions of anti-Jewish propaganda, the Accused
was not competent.  These were dealt with at the highest
levels of authority, or by the experts in charge.

     Means of Proof:
     
     19.  T/1253 - Document 1367
     20.  T/1410 - Document 168
     As to 4. III d (4) Nuremberg Laws

The Accused is blamed for having attempted, in the
implementation of the Nuremberg Laws, to equate the status
of Jews of foreign nationality with that of German Jews.
The Accused did not possess any power to give instructions
of his own on this subject and did not develop any
initiative of his own.

     Means of Proof:
     
     21.  T/678 - Document 910
     22.  T/267 - Document 940
     23.  T/271 - Document 9

Since foreign missions intervened repeatedly on behalf of
Jews of foreign nationality, Mueller and Luther agreed on a
general arrangement.  Mueller dictated to the jurist
Hunsche, in the presence of the Accused, the outline of the
draft to be prepared (see the heading of T/271).  This draft
is shown in the above document T/271.

     Means of Proof:
     
     24.  T/761 - Document 535

Guidelines of 5 March 1943 for the treatment of Jews of
foreign nationality.  Letterhead: Reich Minister of the
Interior; signed: per pro Dr. Kaltenbrunner.

This decree was the result of an agreement on the draft by
the Foreign Ministry.  For the Eastern Territories
Kaltenbrunner issued another decree without consulting the
Accused and without informing the Foreign Ministry.

     25.  T/310 - Document 788
     26.  T/774 - Document 729
     27.  T/97  - Document 920

III. Submission for the Defence

As to 1. III d (1) Participation of the Accused in the
actions imputed to him has been proved only insofar - and
that is also admitted by him - as he transmitted orders for
deportation by his superiors to the authority executing
them.  He did not initiate those measures, nor did he plan
them.

As to 2. III d (2) It has been shown that the organization
of the Crystal Night ran counter to the plans of the Accused
and to the fulfilment of his task: promoting emigration.
The Accused did not take part in the planning or the
implementation.

As to 3. III d (3)  The organization of the social and
economic boycott was based on legislation.  The Accused did
not take part in planning or implementing the actions
imputed to him.

As to 4. III d (4)  The implementaion of the Nuremberg Laws
took place at first by means of legislative measures
(executive decree).  It has not been proved that, in
executing the Nuremberg Laws, the Accused attempted, of his
own accord,  to subject also the foreign Jews to the German
legislation concerning the Jews.

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