The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 67
(Part 5 of 6)


Attorney General: Here it says that the camp began operating on 8 December 1941, that it was liquidated in the middle of 1943, and that the Germans succeeded in thoroughly covering up their tracks. Not one of the members of the staff was caught. The investigation was based, inter alia, on the interrogation of Rudolf Reder, a former prisoner at the camp, the only one they managed to trace. He mentions here the signs "Bathhouses," the "Inhalation", the flower pots that decorated the place, the increased activity in the second half of 1942, the fact that Jews from Czechoslovakia, Austria, Romania, Hungary and Germany were exterminated there.

By the summer of 1943, not a trace of the extermination camp remained. In its place, a farming estate had been established, and Volksdeutsche were settled there. When the great assault of the Soviet army began, after an interval of less than a year, along the line of the River Bug, these Volksdeutsche left and moved westwards, together with the withdrawing army. The farm buildings were totally destroyed. So much for the Belzec chapter.

Judge Halevi: I have one more question relating to exhibit T/1312, which you have submitted - the Swedish confirmation. There it says, specifically, that Gerstein approached a Swedish diplomat, Baron von Otter, in August 1942, after his return from Belzec, and told him that he wanted it to be known what was happening with gas in Belzec, so that all this would come to the notice of neutral observers, and that he was convinced that if they disseminated the information about the extermination amongst the German population, and if the truth of the story was confirmed by foreigners, then the German people would no longer continue supporting the Nazi regime even for a moment.

Half a year later, he again met the Swedish diplomat and asked him: "Did you do anything about it?" This is here - in the last section. No reply is recorded here. But is that not the same question as in the Brand mission, in fact? The Brand mission was two years after that, and the question arose: What were the results? What did they do? Here it was at a much earlier stage and, in fact, more important, and there was a specific purpose of giving the matter publicity.

Attorney General: On the part of Gerstein?

Judge Halevi: As an anti-Nazi, Gerstein risked his life, according to what he says, by his contact with the Swedes, and he asked them to take action. And half a year later, he asked: What did they do? I think that it would be possible now to clarify what action they took then as a result of Gerstein's approach.

Attorney General: What action was taken by the Swedes?

Judge Halevi: Whether the Swedes notified other Powers, and whether this was a basis for publishing the facts at that time.

There is another small detail here, namely that Gerstein's address, according to the Swedish aide memoire in 1943 was Buelowstrasse 49, Berlin. That is to say, everything relates to contact with him in 1942 and 1943. This contact had a certain purpose. I think it would be important to elucidate whether this purpose was achieved, and to what extent.

Attorney General: It will not be easy to ascertain, but I shall try to fulfil the Court's wishes.

Judge Halevi: This is somewhat parallel to the Brand episode, only in this case it was not a Jewish source - he was not a Jewish emissary. But that makes no difference - he was an important anti-Nazi emissary. That is, if all this material is authentic. The Prosecution maintains that all this is true. Can we rely on it?

Attorney General: Yes. However, the difference, Your Honour, lies in the fact that in the case of Brand we see a direct link with the Accused and, for that reason, we dwelt here on the sequel of Brand's mission, so that we should not leave it shrouded in doubt and suspended in mid-air. Brand came and delivered a certain message. So, what happened afterwards? I tried to explain, in outline, what happened later. Here there is no direct link with the Accused - here there is a particular action of a man attempting to inform the outside world. This information to the outside world has no direct connection with the Accused. But, of course, I shall carry out the Court's wishes, and I shall attempt to ascertain to what extent the Swedish Foreign Ministry will be prepared to respond to such an approach - what they did with the reports of Baron von Otter, of Berlin, which reached them. All that we know is that in 1945 they submitted a memorandum in London which included these matters.

Judge Halevi: That was after the War.

Attorney General: That was after the War. Incidentally, merely for the sake of historical completeness, the Swedish Forein Ministry confirmed this to the Israeli ambassador in Stockholm on 17 February 1961 - that same document which I submitted - and also confirmed it to the historian Poliakov, who approached the Swedes in 1949 for purposes of his researches. They gave him the same confirmation.

Judge Halevi: Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the Swedish Foreign Ministry was very active in helping persecuted Jews, for example Wallenberg in Hungary, so that I suppose they took some action.

Attorney General: I shall go into this Your Honour, and I shall report to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: In document No. 185, which is the Nuremberg annex 1553, it says, on page 16: "...that all these efforts were in vain, nothing was achieved." It also says here: "They asked me whether I was a soldier, and then they refused all contact with me." That is on page 12 of the German document.

Presiding Judge: This was asked by a representative of the Pope, according to this report, and not by the Swedes - this is how I read it.

Dr. Servatius: "I subsequently met Baron von Otter on two further occasions, and he informed me that the report on all these matters had a pronounced effect on Swedish-German relations, but the attempt to pass on the reports also to the diplomatic representatives of the Vatican came to nought, after I was asked whether I was a soldier." Yes, Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, that is correct - the reference was to the Vatican.

Attorney General: If the Court would be prepared to prolong the Session by a quarter of an hour, I shall manage to call one further witness who passed through several camps and who witnessed several important incidents, and then we shall be able to commence tomorrow with the Auschwitz chapter.

Presiding Judge: Very well.

Attorney General: I call Dr. David Wdowinski.

Presiding Judge: [To witness) Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Wdowinski: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: David Wdowinski.

Attorney General: Do you now reside in the United States?

Yes, I live in the United States.

Q. You are Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the New School for Sociological Research in New York?

A. Correct.

Q. At the time of the Second World War, you were in Warsaw?

A. I was there from the beginning.

Q. And, at the time of the ghetto revolt, you were the commander of the Irgun Zva'i Leumi (National Military Organization)* {*Military organization affiliated to the Revisionist movement} in the Warsaw Ghetto?

A. Correct.

Q. And you took part in the general uprising and in military activities until, ultimately, your bunker fell? When was that?

A. Yes, it was in the last week of April 1943.

Q. And then all the strongholds held by the Irgun Zva'i Leumi in Warsaw fell?

A. There were still a few outposts that went on fighting and as far as I know, a few units fought on for at least three weeks more.

Q. When you came out of your bunker and were transferred to the Umschlagplatz, you saw one of your strongholds?

A. I saw the outpost at Murinowska Square, 79 Murinowska Street. Our flag - the blue and white flag - was flying over the building; the outpost was still fighting - I heard the shots.

Q. From the Umschlagplatz, you were put into freight cars and taken to Lublin?

A. Yes. On the following day, the day after we were captured - we waited a whole day, and on the following day they took me and the remnants of my family - for a large part of my family had been killed at Treblinka, and even before Treblinka, in the first "action" between June and Yom Kippur, 1942.

Q. And then you were brought to the camp at Majdanek?

A. Yes.

Q. There they separated you from your wife and the rest of your family?

A. Yes, three or four days later.

Q. And where did they transfer you to?

A. They transferred me, together with 806 other Jews - we numbered 807 together - to a camp which was not far from Lublin - thirty-five kilometres away - to Budzyn.

Q. Did they select precisely 807 people?

A. Yes, we were already standing - the survivors of Warsaw Jewry - near the gate where there were various units from Majdanek, and they waited to send us to some field. Suddenly, some SS man came there - afterwards we got to know that he was Oberscharfuehrer Feiks - with some Ukrainians in black, and demanded 807 Jews from the local commander, because there were 1193 in his camp at Budzyn, and, for the sake of his prestige, it was necessary for him to have two thousand.

Q. So he asked for exactly 807?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was the number he received?

A. Yes.

Q. What work was done at Budzyn?

A. In Budzyn, which was a Jewish labour camp, the work was in a Heinkel aircraft factory.

Q. What was the regime in the camp like?

A. It is hard to describe; in one word, it was - terrible. For example, when we reached Budzyn, on the first day (I think it was 30 April or 1 May), the commandant Feiks told us to stand in two rows. Afterwards, he went up to one of the Jews and told him to leave the rank and ordered him to undress. He then began undressing; he removed his overcoat and Feiks started shouting: "Hurry up - undress completely!" This went on until he was altogether naked, and then he drew a revolver and killed this Jew and said: "This is what will happen to each one of you if you do not hand over everything you have, and this is only an example." He demanded gold, silver, good clothes, suitcases, and so on.

Presiding Judge: What was the name of this German?

Witness Wdowinski: Reinhold Feiks. He was from Sudetenland.

Attorney General: Was there a further instance where he murdered someone with his own hands?

Witness Wdowinski: On the same day, he saw a man of advanced age, an old man, and his first words were: "You old dog - are you still alive?" And he ordered the Ukrainians to shoot him and kill him - and he went off. Then we surrounded the old man, and the Ukrainians were unable to find him. By chance, the commandant came back to the camp half an hour or an hour later and saw the old man - he drew his revolver and shot him. He was a very popular doctor from Warsaw, very much loved by the Jews of Warsaw - Dr. Pupko. He was well known, firstly because he was an Orthodox Jew: he prayed every day with his phylacteries and prayer shawl; he would not write any prescriptions on the Sabbath, and, apart from that, he was known and loved, for he had done a great deal as a doctor for the poor Jews and had attended to them without payment.

Q. Did you work as a doctor in Budzyn?

A. I worked as a doctor in Budzyn.

Q. And did you have to take care of a common grave for those who were killed there?

A. I had to supervise the cleanliness of the camp, to look after the graves - that is to say, there was only one grave, a common grave - and to see that it was kept clean. And whenever a Jew died - that means when he was killed - lime had to be poured over him, because of the hygienic and sanitary conditions. Apart from that, before a Jew was buried, his teeth were removed, if he had any gold teeth, and so on.

Q. Do you remember an incident with a man named Bitter?

A. Of course, I remember this incident - it is an incident I shall never forget as long as I live. While Bitter was at work, some cash fell out of his pocket, a few zlotys, and the "Meister" (overseer) saw it.

Q. Who was this "Meister"?

A. His name was Mass. He reported it to the commandant, and the commandant, first of all, gave him a thorough beating, and then he decided that this Jew had to be hanged. And they hanged him, but apparently the rope was weak, and it broke. Bitter fell down, still alive. Then Feiks decided that it was not necessary to hang him once again, and it would be a pity to waste a bullet on the Jews; he decided that the Jews themselves would have to kill him. He called a roll-call of two thousand Jews. We, the doctors, stood on one side. There were a few doctors. And the Ukrainians gave a stick to each Jew, and the Jews had to beat him; and he had to run around. And two or three Ukrainians ran behind him to see that he was really being beaten very hard by the Jews. And all the time this Jew was running around, he kept saying, "I take it with love - if I have to be sacrificed for the People of Israel, I take it with love."

Ultimately, he fell down, and the commandant called me to check whether he was alive or not. And, in a very weak voice, he said to me: "I don't feel any pain, doctor, it does not hurt, I am suffering for the Jewish people, and I take it with love. But I would ask you, say `Kaddish' (the mourners' prayer) for me." I don't know how long after that, whether it was a few minutes or half an hour - they did not allow us to give him water, a cup of water, or anything else - he died.

Q. To what German formation did Reinhold Feiks belong?

A. The SS. He was an Oberscharfuehrer.


[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.