Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-108-01
Last-Modified: 1999/06/14

Session No. 108
11 Av 5721 (24 July 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the one hundred and eighth
Session of the trial open.  We shall continue with the
submission of the testimonies for the Defence taken abroad.
Dr. Servatius, who is the next witness to be dealt with?

Dr. Servatius:  The witness Winkelmann.  This is the
testimony taken on 19 May 1961 before the Court of First
Instance in Bordesholm.  I would particularly draw attention
to page 2, the third paragraph, in the middle of the page.
This reads:

     "...because in the service instructions to the Reich
     Plenipotentiary in Hungary, Dr. Veesenmayer, it was
     noted that the Higher SS and Police Officer - this was
     the post I occupied after I was assigned to Hungary in
     April 1944 - was to join the legation.  During the time
     I was in Hungary I was never informed of this service
     instruction" - i.e., the above service instruction to
     the Reich Ambassador.  "Neither was I assigned to the
     legation in accordance with this service instruction.
     I only became aware of this service instruction during
     an examination this year, when I was shown a photocopy
     of it.  The service instruction stated that the Higher
     SS and Police Officer was to handle the Jewish Question
     in the legation.  I was therefore never instructed to
     handle the Jewish Question in Hungary."

At the bottom of page 3 it says:

     "I received my instructions for my work only from
     Reichsfuehrer Himmler.  I did not receive any
     instructions from the various Head Offices, nor did I
     receive any reports from the commanders to the Head
     Offices.  The only thing I did get was copies from the
     Leadership Head Office of orders for setting up of new
     SS units.  I received daily reports from the Commander
     of the Security Police and the Security Service.  These
     reports were also received by the Reich
     Plenipotentiary, Dr. Veesenmayer, who passed the
     reports on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
     Ribbentrop.  This he did in order to create the
     impression that I was subordinate to him.  To do this,
     when passing on these reports, the Reich
     Plenipotentiary, Dr. Veesenmayer, would write: `The
     Higher SS and Police Leader in Hungary reports to
     me...'  That gave the mistaken impression that I was
     subordinate to him.  Dr. Veesenmayer wished to create
     this misleading impression with the Minister for
     Foreign Affairs."
     
On page 4, the second paragraph:

     "I should like to stress once again that I was not
     subordinate to the Reich Plenipotentiary, Dr.
     Veesenmayer, either.  Dr. Veesenmayer incorrectly
     informed Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop - as
     I saw later, after the collapse - that I was
     subordinate to him in all matters."

Page 5, first paragraph:

     "In the course of time, Eichmann paid several visits to
     me.  As an SS officer, he had to report to me that he
     was going off duty when he left Hungary.  He also had
     to report back to me when he returned to Hungary.  He
     came to see me for this reason.  On these occasions I
     learned from him that the Jews in a particular district
     had been rounded up by the Hungarian gendarmerie.  I
     took note of what he told me and reflected on it.
     Eichmann was however not subordinate to me.  He
     received his orders directly from the Head Office for
     Reich Security."

At the bottom of page 6:

     "...In this connection I would mention that a Hungarian
     lieutenant in the gendarmerie told me that he himself
     heard that Hungarian Lieutenant-Field Marshal Faragho
     stated to the People's Court in Budapest that he had
     been responsible for planning the ghettoization and
     deportation of the Jews in Hungary."

On page 7 - the end of the last paragraph:

     "I remember Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner coming to me to
     make representations to me.  I am able from my own
     observations, to confirm as correct his description of
     the march and the condition of the exhausted people,
     which he gave in his examination of 3 May 1948 in
     Nuremberg, which description has been read out to me. I
     am unable to say whether the name Eichmann was
     mentioned in this context.
     
     "I made representations to Reichsfuehrer Himmler on
     account of these foot marches.  Reichsfuehrer Himmler
     immediately, in my presence, contacted Gruppenfuehrer
     Mueller from the Head Office for Reich Security on the
     matter.  I myself heard Reichsfuehrer Himmler ordering
     a ban on all further foot marches.  Those who had been
     sent off on these marches were to be removed by
     vehicle.  I gathered from this conversation of
     Reichsfuehrer Himmler with the Head Office for Reich
     Security - Mueller - that the foot marches had taken
     place with the knowledge of the Head Office for Reich
     Security."

Those are the passages to which I wished to refer.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.  Please proceed.  The passages
to which the Attorney General wishes to refer - would the
interpreter please read these out.

Interpreter: Page 5 - I see that this has already been read
out.

Presiding Judge: Which passage?

Interpreter: "Eichmann was not subordinate to me."  The
second passage on page 5:

     "Eichmann belonged to the Berlin Head Office for Reich
     Security.  Whenever he received orders, it was from
     this body.  There was no change from that in Hungary,
     either."  And now the last paragraph on the same page:
     
     "In describing Eichmann, I should like to say that I
     did not like this officer's snappish manner.  I
     considered him to have the nature of a subaltern.  By
     this, I mean someone who uses his authority
     unreservedly, without evolving moral or mental
     restraints upon the exercise of his power; nor does he
     have any scruples about exceeding his authority, if he
     believes he is acting in the spirit of the person
     giving him his orders."

Presiding Judge: Is that all, Mr. Dayan?

Attorney General: Yes, that is everything.

Presiding Judge: I mark the Winkelmann statement XI.  Please
proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius:  The next witness is Juettner.  Statement of
15 June 1961, Court of First Instance, Bad Toelz.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, there is some mistake here:
Juettner's statement has already been submitted as that of a
Prosecution witness.

Dr. Servatius:  The Grell statement.

Presiding Judge: That has also been submitted already, has
it not?  That was a Prosecution witness, witness No. 5.

Dr. Servatius:  But we still have Veesenmayer, Novak; Slawik
is not yet available; von dem Bach-Zelewski and Kappler.

First of all, witness Novak.  Examined on 15 June 1961.
Vienna District Court.  I refer to page 2, question 3:

     "I do not know whether Eichmann was able to issue
     orders independently, or whether he received orders for
     the transports.  I do know that Eichmann was sent for
     by his superior almost every day.   The reason why I
     know this is that often he was looked for, and then it
     was said that he was with the Group Leader or the
     Department Chief."

Then, on page 11, questions 30 to 32:

     "I did not receive an order from anybody to deport Jews
     from the Kistarcsa assembly camp, nor do I know
     anything about such a deportation.  I do not know the
     Kistarcsa location, nor have I ever been there,
     although in the proceedings pending against me in the
     Vienna District Court for Criminal Cases, a witness
     alleges to have seen me at the Kistarcsa assembly
     camp."

These are the passages I wished to read out.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.  Now for the Attorney General,
please.

Attorney General: Just one paragraph on page 10, question
26:

     "I do know by  name a Hungarian gendarmerie captain
     called Kullay or Lullay, but I had no official dealings
     with him.  This captain also took part in the Vienna
     timetable conference, and I frequently saw him at the
     Eichmann Commando office in Budapest."

So that this reply should be intelligible, perhaps I might
also come back to the brief answer to question 25?

     "Question 25: I did go from Budapest in May 1944 to
     take part in the timetable conference in Vienna.
     However, I no longer remember whether I received this
     assignment from Eichmann or from Wisliceny."

Presiding Judge: Is that everything?  Very well, I therefore
mark the Novak statement XII.  Dr. Servatius, who is next?

Dr. Servatius:  Veesenmayer.  Examined on 23 May 1961 before
the Court of First Instance in Darmstadt.
I would refer here to page 4, in the middle:

     "In a legation, things are organized in such a way that
     most of the so-called routine work is prepared and
     drafted by Specialist Officers, then first submitted
     for control to the Legation Counsellor, who deputizes
     for the Ambassador for his approval, and only then
     submitted by the Counsellor to the Ambassador for
     signature.  At the beginning the legation did not have
     a special expert official for so-called Jewish Affairs.
     Special representatives would be sent by the Foreign
     Ministry, and these would change relatively quickly.
     These special representatives were not part of the
     legation.  They were directly subordinate to the
     Foreign Ministry.  Later a Mr. Grell was sent to us,
     and he was made a member of the legation staff.  I no
     longer remember what rank he held."

Page 5, the bottom paragraph:

     "With regard to exhibit T/675, I only remember that,
     right from the beginning, the Foreign Ministry was
     demanding manpower from the Hungarian Government.
     These demands, too, went only partly through myself.
     Also, special representatives sent by the ministry
     responsible for armaments arrived, and they turned to
     the Hungarian authorities directly."

On page 6, in the middle:

     "If I made such demands or representations to the
     Hungarian Government, they would have had to have been
     preceded by corresponding instructions from the Foreign
     Ministry.  The telegram says `also for Ambassador
     Ritter'; when I was posted to Hungary as Ambassador, I
     was made subordinate to Ambassador Ritter's special
     right to issue instructions.  Today I can no longer say
     whether I received special instructions to demand Jews
     from the Hungarian Government.  I do know whether there
     were special Jewish labour batallions set up earlier
     with the Hungarian armed forces."

Page 7, at the bottom:

     "(1) The question contains an error.  I was never Reich
     Pleipotentiary."

The representative of Counsel for the Accused handed over a
copy of Prosecution document No. 272 with the request that
it be shown to the witness.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bodenheimer, No. 272, what exhibit
number is that?

Mr. Bodenheimer  It is exhibit T/457.

Dr. Servatius:  "Prosecution document No. 272 was shown to
the witness, who made the following statement on it: `The
document does apply to me.  I can only repeat that I was
never Reich Plenipotentiary'."

Presiding Judge: Did you say T/457, Mr. Bodenheimer?

Mr. Bodenheimer  Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: Something is wrong here.

Dr. Servatius:  I have 475 in my notes, not 457.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what was the intention in
this document?  What was involved?

Dr. Servatius:  That refers to the question in the
questionnaire.  I imagine this reads: "Were you Reich
Plenipotentiary?"

Presiding Judge: But the number 272 is, I assume, that of
Bureau 06.  Is that correct?

Dr. Servatius:  I suppose so, because it appears that the
Court also used this number.

Presiding Judge: As far as I can make out, this is a
document about France, and so there must be a mistake in the
numbering.  Dr. Servatius, this is 212, not 272; 212 - so
that makes it T/1235.

Dr. Servatius:  I have corrected it in my text.

Presiding Judge: I should just like to see the text for a
moment; this is a letter from Veesenmayer, but I see that
also here he is called Reich Plenipotentiary.

Dr. Servatius:  He says about this: "It was shown to the
witness, who stated, `the document does apply to me; I can
only repeat that I was never Reich Plenipotentiary'."

Presiding Judge: In any case, this was presumably a letter
in which he was called "Reich Plenipotentiary," and he now
comments on this, as asked.

Dr. Servatius:  The judgment in Case 11 also refers to it;
in the course of events he forgot that he had this title.

Presiding Judge: Very well.

Dr. Servatius:  In question 1 he was asked: "What were your
powers and duties as Reich Plenipotentiary for Hungary?"
And he says: "The question is erroneous."

The Defence then shows him document No. 1021.* {* T/1145}
He said: "I repeat, in the ultimate result I was never Reich
Plenipottentiary.  The telegram may have been worded in this
way out of ignorance."

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