Accessed 18 October 1999

Judgment in the Trial of Adolf Eichmann 

[Part 17]

142. The question as to whether the Accused also participated in what was happening inside the camps becomes complicated because of his statements that from time to time he used to visit Globocnik and also saw the Treblinka camp under construction in the autumn of 1941 (apparently in the presence of Wirth himself), and again later when it was functioning.  He describes the purpose of his visits to the East as being purely to collect information for Heydrich and Mueller, who were interested in Globocnik's activities.  We find it difficult to believe that they would send the Accused on such a journey merely for such a purpose, but in the absence of further proof, we are unable to draw further conclusions from this fact by itself. 

But this is not all, because he admits that on two occasions he brought Globocnik letters, each containing authority to kill 250,000 Jews in his camps.  Further, he says in the Statement T/37, pp. 170-171, that it was he who brought Globocnik the news that the Fuehrer had decided upon the physical destruction of the Jews.  In his testimony, he retracts somewhat and says that Globocnik already knew of the Fuehrer's decision (Session 96, Vol. Iv, pp. xxxx25Þ26).   However, the question of the letters still remains.  The Accused contends that these were retrospective authorizations, each time referring to the killing of Jews who had already been killed, and that these authorizations were given to Globocnik at the latter's request.  But the language of the letters does not suggest the granting of ex post facto approval.  On this subject the Accused says (T/37, p. 240) that Heydrich dictated to him the text of the letter to Globocnik in the following terms: 

"I authorize you to bring another 150,000 Jews to the Final Solution."

 (Later on he says that he thinks the number was 250,000.) 

The Accused does not remember whether the letter was written by Heydrich on the letterhead of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Head of the German Police, or on Heydrich's own letterhead, as head of the Security Police and the SD.  But in the same place (p. 240), he confirms that the letter was written by Heydrich, as the person so authorized on the basis of the Wannsee Conference, i.e., not in the name of Himmler, but by virtue of his own authority.  Therefore, two serious questions arise: 

(1) If it is true that Globocnik acted according to a special order from Himmler, why did he request the retrospective authorization, not from him but from Heydrich?  And if, indeed, Heydrich acted by virtue of the authority granted to him at the Wannsee Conference, does it not follow that Globocnik's activities in the extermination camps he administered were also under the supervision of Heydrich, as head of the RSHA?  And if this is so, then this matter, too, automatically comes within the scope of the Accused's activity, since he was the RSHA Referent for matters concerned with the Final Solution.

The Accused has no convincing reply to this question.  When the Attorney General asked him if it was not correct that the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Generalgouvernement was carried out by the RSHA, he replied: 

"No, that is not correct, Globocnik was not on the staff of the Head Office for Reich Security.  On this matter an agreement was reached between the Security Police and the SD and Krueger, and they both received their orders from Himmler.  This is how I remember the matter the whole time, I never heard any other description." 

But when a specific question was put to him, 

"If this is so, why is it that, some months after the Wannsee Conference, on two or three occasions Globocnik asked Heydrich for retroactive orders to cover the killing of 150,000 or a quarter of a million Jews?" 

The Accused had no other answer but: 

"I was not then familiar with these matters regarding complicated orders from above.  I do not know and cannot furnish information about this.  The fact is that the SS and police commanders in the Generalgouvernement who carried out these actions were not subordinate to the Security Police but to the Senior Commander of the SS and Police in Cracow."  (Session 99, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx23-24) 

We therefore come back to our problem: If this is so, why did the authorization come from Heydrich, the head of the Security Police and the SD? 

(2) It is also hard to believe that, in the short time that elapsed between the time the camps in the East started functioning (approximately March 1942) and Heydrich's death in June 1942, Globocnik had already managed to kill half a million Jews, so that the authorizations given up to the time of his (Heydrich's) death would be retroactive;  nor is there in the language of the authorization, as quoted by the Accused, any specific indication of retroactive validity.  Is it not more reasonable to assume that these were authorizations for mass killings, given before and not after the act?  And did the Accused, in fact, serve in this matter only as one who took dictation and as a messenger, and not in terms of his authority as head of Section IVB4 which, within the RSHA, was collating all matters connected with the Final Solution?

In spite of these serious doubts, we do not see a firm basis for finding facts in this matter against the Accused's version because it is only from him that we know about these letters of Heydrich's.  But one conclusion may be drawn even according to his version: The handing over of these letters to Globocnik, even if they had only retroactive validity, on each occasion strengthened afresh Globocnik's readiness to continue to kill Jews en masse.  These letters were important to him; otherwise, he would not have asked for them.  Insofar as the Accused took part in the preparation of these letters and their transmission to Globocnik, he, too, was active in regard to the continuation of the slaughter in the camps in the East. 

143.The Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was administered by Group D of the Economic-Administrative Head Office, directed by Gluecks, to whom Hoess, the first commander of the camp, who carried out most of the extermination activities there, was subordinate.  The Accused argues that he had no  influence on what was done inside the Auschwitz camp.  He would dispatch transports of Jews to Auschwitz in accordance with the orders received, after information had come from the above-mentioned Group D, that the camps were able to receive additional Jews.  At the same time, he admits that he visited Auschwitz about five times, and that, at the time of the deportations from Hungary, he checked directly with Hoess the reception possibilities of the camp (Session 93, Vol. IV, p. xxxx25).  He also admits that on one of his visits to Auschwitz he witnessed with his own eyes the mass burning of bodies on an iron grating within a pit 100 or even 180 metres long (T/37, p. 227). 

The statement made by Hoess himself gives a different picture of the Accused's activities in regard to the Auschwitz camp (see his evidence before the International Tribunal at Nuremberg - T/1357; his evidence at his own trial in Poland - T/1356; and his memoirs - T/90).  He states that, in the summer of 1941, Himmler informed him that Auschwitz was destined to be the main centre for extermination of the Jews, and that the Accused would visit him shortly in order to give him additional information about this.  The Accused arrived to see Hoess shortly afterwards, and together they chose Birkenau as the extermination place and also conferred together about the extermination methods.  (At this point, Hoess describes the introduction of Zyklon B gas at Auschwitz.  We shall devote our attention to this matter later in a separate chapter of this Judgment.)  From Hoess' description, it appears that the Accused gave instructions on various matters connected with what was happening within the camp.  For example, he says that the Accused brought him Himmler's order to extract gold teeth from the corpses and to cut off the women's hair.  Hoess also relates that it was the view of the Accused that all the Jews arriving in the camp should be exterminated immediately and not used for labour - lest a mishap occur, such as a mass escape. 

The Accused strenuously denies all these things.  According to his version, the process of extermination was already a fait accompli at the time that he first visited Hoess at Auschwitz.  To this end he attempts to put the date of his first visit at a later date, to the spring of 1942 (see the timetable attached to the arguments in the written summing-up of Counsel for the Defence).  But this attempt is contradicted by what he said in his Statement before Superintendent Less (p. 378), namely that his first visit to Auschwitz took place four weeks after Heydrich had informed him of Hitler's decision to exterminate the Jews physically, i.e. (according to his account), in the autumn of 1941 at the latest.  And at that time the extermination of Jews in Auschwitz had not yet begun.  It is reasonable to assume that during this visit, the Accused told Hoess of what he had seen in the East and that they exchanged ideas on efficient methods of mass extermination.  But we do not propose to find facts based on the evidence of Hoess without corroborative evidence.  The Attorney General expressed the opinion that the need for corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice was not dispensed with by the provisions of Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law.  We see no need to decide on this question of principle.  We shall only say that, if Section 15 permits us to relax the rule in this matter, we shall not make use of our power in respect of the evidence of an accomplice who is no longer alive, because such relaxation does not appear to  us to be necessary in the interests of justice. 

144. We have not found any corroboration of Hoess' statement that the Accused brought him the order for the extraction of gold teeth and the cutting off of women's hair, and of his statement about the view expressed by the Accused. But in our opinion there is sufficient proof in Hoess' statements, as supported by other evidence, of the following facts: The Jews who reached the camp were divided into "Transport Jews" (Transportjuden) and others, such as Jews in protective custody.  All the Jews dispatched to Auschwitz by Section IVB4 of the RSHA - the Accused's Section - were "Transport Jews" (T/90, p. 12).  Every such transport reached the camp in accordance with information from the Accused's Section and was marked with a fixed code number, viz. IVB4 with some figures added, according to the country from which the Jews came (see the evidence of Rajewski, T/1356, p. 19 of the Hebrew translation).  No registration at all was made of these Jews in the camp (evidence of Raya Kagan, Session 70, Vol. III, p. 1276), but immediately upon arrival there, they passed through the selection conducted by SS doctors, and those who were unfit for work were dispatched on the spot to the gas chambers.  The execution of those who were found fit for work, and who did not die from the hard labour and the conditions which prevailed in the camp, was postponed at the discretion of the camp administration, until they, too, fell victims to one of the selections carried out periodically amongst the prisoners.  From 1943 onwards, the registration of deaths of Jews who were not sent immediately to the gas chambers was also discontinued (Session 70, p. 1269). 

As stated above, the Auschwitz camp belonged organizationally to the Economic-Administrative Head Office, which also controlled the forced labour of the camp prisoners. 

145. It follows, therefore, that every trainload of "Transport Jews" reached the Auschwitz camp with its passengers condemned to death by a general decree given in respect of the transport as a whole by the Accused's Section.  The moment the Jews passed through the camp gates, they came within the power of the camp administration, which had to carry out the death sentence.  At the same time, it had authority to postpone the execution of those who were fit for work.  As time went on, the need grew for exploiting prisoners for the production of arms and other work.  This we see, for example, from a cable to Himmler signed by Mueller and marked IVB4a, dated 16 December 1942, in which Mueller refers to Himmler's order for the increase of the labour force in the concentration camps and reports the dispatch of 45,000 Jews to Auschwitz, including persons unfit for work, elderly people and children.  He calculates that "if a suitable criterion is used, the selection of the Jews on their arrival will produce at least 10,000 to 15,000 labourers out of the total of 45,000 (T/292).  This is in accordance with the statement made by Hoess that the percentage of persons fit for work was approximately twentyÞfive per cent. 

It has also been proved that it was within the Accused's competence to give instructions in advance that a specific transport should not be taken off for immediate extermination, but only after some time had elapsed, as laid down by him.  This is what happened to a transport from Terezin which was deported to the Families' Camp in Auschwitz, with instructions that the people in this transport were to be executed six months later (see below, the chapter on Terezin). 

146. Amongst the Jews who reached Auschwitz camp as detainees and not as "Transport Jews" were such as had, allegedly, committed criminal offences, such as the making of a telephone call or contravening the curfew.  We heard from the witness Raya Kagan, who worked in the registration office at Auschwitz, that this group received better treatment, because they were exempted from the selections (Session 70, Vol. III, p. 1272).  Jews in "protective custody" (Schutzhaftjuden) reached the camp by virtue of individual orders issued by Section IVC2 of the RSHA, which dealt with protective custody matters (see T/1280, p. 3).  In his Statement T/37, p. 163, the Accused explains that the substantive examination of these individual cases was made by his Section, and Section IVC2 only issued the formal order. 

From exhibit T/103 it appears that matters of release from concentration camps were also within the competence of the RSHA (supra, p. 9, para. 11(f)).  But as Raya Kagan testified, as far as the Jews were concerned, this was only theoretical, because a Jew, once he entered Auschwitz, never came out again (Session 70, Vol. III, p. xx21; see also the Accused's account in his Statement T/37, pp. 223-224). 

The Accused was not authorized to give orders himself for the carrying out of the death sentence by way of punishment of Jews in Auschwitz and in other concentration camps.  Apparently, this authority was reserved to Himmler himself, and to Mueller (see T/202, p. 1, end).  But notification of the carrying out of the execution of Jews was transmitted to the Section of the Accused (T/37, p. 2101). 

147. With regard to the Chelmno extermination camp, proof has been adduced before us that it was administered by a special unit commanded by one Bothmann (see T/1297, p. 12, of the Hebrew translation; T/1299).  We do not have before us proof of any administrative connection between this unit and the Accused's Section. 

Covering up of the Traces 

148. In the autumn of 1942, Himmler ordered the opening of the mass graves of Jews previously executed in the East, the burning of the bodies, and the elimination of all traces of slaughter which had taken place in every locality.  Apparently, Himmler was afraid that the advancing Red Army might discover the graves, and he thought that the disposal of the bodies would be sufficient to efface the eternal shame.  The task was allotted to a special unit known as No. 1005, commanded by Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel. 

The testimonies we heard on this subject, especially from two witnesses, Dr. Leon Wells (Weliczker) and Avraham Karasik, conjured up visions of hell which were amongst the most horrifying parts of all the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.  In June 1943, Dr. Wells was taken off to work in this unit in eastern Galicia.  He describes the work as follows (Session 23, Vol. I, p. 370): 

"We used to uncover all the graves where there were people who had been killed during the past three years, take out the bodies, pile them up in tiers and burn these bodies; grind the bones, take out all the valuables in the ashes such as gold teeth, rings and so on - separate them...we used to throw the ashes up in the air so that they would disappear, replace the earth on the graves and plant seeds, so that nobody could recognize that there ever was a grave there."

He described the grinding machine as something like a big concrete mixer, with steel balls inside.  They would put the bones into the machine and the steel balls would crush them (supra, p. 371).  We have already recalled above a similar description by the witness Zurawski (Chelmno camp). 

This unit was occupied not only with dead bodies, but also with living human beings who were taken to the pyre, shot there, and cast into the flames.  Dr. Wells describes that, at the time of mass murder by machine guns, not all the victims were invariably killed by the bullets, and so it happened that people still alive met death in the flames.  He estimates the number of those killed in this way, and whose death he witnessed himself, at 30,000, the last remnant of the Jews in that territory.  This was during the last stage of the extermination of East Galician Jewry, by order of Katzmann, Commander of the SS and the Police.  Dr. Wells estimates the number of bodies burned by this unit at several hundred thousand (supra, p. 51). 

The witness Karasik gave similar evidence about the work of Unit 1005 in another region, in the vicinity of Bialystok and Eastern Prussia (Session 28, p. 12).

Hoess states in his memoirs (exhibit T/90, p. 6) that, some time after Himmler's visit in the summer of 1942, Standartenfuehrer Blobel "of the Eichmann Service Unit" arrived and brought with him Himmler's order for the opening of all the mass graves in Auschwitz and the burning of the bodies.  He also states that Blobel received instructions from Eichmann to show him the crematorium which had been set up in the Chelmno extermination camp.  T/218 is the report on Hoess' journey to Chelmno, accompanied by another two SS officers.  In that report as well, mention is made of a grinding machine which was to be sent to Auschwitz.  Hoess states also that from time to time he had to supply Jews for work with Unit 1005, because when the work was finished in each section, all the Jews who had been employed in the unit were shot. 

Wisliceny says of Blobel's unit that it "was formally placed under Eichmann" (T/85, p. 9). 

The Accused denied that he was Blobel's superior.  According to him, the only connection between his Section and Blobel was that Blobel himself and some of his men were housed in the building of Section IVB4 while they were in Berlin, and his Section dealt with them only from an administrative aspect (T/37, pp. 264, 390, 3044).  He also mentions strained personal relations between himself and Blobel. 

We find that the evidence is not sufficient to place the responsibility for the activities of Blobel's unit on the Accused.  As against Hoess' statement, it should be pointed out that Blobel himself, in the declaration which he made at Nuremberg (T/216), says in regard to his work as commander of Unit 1005: 

"I was under the control of Department IV, under the former Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.  In the autumn I received instructions, as the person charged by Mueller, to travel to the Eastern Occupied Territories, to cover up the traces of the mass graves from the time that executions had been carried out by the Operations Units." 

The Accused's name is not mentioned by Blobel, and also in the nature of things it does not necessarily follow that the Section of the Accused, which was occupied with carrying out the Final Solution, should also be engaged in the special operation of covering up the traces.  Accordingly, the Accused will have the benefit of the doubt in this matter.  

149. We have heard much testimony about the dreadful suffering which befell the Jews in the final days of the Third Reich, when the concentration camps in the East were evacuated.  The exhausted and starving prisoners were marched westwards for many days, in the cold and snow, by SS guards.  In those days, on the eve of liberation, tens of thousands of the survivors of the camps fell on the roads and in the fields, all along the way, from the camps in the north (evidence of Dr. Dworzecki, Karstadt, Ben-Zvi, Mrs. Neumann) to Auschwitz, which was evacuated in the middle of January 1945, when its last prisoners were led to other camps inside Germany (evidence of Professor Wellers, Sapir, Gutman, Bakon, Dr. Beilin and Mrs. Kagan). 

It is not clear to us that the Accused was personally concerned with the evacuation of the camps and with what happened in them during this last stage, except for Bergen-Belsen.  The report of the International Red Cross representative of April 1945 (T/865) makes it clear that the control of Jewish prisoners in this camp, and also in the Terezin Ghetto, remained with the Accused until the end.  Accordingly, he bears at least part of the responsibility for what happened in Bergen-Belsen towards the end of the Nazi regime, and for the conditions in which the camp prisoners were found by their liberators. 

150. We must devote special consideration to two camps, both because of their special character and also because of the close connection which the Accused had with the administration of these camps: Terezin (Theresienstadt) and Bergen-Belsen. 

The Terezin Ghetto

 Terezin was originally set up as a ghetto for the concentration of the Jews of the Protectorate, following upon the conference held in Prague on 10 October 1941 and presided over by Heydrich (T/294).  This we have already mentioned above in connection with the first deportations from the Reich after Hitler had given his order for the extermination of the Jews.  In his Statement T/37, at p. 117, the Accused stated that it was he who suggested to Heydrich the idea of concentrating the Jews of the Protectorate in this manner, thus rescuing Heydrich from an awkward situation after the latter had publicly announced that the Protectorate would be purged of Jews within eight weeks.  Within a short time, additional functions were allocated to the Terezin Ghetto.  At the Wannsee Conference, Heydrich speaks of Terezin as a "ghetto for the aged" to which Jews above the age of sixtyÞfive are to be sent, as well as war invalids and holders of distinguished service medals, together with their spouses and children up to the age of fourteen.  Jews of these categories were indeed sent to Terezin, as well as other privileged groups, such as descendants of mixed marriages - as is apparent from the documents of the Duesseldorf Gestapo, dated July 1942 (T/1397). 

When Kaltenbrunner, in a letter dated February 1943,        - reference IVB4 - seeks permission from Himmler to evacuate Jews over the age of sixty from Terezin to Auschwitz, he received the following surprising reply:        

"The Reichsfuehrer is not interested in the dispatch of Jews from Terezin, because this would interfere with the aim that the aged Jews in Terezin Ghetto should be able to live and die in peace."  (T/858; T/859) 

We do not know what lay behind Himmler's reply.  He certainly cannot be suspected of any human feelings towards Jews, of whatever age.  In fact, sick and old people were deported from Terezin to Auschwitz at an earlier date (see, for example, T/848), and also later (evidence of Mrs. Henschel, Session 37, Vol. II, p. 674; evidence of Mr. Ansbacher, Session 38, Vol. II, pp. 683-684).  Mr. Ansbacher describes the deportation of old people from Terezin to Auschwitz as follows: 

"Generally, people arrived there already at the end of their strength.  There were those who were already dying, and the SS nevertheless shouted that the number had to be complete and that they should be put inside the freight cars."  (Session 38, Vol. II, p. 690.) 

151. The truth is that the Terezin Ghetto was established for large-scale propaganda purposes and for camouflage, so that it could be shown to foreign visitors to convince them that rumours about the extermination of Jews and the way they were maltreated in the camps were nothing but "atrocity propaganda."  In the language of the Accused (T/37, p. 245), this was "only Himmler's exterior signboard (Aushaengeschild) for people abroad, and nothing else," and on the same page he called Himmler's idea of transforming Terezin into a ghetto for the aged "a devilish idea." 

We find full confirmation of this in the documents.  Exhibit T/734 is a report of a consultation on 6 March 1942 in Section IVB4 of the RSHA, presided over by the Accused, when he himself explained that the transports to Terezin were made in order to "keep up appearances for the outside world."  In exhibit T/537 (memorandum by Zoepf on a conversation he had with the Accused), Terezin is described simply as the "propaganda camp." 

The witness Ansbacher told us of the severe hunger, the frightful overcrowding, the diseases and general atmosphere of desolation which prevailed in Terezin, and the pictures of life in the ghetto (T/651-T/663) show all this to the full.  In a single month (October 1942), more than three thousand persons died there (declaration by Seidl, the first commander of Terezin, T/842, second record of proceedings, p. 5). 

But, when foreign representatives visited the camp, such as the representatives of the Red Cross, the appearance of the ghetto changed beyond recognition.  In his evidence, Mr. Ansbacher states (supra, p. 692):           

"...There were certain areas where there was a total curfew ... Only people who had a more or less human appearance were allowed to show themselves... They painted the houses on the outside, they prepared large signs which read: `Central School'...`Ghetto Theatre'... They prepared a special play hall...they constructed beautiful toys...they brought the children there in little beds with a heart carved on them, really like some palace." 

In 1942, the Terezin Ghetto population reached close to 60,000 souls (declaration of Seidl, supra, p. 4).  From time to time the population would be "thinned out" by deportations, to make possible the reception of new Jews in the ghetto, so that Terezin in fact became an assembly point for deportation to Auschwitz, as Seidl says on page 8.  He mentions February 1942 as the date of the first deportation from Terezin to Auschwitz (supra, third record of proceedings, p. 18), and estimates the number of persons thus deported during the period of his service there (December 1941 to July 1943) at 50,000.  In the autumn of 1944, again more than 20,000 persons were deported from Terezin to Auschwitz (testimony of Viteslav Diamant, Session 45, Vol. II, p. 808).  When the witness Mrs. Salzberger reached Terezin at the end of January 1945, she found only 6,000 people there.  On the eve of the collapse of the Reich, the number again increased, because thousands of prisoners from other camps were transferred there. 

When they reached Auschwitz, some of the deportees from Terezin were housed in a special "Families' Camp" (evidence of Yehuda Bakon, Session 68, Vol. III, p. 12442; evidence of Hoess in Poland, T/1356, p. 52 on the eleventh day of the trial).  The Accused ordered "Special Treatment after six months" for them, and during their stay in Auschwitz, they had to write letters to Terezin according to a prescribed text, to inform their friends that all was well with them (testimony of Hoess, supra).  On this subject, the witness Bakon relates that he and others with him were also obliged, in January 1944, to write postcards bearing the date 25 March 1944 (Session 68, Vol. III, p. 1244). 

In February and March 1945, the construction of gas chambers at Terezin was begun (evidence of Engelstein, Session 45, Vol. II, p. 815), but work was abandoned before its completion, and these chambers did not reach the stage of being used. 

152. The Accused was competent to give instructions on all matters connected with the administration of the Terezin Ghetto, and he also used this authority in practice and closely supervised what was happening there, to the point of intervening in current administrative matters.  A sort of "local government" of the Jews was set up in the ghetto, in the form of a Council of Elders, which was, of course, subordinate to the commander of the camp (Seidl, and after him Rahm).  The commander, on his part, used to receive his instructions from the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Prague, headed by Hans Guenther (the brother of Rolf Guenther, the Accused's permanent deputy).  From an administrative point of view, the Central Office in Prague was attached to the office of the Commander of the Security Police (BdS) on the spot, but in fact, the Central Office was attached to the Accused's Section in the RSHA.  The Accused's competence in regard to Terezin stands out clearly in all the testimonies as well as the "Orders of the Day" and the various memoranda of the Council of Elders which have been preserved. 

Rahm, who followed Seidl as commander of Terezin, gave evidence in his trial that the Accused himself told him that, from the point of view of technical administration, he was responsible to the BdS in Prague, but from a political point of view, to the RSHA in Berlin, and on questions of policy, he, Rahm, would receive instructions from Moes, one of the officials working with the Accused in Section IVB4 (T/864).  In his evidence, the Accused tried to limit his competence to matters of state importance (Session 98, Vol. IV, p.xxxx5), but this cannot be accepted as an accurate description of the scope of his powers.  He not only decided upon the transfer of Jews of foreign nationality from Terezin to Bergen-Belsen (T/851), but the above-mentioned Moes appointed the Council of Elders in the ghetto.  The Accused organized the "Jewish Police" within the ghetto (T/37, p. 2028); approaches were made to him for permission to send letters from Terezin, and his interest even reached the matter of deciding what type of beds should be provided for the inhabitants of the ghetto (T/346). 

The Accused visited Terezin frequently.  According to the evidence of Mr. Diamant, which we accept as correct, in spite of the Accused's denial, the Accused personally took part in a selection in Terezin, which preceded the deportation to Auschwitz in the autumn of 1944 (Session 45, Vol. II, p. 808).  The Accused contends that during that period he was in Hungary, but the fact is that he used to travel quite often from there to Berlin and to other places. 

We shall discuss the instructions for the prevention of births in the Terezin Ghetto in a special section devoted to this subject.


Document compiled by Dr S D Stein
Last update 17/03/02 08:07:56
©S D Stein

Faculty of Economics and Social Science Home Page

Eichmann Judgment Index Page