| Source: http://www.nizkor.org Accessed 18 October 1999 Judgment in the Trial of Adolf Eichmann [Part 22] 200. Counts five, six and seven
of the indictment charge the Accused with crimes against humanity
committed against Jews. According to Section 1(a)(2) of the Law,
"crime against humanity" means one of the following acts:
"murder, extermination, enslavement, starvation, and deportation of
civilian population; and also persecution on national, racial, religious
or political grounds." The
fifth count attributes to the Accused acts mentioned in the first part
of the definition (murder, extermination, enslavement, starvation or
deportation), and the sixth count includes everything mentioned in
counts 1-5, and charges the Accused that by carrying out all these
actions, he persecuted Jews on national, racial, religious or political
grounds, as mentioned in the second part of the definition. 201. It is clear that both parts
of the definition of the crime against humanity apply to all the
activities of the Accused against the Jews at the final stage, as from
August 1941, and that at this stage he participated in all the inhuman
acts mentioned in the section of the Law (murder, extermination,
enslavement, starvation and deportation of civilian population).
Causing serious damage to the Jews, bodily or mentally, was also
an inhuman act committed against the civilian population.
All his acts carried out with the intent of exterminating the
Jewish People also amount, in fact, to the persecution of Jews on
national, racial, religious and political grounds.
In addition, the Accused will also be convicted (unless
justification for his acts can be found) of crime against humanity,
instead of crime against the Jewish People, by reason of his activities
in the Central Offices for Jewish Emigration in Vienna, Prague and
Berlin until October 1941 (sections 63-66, 80) and by organizing
deportations to Nisko, the evacuation of Jews from territories annexed
to the Reich in the East (the Warthe district, etc.), the expulsion of
the Jews of Stettin and the expulsion of the Jews of Baden and the Saar-Palatinate
(sections 72-75, 77). It
should be pointed out that crimes committed during the first stage,
before the outbreak of World War II, also come within the definition of
crime against humanity, according to Section 1(a)(2), which refers to
the entire period of Nazi rule, beginning on 30 January 1933 (see
Section 16 of the Law). 202. The seventh count refers to
the plunder of the property of the victims, and in this connection
charges the Accused with a crime against humanity.
In this regard, Counsel for the Defence put forward a legal
argument that, according to the definition in the Law, plunder of
property is not included in the list of acts constituting crimes against
humanity. The Attorney General argued that plunder of property comes
within the definition of "any other inhuman act committed against
any civilian population," as stated in Section 1(b) of the Law. It is to be pointed out that "plunder of public or private property" is especially mentioned in the list of acts which come within the definition of war crime. May we read into the general concept of "any other inhuman act" something expressly mentioned by the legislator in proximity to the same part of the Law? 203. The courts at Nuremberg
were already troubled by the question before us when they had to
interpret similar provisions in the London Charter and in Control
Council Law No. 10. In the
case of Flick (Green Series, Vol. 6), the court expressed the opinion
that the plunder of Jewish industrial property on the basis of
discriminating laws in regard to the confiscation of Jewish property,
could not be considered a crime against humanity.
The court there says (supra, p. 1214): "Such
use of pressure, even on racial or religious grounds, has never been
considered to be a crime against humanity." But it adds: "A
distinction could be made between industrial property and the dwellings,
household supplies and food supplies of a persecuted people.
In this case, however, we are only concerned with industrial
property." In "The Ministries
Case" (Green Series, Vols. 13-14), the same question was considered
in the matter of the Minister of Finance, Schwerin von Krosigk.
A majority of the judges in this case convicted Schwerin-Krosigk
of war crimes and of a crime against humanity, by reason of his
participation in the notorious meeting held by Goering after the Crystal
Night, at which it was decided to impose upon the Jews a levy of
"expiation money" amounting to one billion Marks; publication
of regulations for the carrying out of this order; participation in the
issue of directives for the confiscation of the property of deported
Jews; and the publication of Regulation No. 11 under the Citizenship
Law, in regard to the confiscation of Jewish property upon crossing the
Reich frontier; and also participation in the realization of the
confiscated property which fell into the hands of the Germans when the
Warsaw Ghetto was evacuated. One
of the judges dissented, saying (vol. 14, p. 930): "It cannot be a crime against humanity, because merely depriving people of their property is not such a crime. There must be some maltreatment of the person ..." The same court
reconsidered its judgment and confirmed the conviction of
Schwerin-Krosigk. This time the court uses the following language (vol. 14, p.
991): "...nor can there be any doubt of the fate of the vast majority of the Jews thus robbed. Arrest, imprisonment in concentration camps, theft and death were essential parts of the same horrible scheme." The International Military
Tribunal, which tried the main war criminals, also touched upon the
question before us in the matter of the Minister of Economy and
President of the Reichsbank, Funk.
Amongst his deeds, the court mentions that, in the year 1942, an
agreement was concluded between him and Himmler, according to which the
Reichsbank was to receive from the SS jewellery and sums of money from
the property of the victims of concentration camps, and that he issued
instructions to his officials not to ask any questions in connection
with this arrangement (English edition, vol. 22, p. 551). This served as one of the grounds for the conviction of Funk
of a war crime and crime against humanity. 204. We hold that, according to
the language of the Law in question, the plunder of property may be
considered an inhuman act within the meaning of the definition of
"crime against humanity" only if it is committed under the
pressure of mass terror against any civilian population, or if it is
linked to any of the other acts of violence defined by the Law as a
crime against humanity, or as a result of any of those acts, i.e.,
murder, extermination, starvation, or deportation of any civilian
population, so that the plunder is only part of a general process, by
way of "Hast thou killed (or expelled) and also taken
possession?" Hence,
the plunder of the property of the Jews of Austria and of their
institutions, through the Centres for Jewish Emigration - in the
organization of which the Accused played a leading role
- must be regarded
as a crime against humanity in which the Accused participated, because
it was carried out by means of terror against the Jews as a group.
As to the plundering of the property of the Jews who were
expelled from the Reich by way of forced emigration, this was an
inseparable part of the procedure of expulsion itself (section 64).
The same applies to the confiscation of the property of the Jews
of the Protectorate and of their institutions, through the Central
Office for Jewish Emigration in Prague, set up and administered by the
Accused (section 66), as well as in connection with the property of the
Jews of Germany and of their institutions, and from the commencement of
operation of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Berlin in which
the Accused was active from the time it was first set up in 1939
(section 65). The methods
used in the Centres in Vienna and Prague were duplicated by the Accused
in Berlin; and in Germany Jews also lived in a state of mass terror.
This terror began immediately on Hitler's coming to power and
gained intensity as from the events of Crystal Night.
Under pressure of the threat of continued acts of violence and of
deportation to concentration camps, the Jews endeavoured to save their
lives and surrendered their property to the Reich, in exchange for
permission to emigrate. This,
too, applies not only to the private property of individuals, but also
to the property of Jewish institutions which were made over to the Reich
Association of Jews in Germany, and upon the liquidation of the
Association, this property also was finally lost (section 56). 205. What has been said applies
with even greater force to the Jews who were deported during the second
stage, like the Jews of areas annexed to the Reich (the Warthe district,
etc.) who were deported and whose property was transferred
simultaneously with the deportation to the "Trustreeship Office
East" (section 73); and later, at the final stage, in connection
with the property of those deported from the Reich towards the East,
whose property was stolen from them during the deportation by the many
devices described above, such as the "contributions" to
Special Account W and money ostensibly paid for the acquisition of
housing at Terezin (sections 85, 90(c), 91, 96(a)).
The same is true of all the Jews of European countries who were
expelled from their homes and sent to the East.
It makes no difference whether the property of these Jews fell
into the hands of the Germans themselves, or whether it was left in the
hands of the satellite governments of the victims' home countries, in
accordance with "the territorial principle," which had been
invented for this purpose (T/194; T/195).
The Accused participated in the plunder of the property of all
these, by the very act of deporting the victims, which was invariably
connected with the confiscation of their property.
For example, although it has not been proved that the Accused
participated in organizing the special Rosenberg Unit which plundered
the property of the Jews in the countries of Western Europe (sections
100, 101), he, too, is responsible for this plunder, since by deporting
the Jews he made it possible for this Unit to carry out its task.
And finally, the luggage and personal belongings of the
deportees, which were taken from them on their arrival at the
extermination and other camps (including the Aktion Reinhard in
Globocnik's camps), and the abomination of desecrating the corpses by
the extraction of their teeth and the cutting off of the hair from the
women's heads - in all these the Accused had a hand, since he was
responsible for bringing the victims to the camps where the acts were
committed, with the knowledge that these acts would be committed. 206. In the eighth count, the
Accused is charged with a war crime, in that during World War II in
Germany and other Axis states, and in areas occupied by them, together
with others, he caused the persecution, deportation and murder of the
Jewish population of the countries occupied by Germany and by other
countries of the Axis. All
acts of persecution, deportation and murder in which the Accused took
part, as we have found in discussing crimes against the Jewish People
and against humanity, also constitute war crimes within the meaning of
Section 1(a)(3) of the Law, as far as they were committed during World
War II, and the Jews who were the victims of these acts belonged to the
population of the countries conquered by Germany and by other Axis
countries. Hence, unless
there is a justification for these acts of his, the Accused will be
convicted also on the charge of war crimes according to the eighth
count. Ninth to Twelfth Counts 207. The ninth count of the
indictment charges the Accused with a crime against humanity committed
against over half a million Polish civilians.
The period is between 1940 and 1942, and the act - deportation of
Poles from their places of residence, with intention of settling German
families in those places. The
methods of deportation are described in the indictment as follows: (a)
The transfer to Germany and to German-occupied areas for the purpose of
their employment under conditions of servitude, coercion and terror; (b)
abandonment in other regions of Poland and German-occupied areas in the
East; (c) concentration in labour camps under inhumane conditions; (d)
transfer to Germany for the purpose of "Germanization." Counsel for the Defence argued
that the Poles were not deported, but that they were
"resettled" in a way which does not constitute a crime.
Let us, therefore, examine the nature of the activities mentioned
in this count of the indictment. Almost
all the proof is documentary, except the evidence of the Accused and
that of the witness Krumey (taken in Germany), a number of excerpts from
the statement by Hoess, and the evidence of Rajewsky at the trial of
Hoess in Poland (T/1356). The Accused's activities are
connected with two separate waves of deportation of the population: (a)
The transfer of Poles from the Warthe district to the
Generalgouvernement area, viz., from West to East; (b) the transfer of
Poles from the Zamosc district to the West.
The first wave began at the end of 1939 and continued until 1943;
the second began at the end of 1942 and continued, as far as we know,
for a number of months. 208. We shall now consider first the transfer of the population from the West to the East. The basis was laid by
Heydrich, at a meeting held on 21 September 1939 (T/164), with the
participation of the Accused. We
have mentioned this meeting in another context, and now the parts which
refer to the Poles must be emphasized, and we shall quote them in
detail, because in those parts of Heydrich's speech lies the answer to
the above argument put forward by the Defence.
The Accused was present at the meeting, and therefore learned not
only what was the plan at the time as far as the Jews were concerned,
but also what was in store for the Poles.
And this is what Heydrich said about the Poles:
Anyone who listened to this
speech and plan, and later participated in any form whatsoever in the
operation of uprooting the Polish population, could in no way argue that
this was an innocent operation of "resettlement." This was plain and simple expulsion, accompanied by
degradation of the people, and with malicious intent, especially against
the educated class. The leadership of this campaign
was entrusted to Himmler, as the "Reichsfuehrer for the
Strengthening of the German people" (T/167).
On 30 October 1939, he draws up the plan for the period until
1940: All Congress Poles must be evacuated from the Danzig - Western
Prussia area, and also a certain number of "especially
hostile" Poles (T/169) from other areas annexed to the Reich.
The implementation of the evacuation was assigned to the Security
Police (N/8), and on 21 December 1939, the Accused's activity begins
(T/170). Heydrich
announces: "For
practical reasons, centralized treatment of Security Police matters
connected with the evacuation of the Eastern Territories becomes
necessary. As my special
Referent in the Head Office for Reich Security, Department IV, I have
appointed Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann..." The Accused alleges and
testifies that here, too, his action was limited to obtaining the
trains. In fact, this
admission is sufficient to convict him of complicity in the deportation
of a civilian population according to the plan of which he had knowledge
as early as 21 September 1939; for by this act alone, the Accused
already made himself guilty of a crime against humanity, within the
meaning of Section 1(a)(2) of the Law. But after studying the documents, we have come to the
conclusion that his claim and his evidence in this matter, are not in
accordance with the truth. It
becomes clear that the Accused and his section co-ordinated the
deportations. We have
already remarked - in connection with the deportation of Jews during
this period - that the classification of the deported Poles was carried
out by the "Centres for the Change of Residence."
But the deportation itself was in the hands of the Accused's
Section. We shall quote a
number of documents which prove this: (a)
On 4 October 1940 a meeting was presided over by the Accused
(T/171). The minutes of
that meeting show that the Accused co-ordinated the deportation
operation. The tools of
implementation are "the section officials at the Inspectors of the
Security Police and the SD," who are of course subordinate to the
RSHA. The co-ordination is
evident from the last part of the minutes: "The
Head Office for Reich Security, Department IV, will put one assistant
and one messenger at the disposal of each Inspector of the Security
Police and the SD, for the preparation of the measures to be taken
during the deportation." (b) The memoranda of
conversations held on 22 January 1940 and 23 January 1940 between the
Accused and Seidl, one of the officials of the Centre for the Change of
Residence in Poznan, also confirm the conclusion that they discussed not
only the timetable of transports, but also the class of deportees (only
"Congress Poles"). (c) At a meeting held on 30 January 1940 (T/166), Heydrich defined the Accused's task as the "central direction of deportation duties," and also "to collect figures and prepare deportation plans." At this meeting, he announced that some of the Polish labourers would be transferred to Reich territory for agricultural work. (d) The Accused deals with
questions of how much money and how much food deportees may take with
them (T/211; T/1406), and he demands a report on the technical execution
of the evacuation and the settlement of the Germans who are to come in
place of the evacuated Poles (T/1407). The extent of the expulsions is
revealed by the following documents: T/362 shows that up to 15 November
1940 nearly 300,000 Polish deportees were transferred into the
Generalgouvernement area. T/361
shows that, from the beginning of the operation until the end of 1943,
over 530,000 Poles were deported. This
includes the period up to the end of 1939, before the Accused began to
deal with evacuations, and also the year 1943, which is not mentioned in
the indictment. After subtracting the number of those deported in the years
1939 and 1943 (about 130,000 persons), the remaining number of Poles,
whose deportation the Accused organized on behalf of the RSHA, is
400,000. However, it seems
that the lists attached to exhibit T/361 do not include the Poles
evacuated from Eastern Prussia, Upper Eastern Silesia and Danzig-Western
Prussia. These three zones
appear in list T/362, with 60,000 Polish deportees (up to 15 November
1940). 209. As to the second wave: On
12 December 1942, Himmler issued a directive to evacuate the Zamosc
district and to settle Germans from other regions there (N/26).
The operation was assigned by Himmler to Krueger, who had to
co-operate with the head offices subordinated to Himmler.
The Attorney General cross-examined the Accused about this
operation in Session 98 (Vol. IV), and this time, too, the Accused
endeavoured to show that his activity was limited to organizing
timetables (pp.xxxx 3, 21-22). But
the documents prove that Section IVB4 did much more than that, and was
also occupied with the deportations.
They were given a special reference number, IV - 3666/42g (1505),
which appears for the first time in a cable dated 26 October 1942,
signed by Guenther (T/373). On
31 October 1942, Mueller submits to Himmler a plan of action bearing the
reference number of the Accused's Section IVB4a, and Himmler confirms it
(T/374). According to the
plan, the Polish population is to be divided into four groups. One group is to be settled, a second is to be brought to
Germany for labour purposes, a third is to be "Germanized;" as
to the fourth group, a distinction is made between those under the age
of 14 and above the age of 60, and those between the ages of 14 and 60. Those fit for work from the 14-60 age group are to be taken
to Auschwitz, and the aged above the age of 60 are to be taken to
"pension villages" (Rentendoerfer) (see also T/375). In the order of implementation dated 21 November 1942 (T/372)
- signed, it seems, by Krumey, who worked at the time at the Centre for
the Change of Residence - the distinction of those fit and those unfit
for work in the 14-60 age group - classified as group 4 - is unclear,
and the report T/382, dated 16 December 1942, about the transport of 644
Poles to Auschwitz, shows that those unfit for labour were also sent
there. In regard to this matter it says: "As far as the question of
their ability to work is concerned, it has been pointed out (by the
Deputy Camp Commander) that only Poles able to work are to be sent
there, in order to avoid an excessive burden on the camp and on
transport. It is necessary to remove the mentally weak, the insane, the
crippled and the sick from the camp as quickly as possible.
They must be liquidated, in order to alleviate the burden carried
by the camp. But this step
involves difficulties, because, according to directives from the Head
Office for Reich Security, Poles must be allowed to die a natural death,
and the methods employed against Jews cannot be used against them.
Therefore, the management of the camp demands that people who
cannot be included in the labour effort should not be sent there." A cable dated 29 December 1942,
sent from the Accused's Section, signed by Guenther (T/378), deals with
the question of how to treat the clergy.
This constitutes additional proof that the Accused did not limit
himself solely to organizing timetables. The witness Rajewsky (T/1356,
the second day of the trial, p. 175 of the original) gave evidence in
the case of Hoess in Poland, and related that Poles from Zamosc reached
Auschwitz. He, too,
mentions the reference number IVB4 366/42 g/1505.
On p. 189 he testified that the transport of Poles from Zamosc
"went to the gas" (as distinguished from transports of other
Poles). We cannot say how many Poles
were evacuated from Zamosc, but it is clear from exhibit T/371 that, in
any case, many thousands were deported.
From exhibits T/377, T/381 and T/382, we learn about the
conditions of the transports: Children arrived with frozen limbs; after
a short journey of twelve hours, a considerable number of dead bodies
had to be removed from the waggons; those who tried to escape were
killed. The result is that the Accused's
guilt of a crime against humanity has been proved, in that between the
years 1940 and 1942 he caused, together with others, the expulsion of a
civilian population - namely hundreds of thousands of Poles, under the
circumstances already described by us. 210. The tenth count charges the
Accused with a crime against humanity, in that, in the year 1941, he
took part in the expulsion of over 14,000 Slovenes, in order to settle
German families in their stead. In
this matter, too, the Accused does not deny his own activity and the
activity of his Section in matters of transport, but according to the
argument by the Defence it has not been proved that the deportation was
carried out in an inhuman manner or by means of terror. The proof at our disposal is in
exhibits T/898-T/901. The
Accused reacted to a part of these documents in his Statement T/37 (pp.
245 and 3559). The witness
Novak mentioned the deportation of the Slovenes briefly on p. 5 of his
evidence, and the settling of the Slovenes in the Lublin area is
mentioned in exhibit T/370. The beginning of this action is
to be found at a meeting held in Marburg (Untersteiermark) on 6 May
1941, the invitation to which was sent from the Accused's office, signed
by Heydrich. We know about
deportations on 7 June 1941 and 27 September 1941 to other localities in
Yugoslavia. We do not doubt
that these, too, were forced deportations, as is evidenced by the use of
the word "evacuation" which appears in the letter of
invitation T/898, and occurs in Novak's evidence and in the Accused's
Statement. This is also
shown by the hurried pace of the transports and by the fact that the
implementation and the provision of escorts were in the hands of the
Security Police. In October
1942, thousands of Slovenes were still left without a permanent abode,
and an order was given to settle them in the Lublin district (T/370).
This fact provides further confirmation of our conclusion that
this was an enforced deportation, and not a planned and orderly exchange
of populations. Every act of forced deportation
of a civilian population is in itself a crime against humanity.
The fact that at the end of 1942 thousands of Slovenes still had
not found permanent dwelling places for themselves, proves that this act
of evacuation brought much human suffering in its wake.
The Accused's complicity with others in a crime against humanity
was thus also proved on this count. 211. The eleventh count charges
the Accused with a crime against humanity by participating in the
deportation of tens of thousands of Gypsies, their assembly in places of
concentration, and their transportation to extermination camps for the
purpose of murdering them. In the material placed before
us, first mention of the Gypsies appears at a meeting held on 21
September 1939 (T/164), at which Heydrich ordered the deportation of
30,000 Gypsies to Poland. The
same order is mentioned again at a meeting held on 30 January 1940
(T/166), after the setting up of Section IVD4, headed by the Accused;
but at the time priority was given to other activities (p. 6).
In the documents before us, there is no evidence of action
against Gypsies, until the deportation of 5,000 Gypsies to Lodz in the
months of October-November 1941 (T/222), in spite of protests by the
local authority (T/221, T/220, T/243). We have more information on this
subject from the declaration made by Friedel on 13 June 1949 in the
prison of Bialystok (T/293), from the memoirs of Hoess (T/45, p. 124),
from the evidence of Rajewsky (T/356, the second day of the trial, p.
189), from the evidence of Dr. Beilin (Session 69, Vol. III, pp.
1259-1260), from the Accused's Statement (T/37, pp. 977, 1662-1663), and
from the evidence given by Novak. From
all these, we gather that the transportation of the Gypsies was carried
out by the Accused's Section, and for that he bears responsibility.
But we do not have sufficient proof before us that the Accused
dealt also with the concentration of Gypsies.
In this connection, and also in connection with the general
supervision of the Gypsies, Friedel and Hoess mention Group V2 of the
RSHA, viz., the Criminal Police. Gypsies
were exterminated at Auschwitz and at Chelmno (see T/1297), but we have
no reliable proof before us that the Accused knew that the Gypsies
transported by his Section to Auschwitz were to be exterminated there. The result is that the Accused's
complicity in the commission of a crime against humanity has been proved
by his participation in the deportation of the Gypsies. |
Faculty of Economics and Social Science Home Page