Eichmann trial 1961

Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. By Jennifer Rosenberg Jennifer Rosenberg. Jennifer Rosenberg is a historian and writer who specializes in 20th-century history. Learn about our Editorial Process. Featured Video. Cite this Article Format.

Rosenberg, Jennifer. The Eichmann Trial. The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution. Josef Mengele, the Auschwitz "Angel of Death". Juan Domingo Peron and Argentina's Nazis. Biography of Saddam Hussein, Dictator of Iraq. About the Berlin Holocaust Memorial. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for ThoughtCo. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data.

Nina Gourfinkel succeeded in making everyone believe. His father was Prokurist legal representative for the tram company of the city. In the family moved to Linz where, after having held the same job as at Solingen for a while, his father retired and opened up a business in electric appliances. In the s, under Chancellor Dolfuss, this had a certain importance because the eldest, considered a foreigner in Austria, could not find employment.

Thus began the career of Adolf Eichmann. Little by little, he climbed the ladder in the S. In order to assess his responsibility in the Jewish drama we have to see him in his rank in that service, and we must mention that the Reichssicherheitshauptamt was composed of seven sections, all of an executive character: in the fourth of these offices, in section B there were two sections — A and B , Eichmann was head of the fourth sub-office.

Above Roth was Heydrich, head of all seven offices. Finally came the supreme head, Heinrich Himmler. When Heydrich was killed by the Czech Resistance at the beginning of June , Kaltenbrunner took his place and, until the end of the war, that was the only important change that took place in the directorship of the R.

In the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann was therefore sixth in rank, and on the functionary level only of decisions taken at a much higher level than Himmler himself, since it was only in that Himmler was raised to the rank of minister. In the machinery of Nazi power there were thousands and thousands of posts with this type of responsibility.

From March on, the date when the massive deportation of the Jews began, Office IV B 4, of which Eichmann was the head, got orders to devote itself to their transportation to concentration camps. In a similar way, the office of which Pohl was the head had the order to devote itself to the economic organisation of those camps, and another office was ordered to make investigations among the Jews and re-group them. On this point the Jerusalem trial showed that from on, Eichmann experienced that drama in the same way that Professor Balachowsky of the Pasteur Institute at Paris did at Buchenwald — forced by Dr.

I said in the same way because, if there is a difference, it is only one of motives. If, as traditional ethics have it, it is true that in all this it was the motive that counted, one could then say that in this case the roles were badly allotted by justice. With regard to moral as well as international law, Adolf Eichmann found himself as a defendant before an Israeli tribunal under conditions which were as wrong to one as to the other.

No one has more clearly established that than M. It is best to let him speak for himself; if my competence in the matter could easily be questioned, it would be very difficult to dispute his. This is what M. Raymond de Geouffre de la Pradelle says, all other considerations aside, on the question of guilt:.

The proceedings carried on right after the end of the war by the Allies were based on the London agreement of August 8th, , and the Moscow declaration of October 30th, , to which the London agreement expressly refers. The principle laid down is that of the return of war criminals to the country in which their crimes were committed. In addition to that, the London statute of August 8th, , created an international military tribunal to try criminals whose crimes were without definite geographical localisation This London statute was promulgated by the Allies after they had received, May 8th, , from the head of the Reich government, Grand Admiral Doenitz, through the unconditional surrender, the mandate of German sovereignty There is no international text given that gives the State of Israel the right to judge a foreign national to whom crimes against humanity are imputed, or war crimes, when these crimes were committed in a foreign country.

Furthermore, at the time when these crimes were committed, there could be no question of victims of Israelite nationality because the State of Israel did not exist. The State of Israel is sovereign. Within the limits of its territory Israel may, if it wishes, by special law, give itself whatever jurisdictional right it chooses. But this right violates the general principles of law, and of the international rule of competence established for crimes having an essentially international character, since having been carried out in Germany at a time when German law considered them licit, they are crimes only with regard to international law.

And M. Raymond Geouffre de la Pradelle concludes that the only lawful procedure would have been a demand on Argentina for extradition by Germany, who alone was qualified to make such a demand. It could not be better put. But Argentina had given Eichmann the right of asylum, probably the reason why, as any other country in similar circumstances would act, Germany did not demand his extradition. Is France today asking for the extradition from Spain of many French citizens considered by her to be criminals and to whom Spain has granted asylum?

Still, France did not go on to kidnapping in France or in Argentina. The reader will excuse me if, instead of invoking moral principles which are always debatable, I have preferred to cite the texts. Although they are colder, they lend the Eichmann trial the character of a Moscow trial; and if grounds for guilt could be stated against Eichmann, they have disappeared in the face of the unpardonable circumstances of his kidnapping and, in the eyes of posterity, the person who was condemned is more likely to be considered a victim than an executioner.

Under such circumstances, Eichmann was not judged, he was assassinated. The prosecution was considerably weakened by its central motif: the six million European Jews mass-exterminated in gas chambers.

It can never be repeated often enough that this figure was given only by the press and the witnesses; as we know, the indictment drawn up by M. After the war, in an atmosphere of mental confusion and general disorder, it was easy to have that argument accepted.

Today many more documents have been made public which were not known during the Nuremberg trial, and these documents tend to prove that although Jewish nationals were odiously attacked and persecuted by the Hitlerian regime, it is not possible that there were 6 million victims. Once it became possible to even discuss the figure and it was agreed by everyone in the world that the figure was considerably exaggerated, then it was possible to talk about how it was done.

For example, we know today that there were no gas chambers at Buchenwald, or at Bergen-Belsen, or Dachau, or Mauthausen. Caught in the act of lying concerning gas chambers in these camps, witnesses who had pretended to have seen them functioning were naturally not believed when they talked about the gas chambers at Auschwitz, which is perfectly natural.

Their credibility declined even further when they contradicted each other; if one could be believed, the other could not. Faced with these contradictions, what is public opinion to do except to dismiss both parties and to charge them with having fabricated the story?

If, on the other hand, from the number of prosecution witnesses still alive, one turns out occasionally to be of no more worth than those whom he is accusing — one of their accomplices or a former member of the Intelligence Service etc. And that was the case again when, on January 25th, , the British magazine Weekend came out with a photograph on its cover of Hoettl, with the following caption:.

That was how it was learned that the principal witness for the establishment of six million as the number of Jews exterminated by Nazism was an agent of the Intelligence Service!! It is well to make it clear that this figure of 6 million depends on two testimonies only: that of Hoettl and that of Wizliceny. He knew that he was considered a war criminal by the United Nations because he had the lives of thousands of Jews on his conscience.

I asked him how many, and he answered that although the number was a great secret he would tell me because, from the information he had, he had arrived at this conclusion: in the various extermination camps about 4 million Jews had been gassed and 2 million killed in another way.

He [Eichmann] said that he would jump into his grave laughing because the thought of having 5 million persons on his conscience would be a source of extraordinary satisfaction to him. Of these two testimonies, M. Nobody made him say so! We also know that one of these two witnesses was an Intelligence Service agent. Concerning the political context in which the Trial should be placed, it is well to note that M. Raymond de Geouffre de la Pradelle was not the only one to protest against the kidnapping of Eichmann and to deny competence to the judges of Jerusalem.

Even in Israeli circles there were eddies of feeling before the opening of the trial, and there still are, after the sentencing of the accused. In Le Monde of June 21st, , one could, for example, find the attitude of the American Council for Judaism, which represents the point of view of the majority of American Israelites, 1 namely:. Christian Herter denying the right of the Israeli government to speak in the name of all Jews. Herter to oppose the pretension of the Israeli government to judge Eichmann in the name of Judaism.

As the Israeli authorities have admitted, this action is obviously an infringement of Argentina laws. It could furthermore establish a dangerous precedent. But the case is so exceptional that the illegal aspect of the action should not be considered the only or even the principal element of the matter The State of Israel cannot claim to represent world Judaism Jewry , but since Israel does exist, and since it has succeeded in capturing Eichmann, I am in agreement that he be judged in the Hebrew State.

If Mr. Ben Gurion wishes to turn the Eichmann trial into another Nuremberg it would be to his advantage to support the Israeli president with an ad hoc tribunal made up of representatives of all the countries who suffered under the yoke of the ex-S. In any case, it was not a legal problem that the State of Israel was claiming to solve by this trial, but a political problem.

Indeed, we know that the indemnity which Germany has been constrained to pay Israel, in the name of damages which this state did not suffer, was to come to an end on January 1st, It was all the more serious because the Israeli budget cannot do without assistance of this proportion. Israel has survived for twelve years, thanks only to the German reparations, American aid, French and British kindnesses and subsidies from Diaspora Jewry.

Naturally, the Israeli government wanted to get a pure and simple renewal of payments for an indefinite period. No less naturally, Germany thought they had had quite enough.

So it was not Eichmann himself committed for trial but Germany, threatened with having all the leading political figures of her government charged before the universal conscience during the course of this trial.

And so it was really a question of blackmail: either Germany would accept the proposed deal implicitly, or no German government was possible. Such calculations can, at least, be attributed to the leaders of the State of Israel.

And, by a singular coincidence, it harmonised admirably with the concerns of the Kremlin. I have found this contention in many publications which cannot be suspected of being sympathetic to Germany or hostile to the Jews. Certain people, such as some Israelis not to be named, say that they have no hand in it, and that as far as they are concerned they are interested only in a trial of National Socialism, do not care a damn for Eichmann and are going to multiply the proclamations against Adenauer because employed in his government are quite a number of ex-Nazis, such as his favourite, the Secretary of State Globke, dedicated annotator of the Nuremberg racial laws.

During the hearings we can expect to hear the names of hundreds and hundreds of persons presently employed in Federal Germany. Such heaps of judges, officers, deputies, high officials, professors etc.

All to the good of Bonn propaganda. Some are laughing to split their sides saying that Nikita will at once certainly, and dryly, bring up the problem of Berlin, right during the trial, just at the moment when world opinion will be very aroused against Germany. A few days after his capture [Eichmann], Ben Gurion, who was giving speeches in the United States, heard that a certain Konrad turned up in Washington again for a talk with Ike.

He went in with a certain smile, he came out with a grin. If you looked closely, seen in a fold of his tie although he never wears one was something like a cheque for million marks. Germany was starting to pay again! At last! The Israelis are not in the least disconcerted when this detail is pointed out to them — after all, the expenses of the trial have to be paid for, they tell you, with a big laugh.

I do not know whether Adenauer gave out million marks or not; the two suppositions are equally plausible. But if he did give million marks, it was hardly more than two annual payments.

In consideration for that sum, assurances must have been given to the Chancellor that certain things would not be said. And in fact they were not.

Nothing like that happened. The Eichmann Trial did not turn into a trial of the Federal Republic. The subsidies were to continue until April 1st, Between now and that date the Israelis will try to find a way to get a renewal. There are still quite a number of Eichmanns around. By that I mean persons who could be accused of crimes against humanity and against the Jewish race. Is Israel already nursing a plan for the kidnapping of the next one, for another blackmail attempt on the same terms?

One hears a lot about S. Mengele, doctor at Auschwitz, accused of the most unimaginable experiments on Jewish prisoners.

In any case, it is a most profitable expedient and one that can be taken up again and again, almost indefinitely, and which could assure the financial stability of the State of Israel for a few centuries. When, at so distant a date in the future that it cannot be predicted, the last of the Nazis has been hanged in Israel, nothing will be left except to write the music for these New Master Singers of Nuremberg , since under the aegis of the Nuremberg trials the libretto has already been written for the new Ballad of the Hanged.

The way in which Eichmann was kidnapped was a scandal with regard to the law of nations. We have seen that, in addition to the greatest international jurists, such eminent Jewish personages as Nahum Goldmann, for example, and even organisations like the American Council for Judaism were disturbed. In this line, there is more to come. In Argentina Eichmann had made the acquaintance of a former S.

He had been a war correspondent attached to S. He was then living in Buenos Aires on an import-export business, a little bit of journalism and other writings. For a very long time this Sassen did not know just who this man was who called himself a former S.

But he had noticed that of all the exiled Germans with whom he had met, this Ricardo Klement was the best informed on what Jewish writings called the extermination of the European Jews, and he was not long in suspecting that here was surely a person who had played an important role in the affair.

From then on he cultivated his friendship. At the time he had not yet set up the import-export business which is today his main source of income. Promoting himself in his capacity as a former S. The talks took place in a little book store in Buenos Aires owned by a former German schoolmaster in Argentina. This man was not a former S. But he published a German paper with nationalist leanings called der Weg , which all the German exiles read with great interest because, in their eyes, it was most objective and stated all the conclusions about the war at which they themselves had arrived.

The talks usually ended in the nearest cafe with a drink for which Ricardo Klement had quite an inclination. To get at the secret of his personality, from which he expected to derive a journalistic benefit, Sassen exploited this liking as best he could.

It was a windfall for Sassen. From then on he kept at him about writing his memoirs, but the other never had the time. Then he made the great play:. If you want to, instead of dragging these talks on forever in a public place, which will be lost for everyone, we will go somewhere else to drink and we will talk with a microphone.

Then after each conversation I will write out what we have said. Eichmann organized the deportation of more than 1. Eichmann made deportation plans down to the last detail. Working with other German agencies, he determined how the property of deported Jews would be seized. In addition, Eichmann arranged for the deportation of tens of thousands of Roma Gypsies.

In Hungary , Eichmann involved himself directly on the ground in the deportation process. From late April until early July , Eichmann and his aides deported approximately , Hungarian Jews, mostly to Auschwitz.

However, he succeeded in evading suspicion by using fictive identity papers. When he learned that his true identity had been discovered, Eichmann escaped from a work detail. He eventually succeeded in fleeing Europe to Argentina, where he lived under the assumed name Ricardo Klement. He was eventually joined by his family.

Eichmann lived quietly and worked in a Mercedes-Benz factory in Buenos Aires. Because Argentina had a history of denying extradition requests, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion made the decision to secretly capture him. On May 20, , officers from the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad seized Eichmann outside his residence at 14 Garibaldi Street and took him to Israel.

It began on April 11, Israeli attorney general Gideon Hausner signed a bill of indictment against Eichmann on 15 counts, including crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against humanity. Eichmann was also charged with membership in the Storm Troopers SA , Security Service SD , and Gestapo , all of which had been declared criminal organizations in in the verdict of the Nuremberg Trial.

Eichmann testified from behind a glass booth in order to protect him from possible assassination. In his last day of testimony, he admitted that while he was guilty of arranging the transport of millions of Jews to their deaths, he did not feel guilty of the consequences.