Eichmann Trial -- Session 97 -- Cross-examination of the Accused

The camera fades in onto a medium shot of Servatius seated at the defense table and examining documents. Adolf Eichmann is shown entering the booth (00:01:16) carrying documents and escorted by three Israeli guards. There are various shots of Eichmann, Servatius, and the courtroom. Hausner and Bar-Or enter the courtroom and are seated at the prosecution table (00:05:40). The camera occasionally shows shots of people in the audience. Eichmann is shown rising as judges Halevi, Landau, and Raveh enter the courtroom (00:07:20). Presiding Judge Landau opens the ninety-seventh session of the trial (00:07:45). Attorney General Gideon Hausner continues the cross examination regarding meetings held with officials-in-charge of Jewish Affairs in the various occupied territories (00:10:15). The accused is asked to indicate when he first told these officials what the fate of the Jews sent on deportations was and whether certain people knew about the Jew's fate. Eichmann states that it was not officially known and unofficially he did not tell anyone (00:10:48). There are further questions regarding these meetings. The accused is asked if the officials brought problems and questions to him and whether or not he made decisions on these matters (00:13:05). A document is presented as evidence showing that Theodor Dannecker acknowledged that a problem was raised at one of these meetings and that "Eichmann determined the following" (00:13:37). The accused states that he personally did not make decisions on these matters, that the Department Chief did (00:15:20). Hausner turns to the subject of whether Heinrich Müller, head of Section IV (Gestapo) of the Reich Main Security Office took part in these meetings (00:17:11) and what was discussed. Eichmann testifies that Müller took part in maybe one of these meetings (00:17:22) and when asked whether his section determined which Jews were to remain in assembly camps and which were to be deported (00:18:09), Eichmann states that directives for exemption from deportation were sent on from IVB4 but it did not state that the Jews had to be kept in assembly camps (00:18:34). Hausner presents the case of the Vught Camp in Holland where Jews worked in the armament industry as an example; stating that it was proposed that they remain there (00:19:45). The Attorney General goes on to note that the answer from the accused was "out of the question" (00:20:23). Eichmann testifies that the document is correct. The cross examination continues with Hausner asking a series of questions regarding Jewish Affairs representatives abroad particularly in France, Holland and Belgium. Eichmann is asked if these men worked based on his directions but also had contacts with each other in order to coordinate the implementation of these instructions (00:20:55- asked again at 00:21:26). The accused testifies that based on the documents it is correct but that these men could not have acted exclusively by directions given by IVB4 (00:22:10). Hausner tells the accused that he has already stated in cross examination that the implementation of marking the Jews with badges had to be done simultaneously based on orders given by Eichmann's section (00:23:19) and IVB4 also laid out the penalties and sanctions for those who refused to wear the badges (00:25:17). Eichmann states that directives for marking in the occupied territories were never issued by the Reich Main Security Office, it was done by relevant higher SS and police leaders (00:26:01). There appears to be a problem with the simultaneous translation involving Eichmann's headphones (00:28:00 to 00:29:34). The camera shows a shot of the technician's booth in the wall (00:29:16) and one of the technicians walking over to the accused. The problem is resolved and the session continues. Eichmann is then asked if he was in contact with these men abroad by telephone, cable, or letter (00:30:17) and whether or not he sometimes traveled to visit these people (00:30:37). The accused answers yes to both questions. Hausner continues, asking a series of questions regarding whether the accused was in various countries, and if so, how long. Among the countries Eichmann is questioned about are France (00:31:03), Holland (00:33:21), Belgium (00:33:40), Slovakia (00:34:44), Romania (00:38:02) and Italy (00:39:37). With regard to Italy, Eichmann is further questioned about his meetings with General Guido Lospinoso, the Italian commissioner of Jewish Affairs (00:41:15). The accused states that he had nothing to do with Lospinoso (00:41:43) and when asked by Hausner if he would like to change his statement after a document is presented, Eichmann maintains that he never met the man (00:43:53). There is a section of the session (97) which is duplicate footage also found on Tape 2154 (from 00:01:23 to 00:06:33). The duplicate footage begins at 00:45:50 and continues to 00:51:05. Hausner asks Eichmann about his rank and command as an Obersturmbannfueher. The accused is also questioned about his meetings with Müller including how many times a week they met (00:47:39 and on Tape 2154 at 00:03:15), how long the meetings were (00:48:59 and on Tape 2154 at 00:04:34), and what was discussed (00:49:17 and on Tape 2154 at 00:04:53). The remaining footage is not duplicate footage. Hausner continues the cross examination with questions regarding how many letters the accused signed, on average, per week with his signature (00:50:57). Eichmann states that not all of the letters that passed through his office were signed by him and not all of them were submitted to Müller for advisement either (00:51:45). The accused argues that after a matter was first submitted to Müller for referral it became a precedent and similar matters were decided based on the first submission. Hausner then asks what Müller's response would have been in a case in which Jews in Holland had acquired foreign nationality and wished to emigrate (00:57:45). This discussion continues until the end of the tape. The Attorney General asks Eichmann to indicate whether this matter could have been dealt with by him or if it had to go through Müller first. The accused states that if it was a general inquiry as to if emigration was being allowed at that particular time, then he could answer the request but if it dealt with specifics then it absolutely have to go through his superiors (00:58:51).