The Specialist

[Max]

Just finished watching "The Specialist" a French doco on the trial of Adolf Eichmann.
The title refers to Eichmann's admission that he was a "specialist" in immigration administration.
Only raw material from the actual trial was used although there was some interesting editing and music.
My impression of Eichmann from photos of him in his SS gear was one of a ruthless killer but here he comes over as someone "just doing his job" -a very ordinary man - but a civil servant who oversaw the deportation of millions to the concentration camps.
The phrase "the banality of evil" was never so aptly applied to this grey little bureaucrat.
At two hours, its a bit of a slog but well worth the effort.

[GFM2000]

I've seen only a few minutes of it, but managed to tape the rest.... I'll watch it some other time.

My first impressions : I was a little disappointed that the show did not cover Eichman's career in the Third Reich, his escape and eventual kidnapping to Jerusalem. Otherwise, it was fine. I'm not surprised that Eichmann was smirking and looked a little annoyed some of the time - he was facing a very hostile court in a very, very hostile country!

I'll like to contribute more to this thread after I'd watched the "Specialist".

[Birgitte Heuschkel]

Oddly enough, Discovery's special on Eichmann suffered the opposite problem: It discussed the escape and kidnapping at length, telling almost nothing of the man and his Third Reich career.

[michael mills]

Just finished watching "The Specialist" a French doco on the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

Interesting. It was also shown here in Australia on Saturday night. Some sort of international coordination at play?

I had previously read through the entire transcript of the trial, so I was able to recognise the various episodes.

One disadvantage was that the documentary picked out a number of episodes from the entire film of the proceedings and played them one after the other, not necessarily in chronological order, and without relating them to each other. Someone who had not read the transcript would have difficulty working out exactly what was being dealt with in some of the episodes.

[Max]

Interesting. It was also shown here in Australia on Saturday night. Some sort of international coordination at play?

Time to confess I guess.
I saw it on SBS in Melbourne on Saturday also, therefore no international coordination.
I designate Kanada as my location because of its association with the name I use - "Max Heiliger"

By way of explanation -

SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Oswald Pohl- Chairman of Wirtschaftliche Unternehmungen( economic policy) had tasks which included the economic exploitation of Jews , such as collecting their possessions which they had brought with them to the concentration camps - specs, watches, jewels, clothes, foreign money, their hair and their gold-teeth that was fused together with other precious metal.
The value of the plundered items was transferred to a special account in the Deutsche Bank named "Max Heiliger"

In Auschwitz, the storage buildings for all these "recycled" goods were known by the inmates as "Kanada - the land of plenty".

Max [Heiliger]

[Roberto]

Just finished watching "The Specialist" a French doco on the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

Interesting. It was also shown here in Australia on Saturday night. Some sort of international coordination at play?

The Jewish World Conspiracy, no doubt.

[GFM2000]

I was able to watch the "Specialist" (at long last!) in its entirety. It was cetainly interesting to see the prosecutors converse in English and German when necessary, instead of Hebrew, to prevent the potential for misinterpretation of documents, as occurred at Nuremberg.

I did however, wonder how "fair" that trial really was. I was able to see Eichman stolidly defend himself, smirking with annoyance for some charges he did not commit (the Einsatsgruppen in Poland, and the brutality of the extermination camp guards, for example). Does anyone have anything to add to this? For example, was Eichmann allowed to have a legal defendant in court with him (if there was one in the film, he/she must have been a pretty quiet chap)?

On the question of morality, does anyone think he is truly a vassel of evil, or merely a victim of circumstance? The trial certainly reminded me of a fictional film recently shown down under, about the "trial" of Josef Mengele.

Thanks!

[Gwynn Compton]

Quote:
Interesting. It was also shown here in Australia on Saturday night. Some sort of international coordination at play?


The Jewish World Conspiracy, no doubt

I thought that was quite witty

[michael mills]

I was able to watch the "Specialist" (at long last!) in its entirety

I first saw "The Specialist" a couple of years ago at a Jewish Film Festival. I think the version shown on television was shortened, as there were several scenes that I remember from my first seeing of it that did not appear in the television version. One was a scene where Eichmann and the prosecutor Gideon Hausner stand side by side looking at a large map on the wall; seen from behind, the two of them look indistiguishable, with their bald pates. Oh, the irony!

Re the interpretation of documents. If you read the trial transcript, you will come across a section where a document in Arabic (a letter from the Mufti) was under discussion. The document was translated by the official court translator, an immigrant from Iraq, as I remember, and a native speaker of Arabic. Nevertheless, the presiding judge, Moshe Landau, tried to show off his (inadequate) knowledge of Arabic by correcting the interpreter, thereby making a total ass of himself. In fact, I gained the impression that Landau was an incompetent idiot; his two associates, Raveh and Hallevi, were much better, especially the latter.

Regarding mistranslation, there was one point where a document referred to an "Entwesungskammer", and Judge Landau immediately jumped to the conclusion that the word meant "gas-chamber". Of course it does not; it means "disinfestation chamber", as the counsel for the defence, Robert Servatius, immediately pointed out. Such an error was remarkable, as all three judges were native German speakers, and had received their initial legal training in Germany before the War. Perhaps it was a case of Landau wanting to believe something.

For example, was Eichmann allowed to have a legal defendant in court with him (if there was one in the film, he/she must have been a pretty quiet chap)?

Yes, he had defence counsel, the Dr Robert Servatius referred to above. Servatius had been a defence counsel at the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the IMT, representing Sauckel and the NSDAP LEadership Corps.

You are right in your assessment that Servatius was fairly ineffective. Both the film and the transcript show him to have been a non-interventionist, seldom cross-examining the witnesses. Occasionally he did make a useful intervention, as in the example I gave above.

Many years after the trial, the Assistant Prosecutor, Gavriel Bach, commented that the Prosecution had been very lucky that Eichmann's representation had been so weak, it had made their job so much easier.

Eichmann did defend himself very vigorously, and succeeded in placing his own interpretation of his role on the record for future historians. Of course, the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion, and Eichmann himself must have known that. I think his main concern was to set the record straight, even though he knew nothing could save him from the gallows.

[Scott Smith]

Regarding mistranslation, there was one point where a document referred to an "Entwesungskammer", and Judge Landau immediately jumped to the conclusion that the word meant "gas-chamber". Of course it does not; it means "disinfestation chamber", as the counsel for the defence, Robert Servatius, immediately pointed out. Such an error was remarkable, as all three judges were native German speakers, and had received their initial legal training in Germany before the War. Perhaps it was a case of Landau wanting to believe something.

Disinfestation-chamber probably does mean homicidal gaschamber after 1945, according to some of the linguistic smoking-gun interpretations we have heard on the board recently regarding other Nazi code words. If Nuremberg had merely thought to set the precedence for this interpretation then...

Eichmann did defend himself very vigorously, and succeeded in placing his own interpretation of his role on the record for future historians. Of course, the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion, and Eichmann himself must have known that. I think his main concern was to set the record straight, even though he knew nothing could save him from the gallows.

Which doesn't make what he said entirely true or accurate. He claimed that a submarine diesel engine was used for homicide at Treblinka and that he actually rode in a homicidal gas-van but didn't look. And, hello, I'm from Tralfamador...

[Roberto]

Regarding mistranslation, there was one point where a document referred to an "Entwesungskammer", and Judge Landau immediately jumped to the conclusion that the word meant "gas-chamber". Of course it does not; it means "disinfestation chamber", as the counsel for the defence, Robert Servatius, immediately pointed out. Such an error was remarkable, as all three judges were native German speakers, and had received their initial legal training in Germany before the War. Perhaps it was a case of Landau wanting to believe something.

Disinfestation-chamber probably does mean homicidal gaschamber after 1945, according to some of the linguistic smoking-gun interpretations we have heard on the board recently regarding other Nazi code words. If Nuremberg had merely thought to set the precedence for this interpretation then...

Why, has the Reverend found an explanation as to why a room ostensibly used as a "Leichenkeller", a mortuary, had showerheads and a gas tight door, why it was referred to as "Vergasungskeller", i.e. "gassing
cellar", in a certain document issued on 29 January 1943, and why according to another document issued on the same day the installation housing this room was to allow for "Sonderbehandlung", i.e. "special treatement", simultaneously with the cremation of dead bodies? Let's hear.

Eichmann did defend himself very vigorously, and succeeded in placing his own interpretation of his role on the record for future historians. Of course, the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion, and Eichmann himself must have known that. I think his main concern was to set the record straight, even though he knew nothing could save him from the gallows.

Which doesn't make what he said entirely true or accurate.

I bet the man got some minor details wrong that the Reverend will now make a big bloody fuss about.

He claimed that a submarine diesel engine was used for homicide at Treblinka

Didn't I tell you? Eichmann was at Treblinka but once, for all I know, and apart from obviously not having been too keen a technical observer he doesn't seem to have even seen the engine. Big deal. Next one.

and that he actually rode in a homicidal gas-van but didn't look.

Anything wrong with his having wanted to avoid a sight that he reasonably feared would make him sick?

And, hello, I'm from Tralfamador...

I assume the above is meant to express the Reverend's brilliant falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - conclusion that if Eichmann got some details wrong, all or a lot of what else he told his interrogators must also have been wrong. Am I right?

If it were not for the utter imbecility of the Reverend's contentions, by the way, I might be amused by the reference to the planet Tralfamadore, which reminds me of what I consider one of the best American war movies ever made.

[GFM2000]

I am intrigues by 2 statements made by Eichmann, which were to formulate his primary defence statements. These statements went along the lines of

1) "I did my best to transfer to the frontline, but was stuck in my position performing the Devil's work,"

Question : how accurate is this statement? Was there any evidence that Eichmann DID try to transfer?

2) "I was a soldier, and a soldier must obey his orders, especially since my country is at war"

I guess this statement is a question of morality. Does anyone accept that Eichmann is merely a victim of circumstance? Or is he truely an evil anti-Semitic Nazi?