Adolf Eichmann: Fair Sentence?

[ljadw]

Why would the court,the trial and the sentence have no legal standing ?

Because the court had no jurisdiction, pure and simple.

Eichmann was accused to be responsible for the death of 6 million Jews

But not of any Israelis. Israel did not even exist when the crimes he was accused of were committed.

he was in Israel,thus he could be liable to a trial by an Israeli court

No he wasn't, he was in Argentina, as you well know so israeli justice had no jursidiction to arrest him, let alone put him on trial. And even if he was in Israel, that still did not give the Israeli courts jurisdiction because the acts he was accused of were not committed in Israel (or even against Israeli citizens, though that is of secondary importance).

Foreigners had no business in this trial .

Indeed they did not, the foreigners in this instance being the Israelis.

Only an Israeli court could nullify the trial/sentence . Not a foreign court .

Eh?? Who nullified what sentenced?

If he had killed an Israeli citizen in Israel, he would also compare before an Israeli court .

Correct, but he hadn't.

After the war, officers of the SS division Das Reich compared before a French court for what they had done at Oradour . No one said that they should be judged by a non French court .

You now seem to be arguing against yourself. If you agree that those committing crimes against French citizens on French soil should be tried by a French court, why do you argue the opposite when it comes to Eichmann?

If Israel had not the right to judge Eichmann,no other country had this right : the Jewish inhabitants of Israel were the victims of Eichmann : they were those that Eichmann had not been able to kill.There was only ONE country that had the right to judge Eichmann, as there was only one country that had the right to eliminate Bin Laden .
The Israeli court did not arrest Eichmann in Argentine,but in Israel .That what Eichmann did,did not happen in Israel is irrelevant .ISIS murdered Americans outside the US, but this does not mean that the US had not the right to arrest,judge,eliminate the responsibles .
Why do I argue the opposite when it comes to Eichmann ? Because the alternative was that Eichmann would continue to live in Argentine,without ever been judged,without ever being condemned .
If there was after WWI an Armenian state, would it not have the right to arrest,judge and condemn the responsibles for the killings of countless of Armenians that happened before the existence of the Armenian state ?
About Oradour : no one said that a French court could not judge the responsibles because the French could be biased .Thus,why should an Israeli court not have the right to do the same ?
The argument of bias can not be used .

[ljadw]

If Israel did not kidnap,arrest, judge, condemn, execute Eichmann, no one else would have done it . Thus, those who had refused to kidnap, arrest,judge, condemn,execute Eichmann,had/have no right to attack Israel because it did what the others refused to do .
Israel did what it did,because the others did not their duty .
The CIA and KGB kidnapped,executed countless people,but not Eichmann, but when the Mossad kidnapped Eichmann, every one was condemning Israel because it did what the others did .
Why did the CIA /the KGB,... not their duty ? Main reason :because the victims of Eichmann were'' only'' Jews .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Terry Duncan.

You haven't actually addressed my question, which was: "In practical terms, what were the viable alternatives if Eichmann was not to evade trial of any sort?"

You seem to be saying that through fear of revisionists with warped pespectives trying to exploit the situation, it is better to let guilty parties go unapprehended, and/or untried, and/or unpunished than have an imperfect process that holds them to account.

A lot of very nasty people (and the revisionists) will be applauding this stance.

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

Hi Ijadw

It was you and not I that said, and I quote:

The only thing that is important is if the trial and sentence were legal

You then provide not one single argument that Eichmann's trial was in fact legal (that would be rather difficult because it self evidently was not) and then provide reams of emotional rationalisation (including a great deal of whataboutism, the favourite tactic of some of the nastiest regimes out there, past and present) why Israel's ignoring the law was justified. You need to make your mind up.

As an aside - you quote the case of Bin Laden. Since he was never put on trial anywhere, what is the relevance? Out of shear curiosity, how do you come to the somewhat bizarre conclusion that only the Americans had the right (either legal or moral) to deal with Bin Laden?

If there was after WWI an Armenian state, would it not have the right to arrest,judge and condemn the responsibles for the killings of countless of Armenians that happened before the existence of the Armenian state ?

For the record, there was an Armenian state after WW1. It was not dismantled until 1920 when it was invaded by Turkish forces and shortly thereafter by the Soviet Union. The two invaders split the country up netween them (does that sound at all familiar to anyone familiar with the events of 1939???) De meritum, in answer to your question, the Armenian Republic would, I presume, have had the right to extradite and put on trial murderers of Armenians in Armenia (not the Eichmann trial scenario, however). It would not have had the legal right to kidnap and put on trial the murderers, resident in Argerntina, of, say, Armenian citizens of Poland murdered in Poland (which is the Eichmann scenario).

[ljadw]

I have not to prove that the trial of Eichmann was legal ,the onus of proof is on those who say that the trial was not legal .
The trial was legal following the Israeli laws .And that is the only thing that counts .
All trials are legal,as long as they follow the laws of the country where the trial is happening .Israel was not ignoring the law of Israel .
About Bin Laden : US had the right to deal with him in Afghanistan . Why ? Because there was no US law forbidding the US government to kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan .
States have all rights,...till the moment they lose :laws are based on the principle : vae victis .
Those who were responsible for the Holocaust were punished ( not all of them ) ,those who were responsible for the Gulag were not punished . The reason is obvious .
If US had the power (thus the right ) to kill opponents outside the US,without trial, to kidnap other opponents and to torture them, Israel had the power (thus the right ) to kidnap some one who wanted to exterminate all Jews on earth, to judge him and to condemn and execute him .
And, about the Armenian state,which existed theoretically during 2 years : YES, it would have the right to kidnap the responsibles of the Armenian genocide . Why ?Because it could kidnap them , ( POWER =RIGHT ) ,unless there was an Armenian law forbidding the Armenian state to kidnap the responsibles of the Armenian genocide .

[gebhk]

Out of the mouths of babes, is all I can say. So what is the point of the law at all in your peculiar world? And in your world presumably Eichmann was entirely innocent - after all he had the power and he was following the law of the land, right? Sorry - I won't be led down that rabbit hole or into the relativistic moral morass!

About Bin Laden : US had the right to deal with him in Afghanistan . Why ? Because there was no US law forbidding the US government to kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan .

Now you are wriggling again. The question you have been asked is why you conclude that only the Americans had the right (either legal or moral) to deal with Bin Laden? Your answer sir?

I have not to prove that the trial of Eichmann was legal

You do if you claim that "The only thing that is important is if the trial and sentence were legal".

the onus of proof is on those who say that the trial was not legal

Any trial held by a court that has no jurisdiction is self-evidently not legal. Res ipsa loquitur - to abuse a term normally used only in civil law. Nothing to prove there.

[David Thompson]

ljadw -- You've already said that; so I've removed your post.

[Volyn]

Nazi war criminals such as Heydrich, Himmler, and Kaltenbrunner deserved the death penalty. German officers and soldiers who personally ordered executions and/or committed acts of cruelty not only deserved the death penalty but should have been made to experience a small dose of the suffering they caused others.

I answered your basic questions previously in post #60, but this part that you wrote is missing one important detail; Eichmann replaced Heydrich as the main facilitator for the Final Solution. You noted that Heydrich deserved it, but his role in the Holocaust was less murderous than Eichmann's because he was killed in its early stages. He may not have held the same rank, but he carried the same authority as if he were Heydrich for 3 years, and millions of lives were lost directly because of his orders, that is why he was deserving of the death penalty.

It was Eichmann's fault that he was captured and sentenced to die, you should blame him for his own death because he stubbornly refused to surrender. If he had done so in the 1950's he would have lived out the remainder of his life in Germany, concealed in relative obscurity and receiving a small pension; he would have even finished his biography with Willem Sassen, who had interviewed him in 1956 over the span of 4 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Sassen

The irony that he was undone by a blind, half-Jewish German Holocaust survivor and his 12 year old daughter.

[mikegriffith1]

Nazi war criminals such as Heydrich, Himmler, and Kaltenbrunner deserved the death penalty. German officers and soldiers who personally ordered executions and/or committed acts of cruelty not only deserved the death penalty but should have been made to experience a small dose of the suffering they caused others.

I answered your basic questions previously in post #60, but this part that you wrote is missing one important detail; Eichmann replaced Heydrich as the main facilitator for the Final Solution. You noted that Heydrich deserved it, but his role in the Holocaust was less murderous than Eichmann's because he was killed in its early stages.

But Heydrich was the chief of the Reich Security Main Office, the agency most directly concerned with implementing the Nazi plan to murder Jews. He was also head of the Gestapo and of the Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS. He served directly under Himmler. Eichmann was several rungs down the ladder from that level, and that is the key difference.

Again, if the Allies had lost the war, would we have thought it fair if the Axis powers had prosecuted Lt. Colonels who did not personally kill anyone for their roles in the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg or for their roles in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, most of which had no meaningful military value? No, of course not.

He may not have held the same rank, but he carried the same authority as if he were Heydrich for 3 years, and millions of lives were lost directly because of his orders, that is why he was deserving of the death penalty.

No, Eichmann did not hold the same authority as Heydrich. Eichmann was four levels below Heydrich and six ranks below the top rank in the SS.

In June 1944, Eichmann was involved in negotiations with Rudolf Kasztner, the head of the Hungarian Aid and Rescue Committee, that resulted in the rescue of over 1,600 Jews, who were then sent by train to safety in Switzerland in exchange for three suitcases full of diamonds, gold, cash, and securities. Does that count for something?

[Puck]

In June 1944, Eichmann was involved in negotiations with Rudolf Kasztner, the head of the Hungarian Aid and Rescue Committee, that resulted in the rescue of over 1,600 Jews, who were then sent by train to safety in Switzerland in exchange for three suitcases full of diamonds, gold, cash, and securities. Does that count for something?

What should that count for?? It was no gesture of humanity - again a gesture of dehumanizing jews, this time as merchandise

[Volyn]

But Heydrich was the chief of the Reich Security Main Office, the agency most directly concerned with implementing the Nazi plan to murder Jews. He was also head of the Gestapo and of the Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS. He served directly under Himmler. Eichmann was several rungs down the ladder from that level, and that is the key difference.

You misunderstand, Eichmann did not replace Heydrich in his other roles in the SS hierarchy, he was made the lead figure only for the implementation of the Final Solution. His rank is not relevant, it appears on paper that he is lower in authority, but in reality he was at the top making it work. I would like to know why Eichmann was never promoted to the rank of Colonel at least?

Again, if the Allies had lost the war, would we have thought it fair if the Axis powers had prosecuted Lt. Colonels who did not personally kill anyone for their roles in the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg or for their roles in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, most of which had no meaningful military value? No, of course not.

Not an adequate comparison, a better anaglogy would be if a Lt. Col. were in charge of the internment of Japanese Americans and he was responsible for making it work, then yes, if the Japanese had prevailed they would certainly prosecute him in their "courts".

No, Eichmann did not hold the same authority as Heydrich. Eichmann was four levels below Heydrich and six ranks below the top rank in the SS.

That only matters on paper, as I said before the issue of rank in this particular situation was muted. The Nazis wanted to commit an unspeakable crime, in order to make the process function they needed someone who could manage it properly, allowing it to operate quickly, efficiently, and while the war was still fought, not after. It gave them the cover to make it all possible, and something of that scale required enormous collaborative efforts across several German bureaucractic organizations with their own agendas and priorities. The Wannsee Conference was called to bring everyone to heel and force them to cooperate with Heydrich at first, until he was killed, and then his aide Eichmann after. Since this was a special action the regularities associated with rank do not apply; Eichmann was the person who maintained the operations and he was fully aware of everything that was going on, information that only the highest authorities would have access to.

In June 1944, Eichmann was involved in negotiations with Rudolf Kasztner, the head of the Hungarian Aid and Rescue Committee, that resulted in the rescue of over 1,600 Jews, who were then sent by train to safety in Switzerland in exchange for three suitcases full of diamonds, gold, cash, and securities. Does that count for something?

They were bartering chips to him, nothing more. The simple math that he oversaw the killing of 437,000 Hungarian Jews from March - July 1944, compared to releasing 1,600 Jews does not help his case.

[michael mills]

What I note from reading this thread is that some contributors, particularly Volyn, continue to accept the charge made by the prosecution in the trial of Eichmann that he was the person who had the supreme control of the entire project of exterminating the Jewish population of Europe.

The historical fact is that that charge was historically false, and that his role in the extermination project was a much more limited one, and was essentially what he himself claimed that it was, that of organising the deportation of Jews from Western, Central, and South-eastern Europe to various destinations in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union, mainly to KL Auschwitz but also to a number of ghettos, such as Lodz, Minsk and Riga. He had no control over what was done to them at those destinations, ie he did not make the decision as to which of them would be killed and which preserved for labour. Thus, the statement by Volyn that Eichmann "oversaw the killing of 437,000 Hungarian Jews" is quite untrue; what he did do was to oversee the deportation of just under 400,000 of them to Auschwitz, of another 30,000 to the holding camp at Strasshof in Austria, and to send up to 50,000 on a foot-march to the Austrian border, but he had no control over the subsequent fate of any of them. It is also untrue that 437,000 were killed; almost all the 30,000 sent to Strasshof survived and returned home because they were being held for exchange, and of the almost 400,000 sent to Auschwitz at least 100,000 survived and returned after the end of the war.

Furthermore, neither the killings carried out in occupied Soviet territory by the various SS-Police units stationed there, nor the killings perpetrated at the camps in the General-Government run by Globocnik were under his control. At most he can be held responsible for contributing to the deaths of about one million Jews through his role in organising their deportation to places where they were subsequently killed, since he was aware that the majority of them would be killed.

In summary, the trial of Eichmann did a great disservice to historiography by promoting the historically incorrect notion that he was the person implementing the entire "Final Solution". Examination of the evidence presented at his trial, and of the witnesses who gave evidence, reveals that most of it was not relevant to his own actions. One witness in particular, Abba Kovner, lied through his teeth about Eichmann's alleged involvement in the killings in Lithuania.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael Mills,

You post, ".....the charge made by the prosecution in the trial of Eichmann (was) that he was the person who had the supreme control of the entire project of exterminating the Jewish population of Europe."

An open question:

Was it?

Could you put before us where they advanced this proposition?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

What I note from reading this thread is that some contributors, particularly Volyn, continue to accept the charge made by the prosecution in the trial of Eichmann that he was the person who had the supreme control of the entire project of exterminating the Jewish population of Europe.

The historical fact is that that charge was historically false, and that his role in the extermination project was a much more limited one, and was essentially what he himself claimed that it was, that of organising the deportation of Jews from Western, Central, and South-eastern Europe to various destinations in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union, mainly to KL Auschwitz but also to a number of ghettos, such as Lodz, Minsk and Riga. He had no control over what was done to them at those destinations, ie he did not make the decision as to which of them would be killed and which preserved for labour. Thus, the statement by Volyn that Eichmann "oversaw the killing of 437,000 Hungarian Jews" is quite untrue; what he did do was to oversee the deportation of just under 400,000 of them to Auschwitz, of another 30,000 to the holding camp at Strasshof in Austria, and to send up to 50,000 on a foot-march to the Austrian border, but he had no control over the subsequent fate of any of them. It is also untrue that 437,000 were killed; almost all the 30,000 sent to Strasshof survived and returned home because they were being held for exchange, and of the almost 400,000 sent to Auschwitz at least 100,000 survived and returned after the end of the war.

Furthermore, neither the killings carried out in occupied Soviet territory by the various SS-Police units stationed there, nor the killings perpetrated at the camps in the General-Government run by Globocnik were under his control. At most he can be held responsible for contributing to the deaths of about one million Jews through his role in organising their deportation to places where they were subsequently killed, since he was aware that the majority of them would be killed.

In summary, the trial of Eichmann did a great disservice to historiography by promoting the historically incorrect notion that he was the person implementing the entire "Final Solution". Examination of the evidence presented at his trial, and of the witnesses who gave evidence, reveals that most of it was not relevant to his own actions. One witness in particular, Abba Kovner, lied through his teeth about Eichmann's alleged involvement in the killings in Lithuania.

Contributing to the deaths of about one million Jews,was enough to be condemned and to be executed .

[Peter89]

Thus, the statement by Volyn that Eichmann "oversaw the killing of 437,000 Hungarian Jews" is quite untrue; what he did do was to oversee the deportation of just under 400,000 of them to Auschwitz, of another 30,000 to the holding camp at Strasshof in Austria, and to send up to 50,000 on a foot-march to the Austrian border, but he had no control over the subsequent fate of any of them. It is also untrue that 437,000 were killed; almost all the 30,000 sent to Strasshof survived and returned home because they were being held for exchange, and of the almost 400,000 sent to Auschwitz at least 100,000 survived and returned after the end of the war.

In the 1941 Hungary, there was 725,000 people of Jewish religion. A further 100,000 was labeled as "Jew" by the law. Thus there was a total of 825-840,000 people subjected to the Holocaust.

The war and the antisemite atrocities committed against them lowered this number to 760-780,000 by the time of Hungary's occupation by the Germans on 19 March 1944. The best estimate of the deceased is 564 507; of which 45-80,000 were killed before the German occupation, and 484,507-519,507 were killed after that.

While it would require a lifetime of study to determine how much of the difference between these latter numbers and 437,000 (the number used against Eichmann) can make up for the Hungarian authorities' crimes, it is definately not way off. It also doesn't really matter.

In my opinion, the charge was a bit wrong for other reasons. Eichmann was actually partially responsible for the deportation and death of the Hungarian Jews. He and his pocket team could not deport the Hungarian Jews without their undivided and vivid support of Hungarian authorities. Even Eichmann himself recalled the effectiveness and brutality of them when he oversaw the emptying of a ghetto, IIRC in Nagyvárad. He was the on the top of the organization with excellent working relationship with the Hungarian perpetrators, but it was the Hungarians who did most of the crimes.

On the other hand, the Holocaust could not have happened on this scale if Hungary was not occupied and Eichmann wasn't in place. Thus, responsibility is also shared with the German leadership.

It is important to know that the other main perpetrators, such as László Baky, László Endre és László Ferenczy were hanged in 1946 already.