Emotion and the Eichmann Trial: An Analysis of the Outside World, the Courtroom, and the Accused

EMOTION AND THE EICHMANN TRIAL

An Analysis of the Outside World, the Courtroom,

and the Accused

Lindsey Allen, UvA

Student Number: 10618775

Emotions and the Eichmann Trial:

An Analysis of the Outside World, the Courtroom, and the

Accused

Master’s thesis in Holocaust and Genocide Studies

Amsterdam, June 2014

Supervisor & First Reader: Karel Berkhoff (NIOD) Second Reader: Dr. Ugur Ümit Üngör (NIOD)

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Humanities

ii

Copyright ©2014 by Lindsey Allen All rights reserved

iii

C

ONTENTS

GOALS AND STRUCTURE ... 1

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE TRIAL ... 2

METHODOLOGY ... 4

FINDINGS ... 6

CHAPTER 1: EMOTION OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM ... 7

THE CAPTURE ... 7 THE ANNOUNCEMENT ... 7 THE DELIBERATION ... 9 AN OUTBREAK OF VIOLENCE ... 11 MEDIA COVERAGE ... 14 PRE-TRIAL CONCERN ... 15 THE TRIAL BEGINS ... 16

BENEFITS OF THE TRIAL ... 18

AFTER THE TRIAL ... 19

CONCLUSION ... 21

CHAPTER 2: EMOTION INSIDE THE COURTROOM ... 23

THE SPECTATORS ... 23

THE ANNOUNCEMENT ... 24

THE TRIAL ... 25

OUTBURSTS ... 28

DISORDER IN THE COURTROOM ... 32

WITNESS TESTIMONY AND SURVIVOR REACTIONS ... 34

VISUAL TRUTH ... 36

iv

ADMITTANCE OF GUILT ... 38

AFTER THE TRIAL ... 39

CHAPTER 3: EICHMANN’S EMOTION AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION . 41 THE CAPTURE ... 41

EICHMANN IN ISRAELI PRISON ... 42

THE TRIAL ... 44

EVIDENCE OF BODILY EMOTION ... 47

THE INNER EICHMANN ... 49

AFTER THE TRIAL ... 51

THE DEATH SENTENCE ... 53

CONCLUSION ... 54

CONCLUSION ... 56

THE PUBLIC:VIOLENCE ACROSS THE GLOBE ... 56

THE PUBLIC:HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS ... 57

FINDINGS INSIDE THE COURT ... 57

ADOLF EICHMANN ON TRIAL ... 58

A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING ... 59

v

P

REFACE

Emotions and the Eichmann Trial was a Master’s thesis topic that I never imagined I

would write about. During the first semester of my Master’s courses at the University of Amsterdam, I knew that my preferred topic of research centered on perpetrators and I constantly found myself asking some obvious questions. Such as, how could a human being commit such tragic acts on another human being? What drives these perpetrators to play their role in a genocide?

I first explored the most well-known perpetrator of the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler as my starting point so I could identify all of my options from a wide range of possibilities. Then, I began to compare his contribution to that of Adolf Eichmann, when my courses led me to a new conviction: Eichmann had the upper hand when it came to implementing the most efficient elements of the Holocaust. These included, but were not limited to: constructing new train routes and rail ways that directly transported Jews from major cities to death camps devoid of other stops, suggesting the use of Zyklon B in the gas chambers for bloodless killings, and cremating the bodies in order to diminish the evidence of mass graves. However, after a conversation with Argentine lawyer and the first [now former] Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, I discovered otherwise. During this intimate group visit between Ocampo and UvA Genocide Studies students, it became clear that this was not possible. Ocampo emphasized the fact that I did not possess enough knowledge of the military ranking system to justifiably compare the actions of a higher level commander with the implementations of a lower level individual.

These realizations left me no choice but to abandon my original thesis topic. I then explored the life of Eichmann more thoroughly since it was his story I found most remarkable. Once much research had been conducted, the trial of Eichmann became my main focus point, but I was still not satisfied and required a narrower topic. Revisiting my original questions in the first paragraph, I decided to view the perpetrator from a different angle and instead of assessing narrative literature; I wanted to understand how the world saw him. The Jewish Telegraph Agency, an Israeli news agency that covered the trial immensely, became my number one source of interest. After reading through articles between the dates of January 1, 1960 and December 31, 1965 [Eichmann’s capture, trial, and the years post-trial], I had discovered something striking, emotion. I became aware of my extreme reaction to these emotions and then assed that I had in fact, pin-pointed my thesis topic.

vii

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the course of my research and thesis writing, I have benefitted the most from the literature offered at the NIOD Institute for War-Holocaust and Genocide Studies library, as well as my professors at the University of Amsterdam. The NIOD offered a quiet place to study and write while also offering almost every book and article necessary for the success of this research. Over the span of the year, my professors assisted me in my writing content, style, and structure, as well as new forms of research analysis and innovations. Dr. Nanci Adler, Dr. Karel Berkhoff, Dr. Johannes Houwink ten Cate, and Dr. Ugur Ümit Üngör, have influenced not only my writing, but my analytical thinking about Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The skills I have had the pleasure of acquiring while attending this institute are surpassed by none, and for that, I am honorably grateful.

Professors also have a way of remaining in the lives of their students, even after the graduation ceremonies. From my personal undergraduate career, that professor was Dr. Kevin Kenyon. His ability to inspire my interest in the Holocaust during the second semester of my freshmen year at Coker College was the motivating force that encouraged my will for a master’s degree. An advisor, professor, friend, and mentor, I hope to always have his influence in my life and throughout the continuance of my studies; for I have never met a more intelligent, worldly, and considerate individual.

On a more personal level, I would like to point out that I could not have accomplished this work without the positive feedback and encouragement from my colleagues and friends in Amsterdam as well as abroad: Rhiannon Parkinson, Anna Gopsill, Claire Birnie, Ana Marija Žagar, and Steven Marciano.

Support has come to me in many different aspects of my life throughout this year, but the most significant generosity steams from two people that I consider my greatest inspiration and my heroes. My parents have stood by me both financially and by way of moral support during every difficult moment I have experienced in my lifetime. They are endlessly encouraging me to follow my dreams and they will do whatever it takes to help me accomplish even my most seemingly unreachable goals. Without their kind words and attentive nature, this thesis as well as myself, would not be what they are today. There are not enough thank yous in the world to refuge my gratitude for having the pleasure of them in my life and the honor to call them my Mother and Father.

1

I

NTRODUCTION

M

A

World War II and the Holocaust introduced the world to a new form of systematic, mechanical murder through the use of train deportations, death camps, and mass graves. The individuals responsible for these crimes are referred to in this thesis as perpetrators. No matter the high or low ranking set out by the commanding officers, any and all affiliates with the Nazi regime that assisted in the widespread killings, can be considered a perpetrator. These affiliates were active in the assistance of finding, capturing, deporting, and killing Jews [also known as enemies of the Reich], until the end of the war. At the conclusion of 1944, the Red Army [Soviet troops], infiltrated the Nazi territory in order to cease the violence against the Jews and bring the perpetrators to justice.1 However, many perpetrators took the opportunity to flee from seizure and escape to outside countries to live the rest of their lives in hiding. This was true for Adolf Eichmann who, during the war, was appointed to the position of SS-Hauptsturmführer in 1939 by Reinhard Heydrich when there became a need to eradicate a well-planned and efficient deportation strategy.2 After many years in hiding, Eichmann was tracked down and apprehended to be brought to trial in an international fashion in order to fulfill the desire to bring all Nazi perpetrators to justice. But the question must be addressed of, how will such a momentous capture affect the lives and minds of the public?

G

S

The goal of this master’s thesis was to obtain an understanding about how individuals of the public, as well as the offender himself, react to the reemergence of a genocide perpetrator into society and the narrative of his crimes during trial proceedings. Individuals of the public include, but are not limited to: survivors of the violence, friends or family members effected, previous perpetrators still in hiding, and followers of the Nazi ideology that have kept their views unobstructed since the end of the war. Each one of these individuals will have a different [sometimes drastically different], response to the return of a

1 _{David Cesarani, Eichmann: His Life and Crimes (London: W. Heinemann, 2004), p.195.} 2

Phillip T. Rutherford, Prelude to the Final Solution: The Nazi Program for Deporting Ethnic Poles, 1939-1941 (Lawrence: University of Kansas, 2007), p.110.

2

figure that epitomizes the core of the Holocaust belief. In order to better organize these various characters, this thesis has been split into three different sections that can encompass and include any and all affiliates within the Holocaust: people outside of the courtroom proceedings [the public], everyone contained within the walls of the courtroom [legal teams, guards, media journalists, and observers], and the perpetrator himself [Adolf Eichmann]. Each chapter has been structured chronologically in order to follow the reactions accordingly: beginning with the capture of the perpetrator, leading into the breakdown of the trial proceedings, and concluding with the legal verdict and outcome of the events. Within these chapters and subsections, this thesis delves into the emotional toll that the comeback of Adolf Eichmann created for everyone around the world, as well as Eichmann himself. It was the continuing goal that this thesis can shed light on how the public responds to genocide perpetrators. Inevitably, it can map out a systematic and more structured way to handle the eruptions of human emotion when the time to try another genocide perpetrator occurs.

H

C

T

Even though much of the emotional connection to Eichmann and the proceedings can be related to the trial itself, there were also many other factors of the time that attributed to the mass scale reaction that it received. Hanna Yablonka addresses this in her scholarly article:

For many years after the trial, the dispute over the “Yishuv’s involvement in the Holocaust” lingered on the public agenda. Judge Halevi’s decision left its singular linguistic legacy intact in Israeli consciousness. By labeling Eichmann the “devil,” the judge had shifted the discourse on Nazi evil from the human context to the meta-historical, metaphysical, and theological plains, where rational tools are not applied and only emotional ones are pertinent. This trend was to be reinforced in the Eichmann trial-the paramount event in Israel’s Holocaust consciousness.3

Hanna Yablonka, 2003: 15.

Yablonka’s words express Israel’s overwhelming dedication to the trial of Adolf Eichmann and the enormous responsibility they now held to clear the guilt felt from the Holocaust conscious. There was no doubt that each country shared a different overall

3

Hanna Yablonka, "The Development of Holocaust Consciousness in Israel: The Nuremberg, Kapos, Kastner, and Eichmann Trials," Israel Studies 8.3 (2003), p.15.

3

obligation concerning the events of the Holocaust. If the country was involved directly, such as Germany or Poland for example, their guilt was solely based on the assistance they gave to help fuel the violence. While at the same time, countries that remained outside of the conflict and then discovered the truth about what had occurred over the past couple of years, felt an incredible amount of guilt based on their exhausting ignorance on the subject. After the war had ceased and the countries began to discover what they had turned a blind eye to, one factor became apparent specifically in Israel:

Cognitive processing of the Holocaust was not limited to the time of the events. In the postwar years, too, the absorption of Holocaust information into general awareness proceeded slowly in Israel. Perhaps it could not have been otherwise.4

Hanna Yablonka, 2003: 1.

This slow process that took place in Israel was also common in other countries as well, considering the fact that for some places, the information about the events of the Holocaust were not as readily available as in others. Although, this raised a significant question about Israel and their ability to try Eichmann. Does the slow cognitive process of this country effect its ability to give a fair and knowledgeable trial? If a country was slow to grasp the events of the time, how can they successfully hold court proceedings when other countries have reached the same understanding on a more rapid scale? These questions can also be considered illegitimate since the trial occurred a decade and a half after the Holocaust came to an end so by that time, the information about the events had reached the entire world. But Israel could also be considered an exception to the rule in this case since during the beginning of the trial, Holocaust survivors that had emigrated from Germany or Poland to Israel made up approximately one-quarter of the population.5 Despite the fact that these people were considered immigrants by the local Israeli inhabitants, one would assume that due to the mass amount of Holocaust survivors, understanding and consciousness of the events should be strongly accepted and broadly well-known.

Regardless of the speed with which Israel acquired this knowledge after the war, Yablonka concludes, “This was the first time that the Holocaust was presented to a competent judicial body in full detail, in all its stages and from all its aspects...the trial gave rise to discussions on a great variety of subjects, on the legal, social, educational, psychological,

4

Yablonka, "The Development of Holocaust Consciousness in Israel," p.1.

4 religious, and political levels.”6

Israel may have been slow to grasp the enormity of the Holocaust, but the trial would soon show that even if some individuals chose not be aware before, they would be forced to see the Holocaust for what it really was as soon as the proceedings began. Regardless of these accusations, the trial would capture attention as well as reflect the event at hand in order to convey a larger lesson and further understanding of the events for the world.7

M

In order to properly asses the progression of Israel as well as the rest of the world on their knowledge of Eichmann, the proper and most obvious source to revert to would be the current news sources of the time. Each day, newspapers print the current undertakings all around the world and as technology progressed, these sources were shared permanently online. Even though this can be considered a great primary source for the years of Eichmann’s reemergence after the Holocaust, precautions must be taken. Newspapers have a tendency to print false stories all the time if they are pressed to get the broadcast out first. Details can be overlooked and this causes the source to become questionable instead of using it as fact. While researching the topic of this thesis, the newspapers had to be narrowed down to the most reliable choices, with the most information within the posted articles. They also had to be easily accessible for successful research. Beginning with more than five different newspaper sources from various regions of the world, but mainly from the United States and the United Kingdom in English [due to my lack of a second language], they had to be weeded through. In the findings, the Jewish Telegraph Agency was the only news agency to cover the mistakes of others, assessing rumors that had been spread and were later published in the paper, the JTA seemed to recognize them all:

Since its founding in 1917, JTA has earned its reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis. Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.8

Jewish Telegraph Agency, “About Us”: Online.

6 _{Israel Gutman, “The Eichmann Trial,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: Macmillan Pub., 1990).} 7

Tom Segrev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), p.338.

5

These factors proved that this source would stand out, above all other newspaper sources, to be the best and most reliable for the research that would inevitably support the paradigm of this thesis. It also represented the information well since there are headquarters placed all around the world and it could cover many different countries. Therefore, it explained the variety of public reaction during that time, without limiting itself to one city or country. Not only these benefits swayed my opinion to use the JTA, but also the assessments from other historians:

…there are no comparative and longitudinal data available on public opinion that might reveal how the public dealt with the memory of the Holocaust; thus, researchers must resort to various sources, including records and documents. One such possible source is the press. Surely, newspapers themselves cannot be considered as reliable sources of public opinion. However, few would deny that in the second half of the twentieth century the press has been a central element in the fabric of society, and therefore can serve as a reliable and valid source for presenting and interpreting public opinion.

It should be noted that newspapers are the only mass medium that existed since the end of World War II whose contents are available for current analysis (although radio did exist, recordings of programs are generally unavailable and television was in its infancy). Moreover, newspapers have a special status in fulfilling the public’s communication needs. According to the complex system of needs that they seek to fulfil through the mass media (newspaper, books, radio, television and film), found that newspapers are the most important medium in fulfilling peoples’ needs; namely, the need for stability and personal security, social status, deepening knowledge, and understanding of society and the world in general.9

Akiba A. Cohen, 2002: 3-4.

Once a fair amount of research had been completed, the research spoke for itself in the newspapers and could easily be backed up and further explained through the immense amount of narratives written on the subject. This included books and a couple of articles, but not many substantiated use in the end. Some of the books, such as Hannah Arendt’s

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil for example, were based purely on

her observations during the trial and were then doused in personal opinion. Typically, this could be expected because, “In view of the nature of the crimes being reported it must have been difficult for the journalists to maintain an objective and temperate tone in the coverage

9

Akiba A. Cohen, The Holocaust and the Press: Nazi War Crimes Trials in Germany and Israel (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2002), pp.3-4.

6

of the trials. Thus, a more-than-usual amount of emotionalism could have been expected.”10 This made research particularly difficult because there was a lot of necessary clearing through that needed to be done. Regardless though, these narratives were a great use of how to assess human emotion, both personal and public, in response to Eichmann. However, throughout the findings, it can be concluded that much more research and documented fact must be published on the subject of reactions to perpetrators. With an expansion of the subject, will come a greater understanding of how to handle perpetrators and society immediately following future conflicts.

F

I believe that my sources allow some solid conclusions to be drawn. Outside of the courtroom, where riots, protests, vulgar language, destruction of Jewish property, and much more disturbances were occurring, it was clear that this emotion was derived from anger towards Eichmann and his role in the Holocaust. While at the same time, a new wave of anti-Semitism was occurring all over the world as previous Nazi followers began to come forward and speak out as they recognized one of their higher ranked leaders taking the fall for the Holocaust. Inside the courtroom however, the response was extremely sorrowful and emotionally scaring—it hit the souls of those who were in it. Survivor testimony was the most influential of all the occurrences within the courtroom walls. Sometimes, survivors would sit through the proceedings so they knew that justice was being served, but it soon became too much to bear being that close to a mass murderer. Therefore, many survivors reacted openly. Eichmann on the other hand, displayed none of these emotions because he exhibited no emotion at all. Stoic and unscathed, Eichmann lost weight and physically changed during the proceedings. Never once did he shed a tear, raise his voice, gravel, or show remorse. Each of these emotions were depicted in such drastically different ways that there can be no one emotion to label on any. The only way to understand the emotions that were experienced during the years of a former Nazi perpetrator’s capture, trial, and verdict was to assess every option of influence, beginning with the public’s response.

7

C

HAPTER

1:

E

MOTION

O

UTSIDE THE

C

OURTROOM

T

C

Before the official capture of Adolf Eichmann commenced, state representatives were informed of the identified perpetrator and his whereabouts and were then expected to make a decision about what to do with this information. Without having full knowledge of whether or not the suspected individual was in fact the former SS leader, the representatives gave the order to infiltrate and capture Eichmann with the intention to bring him to justice. After such a quick and heavy decision was made, one of the state representatives, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion shared his personal thoughts on the subject in a private journal that was later made public.11

When thoroughly examining the diary, Hanna Yablonka found that when Ben-Gurion stated that the probable positive identification of this former Holocaust perpetrator was both “important” and “successful,” he expressed all the emotion needed for that moment.12

This recognition of eagerness displayed by the Prime Minister to catch and imprison someone of such significance was apparent. As a less significant moment in the grander scheme of Eichmann’s capture and trial, this diary entry is one of the first pieces of documented evidence presenting the emotional reaction to Adolf Eichmann since the end of World War II. After this diary entry from May 15, 1960, the reaction of the public began to spiral into different variations of emotions which were all freely expressed with the help numerous media sources as well as interested individuals through word of mouth.13

T

A

Following the completion of Eichmann’s capture and arrest in Israel, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion held a meeting with Knesset (Parliament) on May 24, 1960 to announce the successful apprehension of Adolf Eichmann.14 The Jewish Telegraph Agency later reported that the House had received the news bout Eichmann with silence at first, but followed with

11

Hanna Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann (New York: Schocken, 2004), p.29.

12 _{Ibid., 30.} 13 _Ibid.

14 _{“Eichmann, Hitler’s ‘expert’ on Annihilation of Jews, Jailed in Israel,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem],}

May 24, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/05/24/archive/eichmann-hitlers-expert-on-annihilation-of-jews-jailed-in-israel#ixzz2vTwx57RN>.

8

“wild applause” after processing the momentous information.15

The enthusiastic reaction by the House suggests the victorious feeling everyone was experiencing in remembrance of the Holocaust that day. However, this emotion quickly changed as the time came to formally announce this information to the world.

Gideon Hauser later wrote about the public press conference announcement, headed by Ben-Gurion. The event was described as “gleeful” and shocking by one of its attendees, and leader of the Labor Party, Richard Crossman.16 Crossman did not hold back his personal impression on the subject—furthering the description of his “uneasy” feelings about the modern melodramatic justice that Ben-Gurion was outlining for the trial:

Of course the Israeli Prime Minister can find excellent legal precedents for putting a man on trial who has been abducted and for charging him with the crimes committed in another country…But the political framework within which Ben-Gurion has decided to set the trial is such a perturbing combination of Old Testament ethics an modern sensationalism that, though what is done will no doubt be justice, what is seen to be done may well look more like an act of tribal vengeance.17

Gideon Hausner, 1966: 457.

Despite the apprehensiveness clearly portrayed by Crossman’s opinion, this reaction was not shared by the rest of the public. While some people were worried about the outcome, others were celebrating the victory. After the press conference caught the attention of the world, personal letters addressed to the Prime Minister expressed immense pride and joy over anything that had to do with condemning the former perpetrator, Adolf Eichmann.18 These responses flooded into Israel to support actions against Eichmann, which included individuals willing and offering to participate in any way possible. Some interested Jewish survivors that had been previously placed in Nazi extermination camps, reached out through phone calls to police headquarters, volunteering and asking to be considered for the position of executioner in the case of a death sentence.19

15 _{“Eichmann, Hitler’s ‘expert’ on Annihilation of Jews, Jailed in Israel,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem],}

May 24, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/05/24/archive/eichmann-hitlers-expert-on-annihilation-of-jews-jailed-in-israel#ixzz2vTwx57RN>.

16

Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p.457.

17 _Ibid.

18 _{Yablonka, The State of Israel vs Adolf Eichmann, p.34.}

19 _{“Israel Mum on How Eichmann Was Captured; Prisoner Pleads “not Guilty,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Tel}

Aviv], May 25, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/05/25/archive/israel-mum-on-how-eichmann-was-captured-prisoner-pleads-not-guilty#ixzz2vTy6JNr8>.

9

These emotions could have taken place due to the overwhelming confusion that inevitably follows the breakup of war. The physical fighting may cease, but that does not mean that the ideology and the followers will too. Anti-Semitism was still very prevalent after the war, despite the overwhelming media frenzy that exposed the violence and inhumane treatments that occurred, as well as the discovery of death camps. Ideology can require centuries to erase as it can be passed down from parents to their children during upbringing and inevitably, influence their thinking. Since the capture of Eichmann occurred more than a decade, but less than two decades, after the liberation of the Nazi front, original anti-Semites were still living and had given birth to another population of followers. So while some people were celebrating the end of the war and the “end” of Nazi rule, others were discreetly carrying on the mentality of Nazi dogma. In other words, those celebrating the end of the war were the individuals that rejoiced in the capture of Eichmann, while those who quietly continued the Nazi philosophy were the individuals who saw an opportunity to reignite their inner desires and began to speak out. It seemed that the whole world wanted a piece of Eichmann, which inevitably led to a passionate debate about where Eichmann should be brought to justice—what country would best serve the trial?

T

D

Other countries began displaying their opinions and feelings on the topic in order to come to a conclusion about where to try Eichmann. A soviet diplomat official shared his view, that no perpetrator of the Holocaust should be tried in West Germany because the country did so poorly the first time around at Nuremberg.20 Each statement referring to the trial of Eichmann differed, but they all had something in common—emotion, and more specifically, passion. With all of the news about Eichmann so drastic and fresh in the public’s mind, one might have assumed that this was the topic of conversation in everyday life. The media—newspapers, radio broadcasts, etc.—allowed for such information to reach a grand scale of the population, who then would pass the word on to family and friends; thus creating a wildfire of gossip and interjection of opinion.

20 _{“Soviet Justifies Holding of Eichmann’s Trial in Israel,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Washington], June 2,}

1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/06/02/archive/soviet-justifies-holding-of-eichmanns-trial-in-israel#ixzz2vU1ameFk>.

10

However, Hanna Yablonka notices a slight change in Israel specifically, after the few weeks of initial excitement over Eichmann. In so many words, she expresses the extreme shift in human emotion and reaction to the perpetrator from the country’s point of view, following the primary wave of obvious interested chatter regarding the capture:

For one evening, everyone in the country appeared to be wallowing in sadistic dreams, each trying to outdo the other in inventing the worst possible forms of torture with which to wreak vengeance on Eichmann. It was a perfectly normal reaction, and never left the boundaries of imagination. By the following day, the dreamers were more than a little ashamed of themselves…This, in essence, was the reaction of the Israelis to the capture of Eichmann. Shock, pride, satisfaction, verbal letting off of steam, anticipation, and the feeling that justice should be carried out under the law.21

Hanna Yablonka, 2004: 35-36.

This shock and emotion towards Eichmann came from deep fear and anger caused by what Eichmann had done during World War II that observers heard through word of mouth and the media. However, even though the public knew the horrible things that Eichmann had done, they were not perpetrators who could willingly carry out such sadistic vengeance and therefore, they understood that the way of the law was the only road to take. Survivors of the Holocaust, on the other hand, felt so strongly about what Eichmann had done to their families and friends (and even themselves), that they would suggest far worse outcomes for the imprisoned man. In other words, the reactions by the survivors of Eichmann and the camps of the Holocaust ranged differently from that of the public.

Fear felt by the survivors may have been similar to the public, but for the most part, the emotion emanated from personal experience and the distress of re-hashing old memories. This was not a personal feeling however, as the survivors of the Holocaust shared more than just memories, they also shared post-war experiences of out casting when trying to reintegrate into society. In the post-war years, survivors have built up personal walls in order to handle the repercussions of such trauma that were now being broken down by the amount of media attention Eichmann was receiving.22 Their reactions were quiet and personal battles that they chose not to air to others, as the outsiders could not understand because they had not experienced the same past. When the war ended and the survivors returned to rebuild their families and their lives, survivor stories were only well received by the public if they ended

21

Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann, pp.35-36.

11

in positive messages or heroic battles; no one was interested in a tragic story. With this kind of filtered interest, the survivors learned and “practiced self-restraint in their discourse regarding their Holocaust experience” so to not draw attention to themselves.23 Survivors were constantly fearful that the Holocaust would occur again and therefore, continued to see themselves as victims; if they spoke about their past experiences, they were bringing attention to the fact that they had in fact, been victims. The word “victim” alone encompasses weakness, of which survivors chose not to express to the public. After this form of hushed memory, the Eichmann trial was not well-received by this particular group.

A

O

V

An uncertainty of emotion between two groups of people can lead to passionate disagreements, which can eventually escalate into acts of physical violence. In the case of the Eichmann trial, many groups were involved since the whole world had been submissive during the preliminary violence (the Holocaust), and now had to face different views on a perpetrator and his future. In Guatemala for example, threatening letters were sent to prominent Jewish families, marked with a Swastika and stating death threats in the case of Eichmann’s guilty judgment.24

As fearful as threatening letters to a family can be, this was only the beginning of the violence known around the world. Another illustration of violence occurred the day following the disbursement of letters in Guatemala. Montevideo, a city further south in Uruguay, experienced the bombing of a Jewish Synagogue and therefore, began an investigation all over the city in the event of another attack.25 This proved to be the beginning of much violence as two other bombs were found in surrounding Jewish establishments during the search.26 It was slowly becoming clear that the emergence of a former SS leader and Jewish perpetrator was causing the establishment of a new wave of anti-Semitism that was intensifying immensely and reaching across oceans.

23 _{Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann, p.38.}

24 _{“Jews in Guatemala Receive Swastika-marked Threats on Eichmann,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Guatemala}

City], June 14, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/06/14/archive/jews-in-guatemala-receive-swastika-marked-threats-on-eichmann#ixzz2vY6hXd1B>.

25 _{“Synagogue Bombed in Montevideo; Eichmann Followers Suspected,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Montevideo], June 15, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/06/15/archive/synagogue-bombed-in-montevideo-eichmann-followers-suspected#ixzz2vY7Smru6>.

12

On June 22, 1960, the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported that in Rio de Janeiro, similar violence was brewing.27 Pamphlets were being disbursed and swastikas were smeared all over synagogues and the country, depicting clear messages such as, "death,” “Long Live Eichmann,” and “Help Save the human race by killing a Jew.”28

The media began covering the disbursement of these messages and analyzed them to conclude:

The pamphlets declared that Adolf Eichmann was not a war criminal and that “The Jews captured him only because he was familiar with the activities of Argentine Jewry.” The pamphlet concluded with the words: “Help save the human race by killing a Jew.” Similar pamphlets were distributed several months ago in Buenos Aires, apparently published by the same group. Police authorities here are investigating the distribution of the hate literature in this country.29

Jewish Telegraph Agency, August 26, 1960.

It was as if the capture and trial of Eichmann had unleashed a can of worms for the next Holocaust, or at least an attempted re-creation as such. Each day closer to the trial involved another rupture of hatred by those still following the Nazi ideology. The legal advisor to the Israel Foreign Ministry who visited further south to Buenos Aires during this time, observed the public screaming things such as, “death for the Jews” as he walked the streets.30 As the animosity grew, public threats and outbursts over Eichmann began to make their way into everyday normal life. Participants included a wide variety of ages and backgrounds, coming together over a common ground—a former Nazi perpetrator.

Due to the impressionistic nature of adolescents, these outbreaks of hatred were witnessed and repeated by those of significantly younger ages. A high school in Buenos Aires reported a shooting on August 24, 1960 where a Jewish student was shot just under the heart near to the school.31 It was later discovered that the students involved were among a group contained of many others that had set out to create Anti-Semitic movements and spread

27 _{“New Outbreak of Anti-Semitic Activity in Brazil; Police Investigate,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rio de}

Janeiro], July 22, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/07/22/archive/new-outbreak-of-anti-semitic-activity-in-brazil-police-investigate#ixzz2vYbbMHRl>.

28

Ibid.

29 _{“Argentine Students Strike; Protest Against Anti-Jewish Riot,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Buenos Aires],}

August 26, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/08/26/archive/argentine-students-strike-protest-against-anti-jewish-riot#ixzz2vYrfl54W>.

30

“Israel Ambassador, Ousted by Argentina Over Eichmann Case, Departs,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Buenos Aires], July 27, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/07/27/archive/israel-ambassador-ousted-by-argentina-over-eichmann-case-departs#ixzz2vYlPfJqR>.

31 _{“Argentine Minister Denounces Anti-Semitic Students; Orders Probe,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Buenos}

Aires], August 24, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/08/24/archive/argentine-minister-denounces-anti-semitic-students-orders-probe#ixzz2vYrRyylr>.

13

the word of, “Long Live Eichmann!”32 This later became known as the battle cry of the Argentine youth reintegrating Nazi tendencies. It can be inferred that if the youth identified with Nazi ideology so quickly after no prior experience with it, [they were either not born yet, or too young to remember the Holocaust] anti-Semitism was easily pliable and even more likely to spread. Due to this adaptability, public acts of anti-Semitism became so pervasive and well recognized that larger and more significant agencies began to take notice.

On September 26, the World Zionist Congress agency established the prevalent and significant danger in the new interruption of anti-Semitism stating that this was, “the writing on the wall” for the future of these generations.33

An overwhelming panic that there would be a second Holocaust, or even something similar to that, began to occur in the minds of adults when considering the effect this trial, as well as the triggered violence, would have on the younger age groups. In under one year, the capture, arrest, and forthcoming trial of Adolf Eichmann had stirred up emotions from an event that occurred over fifteen years prior. It was clear that Israel was doing its job by bringing Eichmann forward, but no amount of justice could contain the emotional storm that followed. This included other groups more prominent in the anti-Semitic family, such as the Neo-Nazi groups in East Germany. Still alive with support for the Nazi party, they offered their services for the trial by solving the problem of paying Eichmann’s lawyer after it was determined that his family cannot cover the costs.34 The show of support for Adolf Eichmann as well as the anger shown by opposing groups towards him, bounded the outside world of the trial and made its way to every continent through the mass media coverage it received. Word of mouth plagued communities with opinions and reactions to the perpetrator, most of which were shortly documented publically in newspapers, and then generously expressed on radio broadcasts.

32 _{“Argentine Students Strike; Protest Against Anti-Jewish Riot,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Buenos Aires],}

August 26, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/08/26/archive/argentine-students-strike-protest-against-anti-jewish-riot#ixzz2vYrfl54W>.

33

W.Z.O. Message Sees Significance in Last Year’s Anti-Semitic Outbreaks,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem], September 26, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/09/26/archive/w-z-o-message-sees-significance-in-last-years-anti-semitic-outbreaks#ixzz2vZ1bRjZ4>.

34 _{“Neo-Nazi Elements Said Paying Costs for Defending Adolf Eichmann,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Berlin],}

November 3, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/11/03/archive/neo-nazi-elements-said-paying-costs-for-defending-adolf-eichmann#ixzz2vZ8dXa9Y>.

14

M

C

Considering the amount of articles and media attention that the capture of Eichmann received, it should be no surprise that every country went to great lengths to cover the approaching trial itself. Counting, “324 foreign newspapers…including 27 national news agencies, 170 dailies, 34 radio and television networks and stations and 48 Jewish dailies and weeklies from 35 countries,” the world was equipped to document the trial into history.35

Through this flood of interest regarding the Eichmann trial, it can be determined that despite the supportive or fighting emotions and outbreaks the public gave, everyone wanted to be part of it and everyone was eager for the trial to begin and end.

Some countries, due to their past with the Holocaust, were more interested than others and therefore were better able to follow the events. This included the unprecedented coverage detail by Israeli press due to their leading attitude in the Eichmann case, as well as Polish newspapers.36 Israel’s proclamation of responsibility to try Eichmann as well as passion for reporting the story, derived from an intention to provide justice for the many Jews that had migrated to the country since the end of the war. Poland, however, felt the need to identify with the Eichmann trial through the media because of the mass collective guilt felt by the entire country after identifying that a large amount of anti-Semitic violence had occurred on their soil. Their coverage was therefore conducted on a relative level and was fundamentally received with compassion and understanding.37 According to Gideon Hausner, this was the case for many countries who were also involved in the dispute over where to try Eichmann; everyone eventually approved.38 Guilt was clearly a bountiful motivator for these countries that were desperately seeking forgiveness for their involvement in the Holocaust and even more than 15 years after the fact, were still struggling to accomplish such a feat.

35

“Press and Radio Stations from Many Lands to Cover Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem], November 28, 1960 <http://www.jta.org/1960/11/28/archive/press-and-radio-stations-from-many-lands-to-cover-eichmann-trial#ixzz2vZDwVsPj>.

36 _{Cohen, The Holocaust and the Press, p.17.} 37

Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem, p.465.

15

P

-T

C

Concerns on the Eve of the Trial were expressed by supporters and those equally eager to see the trial commence in anticipation of the repercussions it may have in the world. Survivors were extremely reluctant and feared confronting the past publically because they thought that they would not be taken truthfully—reverting back to the wall they have built for themselves since the war, also previously mentioned in this chapter.39 West Germany reported their apprehensive nature towards the re-opening of old wounds and the possibility of trial revelations condemning the German people for the Holocaust all over again.40 Agreeing with this assumption, witness to the trial as well as published author, Hannah Arendt, stated the obvious embarrassment and hesitation felt by Chancellor Adenaur, who worried that this trial would cause a new form of anti-German feeling and bring back “the horrors” of the past.41

Considering the fact the capture was creating a new wave of anti-Semitism and extreme cases of violence and protest, this assumption was not far off base from the extreme reality of the situation. A former leader of the Jewish underground in Poland also reported concern over the trial, regarding that the evidence to be presented at the Eichmann trial was so horrendous that it might cause nervous breakdowns, unless the public can prepare to hear about it.42 This kind of preconceived condemnation of the publics’ emotion did not send the right message to observers. A forewarning of brutal testimony to be presented at the trial was just one more problematic factor of the upcoming events.

Just days before the trial was scheduled to open on April 11, 1961, Jews in Canada experienced a similar extreme level of discourse; they were “urged to refrain from any public discussion” related to the trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann, until the completion of the proceedings and verdict.43 Such an attempt to silence the spread of Eichmann debate shows the uncertainty of the public to deal with the repercussions of such a high level perpetrator. Many factors needed to be considered because the reaction of entire countries could not be

39 _{Segrev, The Seventh Million, p.339.} 40

“German Parliament to Condemn Eichmann in Resolution Preceding Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Bonn], March 1, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/03/01/archive/german-parliament-to-condemn-eichmann-in-resolution-preceding-trial#ixzz2vwIL097r>.

41 _{Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London: Penguin, 2006), p.17.} 42

“Early Elections May Lead to Postponement of Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem], March 2, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/03/02/archive/early-elections-may-lead-to-postponement-of-eichmann-trial#ixzz2vwLlCA3p>.

43 _{“Jews in Canada Urged Not to Hold Public Discussion on Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Montreal], April 4, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/04/archive/jews-in-canada-urged-not-to-hold-public-discussions-on-eichmann-trial#ixzz2vwZ4Bg88>.

16

predetermined. In other countries, such as Brazil, these fears were proven by the immense increase in the distribution of “Anti-Jewish Union” threat letters, previously mentioned.44 The concerns over the possibility of a new wave of anti-Semitism were proving to become a real problem around the world. It seemed that most countries were doing what they could during the time to prevent as much animosity as possible. However, the only thing that the world could control during the years of the capture and trial, was the defendant Eichmann himself. The overwhelming need to control the reactions of the rest of the world were nearly impossible to contain. Yet even Holland agreed at the time that:

All the world is grateful for the opportunity afforded to humanity to mete out justice to this monster. Fate willed it that the German Aryan Eichmann should be tried by judges of a people whose millions he put to death…This court will be composed not only of citizens of the young State of Israel but also of the millions slaughtered at Auschwitz, Theresienstadt, Warsaw and all the ghettos of Europe.45

Eichmann in the World Press, 1960: 17.

T

T

B

On the opening day of the trial, across the world from the proceedings in Florence, Italy, police were on high alert patrolling the Jewish Quarter after altercations between Jews and neo-fascists occurred in public, attempting to stir up emotions and cause trouble.46 Such violence could not be considered coincidental; it was clear that these neo-fascists were attempting to create a stir during the opening of the trial as a challenge to draw attention. Without a doubt, this kind of hostility and tension coursing through the international public would cause dangerous repercussions for the already worrisome Germany.47 Chancellor Adenauer even felt the need to address Germany on television and express the shame over the realization of Nazi crimes and concern over “how to eradicate the poison in wide sections of

44 _{“Jews in Brazil Threatened with “reprisals’ for Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rio de Janeiro],}

April 5, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/05/archive/jews-in-brazil-threatened-with-reprisals-for-eichmann-trial#ixzz2vwaMe8wy>.

45 _{Israel Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Eichmann in the World Press (Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1960),}

p.17.

46

“Police Patrol Jewish Quarter in Rome Following Attack by Fascists,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rome], April 11, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/11/archive/police-patrol-jewish-quarter-in-rome-following-attack-by-fascists#ixzz2vwlPKkuI>.

47 _{“Adenauer Addresses Germany’s People on Eichmann Trial Over Television,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Bonn], April 11, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/11/archive/adenauer-addresses-germanys-people-on-eichmann-trial-over-television#ixzz2vwm7RfUW>.

17 German thought.”48

The poison was Nazi ideology and the antidote was still without a conclusion. As part of an unspoken knowledge and shared emotion, these thoughts were already very common within the German population majority. Shown widely on German televisions and in the press, the trial caused a united need to soul search and discover the truth about the Holocaust, by the younger generations who insisted on asking their elders endless questions that the trial was unveiling:49

Children were reported to be asking their parents and teachers embarrassing questions as to what they had been doing under the Nazis. The usual leitmotif of the reply was: “We did not know,” but a debate was unleashed on the extent to which “knowledge” of Nazi crimes had been current in Germany. Many said that it did not really matter: everyone who had voted for Hitler was guilty.

50

Gideon Hausner, 1966: 466.

Due to this uncontrollable sensation of fear about growing anti-Semitism, some countries such as Italy, took great precautions to prevent further acts of trial-related violence. The overpowering attention and support was also shown through the Italian press by offering “heavy and sympathetic coverage” of the trial.51

But despite the world’s every attempt to control the repercussions of placing a former Nazi leader in the lime light of the public, emotions and reactions were unravelling. Harry Mulisch explained that this unraveling was due to everyone “becoming schizophrenic” over the trial and Eichmann, questioning whether we love or hate him, and eventually diagnosed the Eichmann trial as a “disease:”52

We know what he did, although it still has to be proven, but in the cage we see a lonely, dying man. Do we hate him? Do we love him? During the day everyone is changing into him; at night groups of reporters, in all the bars and cafes, are attempting to come to terms with it. Eichmann has become a disease.53

Harry Mulisch, 2005: 41.

48 _{“Adenauer Addresses Germany’s People on Eichmann Trial Over Television,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Bonn], April 11, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/11/archive/adenauer-addresses-germanys-people-on-eichmann-trial-over-television#ixzz2vwm7RfUW>.

49 _{Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem, p.466.} 50 _Ibid.

51

“Italy Acts to Prevent Anti-Semitic Incidents During Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rome], April 14, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/14/archive/italy-acts-to-prevent-anti-semitic-incidents-during-eichmann-trial#ixzz2vx23xzJh>.

52 _{Harry Mulisch, Criminal Case 40/61, the Trial of Adolf Eichmann: An Eyewitness Account (Philadelphia:}

University of Pennsylvania, 2005), p.41.

18

It was during this time, only weeks into the trial, that some countries began to lose hope over the fight against Eichmann and it became increasingly difficult for the Jewish people to stand together against their perpetrator.54 Emotions and violence were effecting everyone. The facts were presenting themselves and it was clear that the trial uncovered the public’s sensitivity towards the events of the Holocaust and exposed the personal, detailed memories of the Jews’ hardships, along with the deep trauma that followed.55

The public was not able to foresee the testimonies of the Jewish survivors and were therefore blindsided by the raw realization that these instances have in fact occurred, and every detail was on display. However, a failed attempt can also be met with some benefits.

B

T

America, on the other hand, was the one country finding a diamond in the rough by assessing the possible positive outcome of the trial. By claiming that, “Judaism in America will survive and flourish,” the executive vice-president of the American Jewish Committee brought a light into a dark, endless cave of dread.56 Being one of the only countries to show growth as a result of the trial, the U.S. became very involved in all things Jewish. Even some churches took advantage of the widespread talk of Judaism in order to promote a better Hebrew-Christian understanding.57 As a marketing tactic, this was well received in the U.S. and other countries were beginning to follow as well. The trial that began emotional, argumentative, harsh and raw, was turning into an educational and knowledgeable opportunity for the entire world.

Students in many countries at the time were discussing the trial and the evidence presented in order to create mock trials and come to their own conclusion about how Israel should handle the indictment.58 At the University of Recife for example, law students were among the only student group to vote to acquit Eichmann, while other schools all over the

54 _{Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann, p.119.} 55

Ibid.

56 _{“American Jewish Committee Optimistic on Future of Judaism in U.S.,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [New}

York], April 28, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/04/28/archive/american-jewish-committee-optimistic-on-future-of-judaism-in-u-s#ixzz2w8wxcqR5>.

57

“Editors of U.S. Church Publications Urge Christian-Jewish Understanding,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Jerusalem], June 1, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/06/01/archive/editors-of-u-s-church-publications-urge-christian-jewish-understanding#ixzz2w9PxCRcK>.

58 _{“Brazilian Law Students ‘acquit’ Eichmann; Others Sentence Him to Death,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rio}

de Janeiro], July 6, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/07/06/archive/brazilian-law-students-acquit-eichmann-others-sentence-him-to-death#ixzz2wEj3Qps2>.

19

world sentenced him to death.59 A difference in opinion on the trial’s outcome that strayed so far from the public opinion, simply meant that the trial was making people think. In a positive way, this trial was bringing more teaching to everyone about the Holocaust and what actually happened in a time that was once sheltered by secrets and shame. What had once been a hushed topic, was now the only thing everyone could talk about: in public places, schools and work environments, Eichmann was on everyone’s mind. Mulisch was correct in stating that Eichmann had become a disease, and the only cure seemed to be a verdict.

Only four days later, the World Union for Progressive Judaism met and declared the same findings, that the major result of the trial had been “a demonstration by non-Jews of a new understanding of the Hitler holocaust.60 Nuremberg had done something similar for the world but on a much smaller scale with little media coverage compared to the outright display by the Eichmann trial. Since then, the generation that lived through the Holocaust hid their memories and secrets from everyone (including themselves), but were now forced to face the finally-interested public. Regardless of how the public felt about having to hear the unbearable details of Eichmann’s past, which he shared with the Jewish population, the trial opened the eyes of those who were not informed previously. Survivors could finally express their experiences to the public without concern over being out casted from society, and those uninvolved in the Holocaust during its time could finally understand the extreme nature under which the violence towards the Jews had occurred. Perpetrators could no longer deny their activities and the world was now finally facing the true narrative of the past as the trial came to a close.

A

T

One day after the official termination of the Eichmann trial, on August 15, 1961, the Jewish Telegraph Agency released an article regarding the media coverage during its time.61 An overview of the coverage allows for the Anti-defamation League to survey the countries

59 _{“Brazilian Law Students ‘acquit’ Eichmann; Others Sentence Him to Death,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Rio}

de Janeiro], July 6, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/07/06/archive/brazilian-law-students-acquit-eichmann-others-sentence-him-to-death#ixzz2wEj3Qps2>.

60

“Reform Leaders See New Understanding As Result of Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [London], July 10, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/07/10/archive/reform-leaders-see-new-understanding-as-result-of-eichmann-trial#ixzz2wElzpauj>.

61 _{“Anti-defamation League Survey Shows World Press Backed Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[New York], August 16, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/08/16/archive/anti-defamation-league-survey-shows-world-press-backed-eichmann-trial#ixzz2wF0i02aG>.

20

involved and identify that all countries, no matter their emotional reaction to the trial, showed a majority of support in the surveys for Israel’s ability to try Adolf Eichmann.62 Even though this survey had been released and the world was coming to terms with the fact that the trial had come to end, everyone still waited on the edge of their seats for weeks to hear the final judgment of what will happen to the former perpetrator.

The one option for the outcome of the trial that seemed to be agreed upon by many was, the death penalty—put in place by Israel for this trial to specifically condemn Eichmann and yet, the world was not in agreement. In Jerusalem, by the end of October, leaflets were distributed at nightly post-office pickups and each detailed the “terrible penalty” that awaited any Jews if Eichmann were to be found guilty.63 These threats and warnings were known all over the world as the time and the fate of Adolf Eichmann remained at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Despite this uneasy confrontation of a decision, the declaration of Adolf Eichmann’s guilty sentence was received as “justified” by West German officials and eventually, the rest of the public.64 Attention regarding Eichmann however, did not end on this day as it took quite a few months for the actual hanging of the perpetrator to take place.

During the time between the judgment and the death of Adolf Eichmann, the world still felt the need to express pent up emotion about the event. Fan mail, as well as hate mail, was still being sent to the office of Israel Attorney General Gideon Hausner where the range of opinions had no limit.65 Some letters were praising the courts for their job, sending flowers, while others suggested a monument of Hitler be erected in honor of the attempt to eliminate the Jews.66 Aside from the influential opinions of the general public, Israel as an individual country felt extremely pleased, overcome with a great relief that the trial, which had been a “continuous trauma,” was now concluded.67

62

“Anti-defamation League Survey Shows World Press Backed Eichmann Trial,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [New York], August 16, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/08/16/archive/anti-defamation-league-survey-shows-world-press-backed-eichmann-trial#ixzz2wF0i02aG>.

63 _{“German Leaflet in Jerusalem Threatens Jews Against Sentencing Eichmann,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Jerusalem], November 1, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/11/01/archive/german-leaflet-in-jerusalem-threatens-jews-against-sentencing-eichmann#ixzz2wIW3Br6h>.

64 _{“High German Officials Find Death Sentence of Eichmann “justified,” Jewish Telegraph Agency [Bonn],}

December 18, 1961 <http://www.jta.org/1961/12/18/archive/high-german-officials-find-death-sentence-of-eichmann-justified#ixzz2wIguIkMs>.

65 _{Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann, pp.142-143.}

66_{“Hausner “fan Mail” on Eichmann Trial Runs Range from Hate to Flowers,” Jewish Telegraph Agency}

[Washington], May 17, 1962 <http://www.jta.org/1962/05/17/archive/hausner-fan-mail-on-eichmann-trial-runs-range-from-hate-to-flowers#ixzz2x0PHGLc3>.

21

David Cesarani states in his book, After Eichmann that, “the changes in public discourse subsequent to the Eichmann trial led to a more sympathetic assessment of the dilemmas faced by Jewish leaders during the Holocaust.”68

The world had been successfully educated about the events of the Holocaust while only experiencing minor anti-Semitic reaction by Nazi followers, and sentenced a former Nazi leader to justice. Without a doubt, there were many “cynical and ironic responses” to the wide variety of emotion that came from the trial which, “were in marked contrast to the ethos of self-restraint, the stiff upper lip and concealment of pain that was commonly accepted in the Yishuv and the state.” 69 But despite the differences in emotion, the world was finally coming to terms with and directly confronting the dreadful and complicated Nazi past.

C

The range of emotions experienced by the outside world before, during, and after the trial of former SS leader and Holocaust Nazi perpetrator, Adolf Eichmann, outlined what the outside observers of the trial were experiencing during that time. Daily life was bordered by the conversation over Eichmann and how to handle such a momentous killer. Perhaps the most notable emotion expressed was that of a new wave of anti-Semitism. Although these emotions were extreme and dangerous, the influence on an outside community from the closed door of a courtroom can be gravely drastic. Despite the fact that the individuals and groups expressed in this section are not displaying their emotions in the walls of the court, does not mean that they are not part of the proceedings.

Could the world have done more to contain these emotions? Based on the authority’s ability to contain violence and keeping in mind the comparison between today’s control and the control during the sixties, it is hard to say. In today’s trial proceedings, security performs on a much more significant level than it used to. According to the knowledge the world had during the time of Eichmann’s trial, a conclusion can be reached that most countries did as much as they could to contain the wave. However, while the interrogation of Eichmann was occurring in Israel, just after his capture, the world could have prepared themselves more thoroughly for the upcoming trial. Countries could have been warned to present the

68 _{David Cesarani, After Eichmann: Collective Memory and the Holocaust since 1961 (London: Routledge,}

2005), p.33.

22

information to their people in a calm and systematic manner in order to deal with the emotions up front and without surprise. Other than that though, little can be done to either predict or control the reactions of the public on such a high degree.

The purpose of a trial was to put an individual to justice who has committed a crime against the law and must atone for his or her actions by justifiably presenting the facts and determining the guilt. A conclusion was reached through fact and evidence only, while emotion should be left to the outside world and the jury. Judges retain order in the courtroom by keeping outbursts and personal emotion to a minimum, but despite their intentions, the Adolf Eichmann trial rattled more than just the outside world.

23

C

HAPTER

2:

E

MOTION

I

NSIDE THE

C

OURTROOM

T

S

Emotional reactions towards a perpetrator can come in many different shapes and environments, depending on the group reacting and their affiliation with the perpetrator. Adolf Eichmann, due to his substantial effort in World War II and the Holocaust, was well known during the time of his capture through media, but was also seen on a closer level by a select few. Even though the word of Eichmann’s capture, reputation, and impending trial landed on every continent one way or another, there was a very special, intimate group of overseers that had the assigned and voluntary, displeasure of sharing a room with him during the months of his trial. This group consisted of the many members of the audience as well as the legal teams [the prosecution and defense] inside the courtroom. Emotions from inside these walls would prove to be significantly different from those observed outside the courtroom in the previous chapter.

On the outside of the courtroom doors, security guards and police kept rioters far away from the building Eichmann was in and were never informed of where he was located, when he would be moved, or if he could be let out into the public. Precautions such as these were taken for the safety of both Eichmann, as well as the public. Due to Eichmann’s well known reputation, the dangers of allowing contact with the public without any security would end in imminent death for the defendant. Therefore, the public was always at a safe distance and could release their anger because they were able to hide behind the guards. This was also true for the individuals in the previous chapter who were able to express their emotions with a clear country boarder between themselves and the defendant. Travel was also not as prevalent and easy as it is today so even if individuals in other countries wanted to sit in the trial, it would cost a lot of money and require much preparation. Those inside the courtroom on the other hand, were simply a stone’s throw away from the glass box where Eichmann sat during the proceedings for protection and private conversations with his lawyer, shielded from this well-known perpetrator.

Typically, when an individual in a victim position can hide behind something physical with a noticeable distance [such as a door] between themselves and the person they are afraid of or intimidated by, the individual can express any and all emotions openly and as loudly as they please because they are protected. However, when the victim individual has the