by Isser Harel
My mind was now at rest. First and foremost, the Hermann paradox was solved; what’s more, at last we had additional confirmation of our premise that Eichmann was in Argentina. I had no means of assessing the reliability of the new source, but one item leapt to the eye and seemed to provide the key to the whole mystery: the name Ricardo Klement.
The name Klement (or Klements) had been mentioned in one of Hermann’s reports, but he had regarded it as having been made up solely for the purpose of registering one of the two electricity meters in Francisco Schmidt’s house. It never entered his mind that the names on both meters – Dagoto and Klement – could be those of actual tenants, although he became aware that Schmidt did not live in the house in Chacabuco Street. Rather than admit his mistake, Hermann started searching for the suspect elsewhere, under the name of either Francisco Schmidt or Adolf Eichmann. I remembered that in our first contact with Bauer at the end of 1957 he told us that his source (Lothar Hermann) refused to reveal the pseudonym of the man suspected of being Eichmann, and when ‘Huppert’ visited him he didn’t say by what name Nicolas Eichmann’s father was known.
Now I understood why, and it was obvious what had happened with Hermann: his story about Nick Eichmann was logical and reasonable from every point of view. It was based on the daughter’s evidence and supported by the mother, both of whom had from the very beginning impressed us as being reliable. Even Hermann’s explanation of how he came to connect Nick’s father with the criminal Eichmann – whose name was mentioned at the trial of another war criminal in Germany – was perfectly logical. Had Hermann stopped there, his important discovery might have brought results before long. However, for reasons known only to himself, he wanted to carry on alone and to ‘hold all the strings.’ He seemed to think that if he were given the necessary finances he would soon succeed in finding out everything about Nick Eichmann’s family, including the assumed name and exact address of the father. But Hermann may have reasoned that since Nick was using his real name the father would also not conceal his, and if this was so he could easily confirm it through his ramified connections and his many friends in Olivos.
His hopes were not fulfilled. Finding that there were no tenants in the house at 4261 Chacabuco Street by the name of Eichmann but that the occupant was an Austrian, he did not bother to look for proof but ‘stated’ rashly that this Austrian was Eichmann. Had he told us he was guessing that Schmidt was Eichmann, we would have checked; and when it turned out that Schmidt didn’t live in the house and couldn’t be Eichmann, we would almost certainly have checked on the other tenants. But Hermann didn’t refer to the Schmidt-Eichmann identification as a possibility or a conjecture, he laid it down as a fact and supported it with the rumor that the man had landed in Argentina from a German submarine after the war. His theory that Schmidt-Eichmann had his face changed by plastic surgery was also offered to us as a proven fact. He presented his surmises as facts, and when his errors were pointed out he asked only for a chance to trace Eichmann’s movements from the day he arrived in Argentina. In his haste to draw conclusions, Hermann had destroyed his own theory.
I couldn’t write it off as coincidence that the name Klement cropped up in both our sources. A comparison of the two led me to believe that Eichmann did in fact live in the house in Chacabuco Street and that the name Klement on the meter was the name he had assumed from the time he arrived in Argentina. The more I delved into Hermann’s file and all the reports on his findings, the more convinced I became that Ricardo Klement of Chacabuco Street was Adolf Eichmann. It struck me as farfetched that Vera Eichmann could have married another German who was also forced to conceal his true identity and was using the name Klement.
What worried me, however, was that Hermann’s discovery of Nick Eichmann’s family had been made in 1957. It was now the end of 1959, more than two years later, and we had heard nothing further. There was no certainty that the family still lived at the same address.
Our next move was obvious: we must locate the Klement family in Argentina and determine whether Ricardo Klement was Adolf Eichmann; also, in view of the remote possibility that Klement might be a different war criminal whom Vera Eichmann had married after her husband’s disappearance, we must again put out feelers in Europe to test just how touchy the two families, Eichmann and Liebl (Vera’s maiden name), were on the subject of the whereabouts of the woman and her children. If it was true that she was remarried to a man called Klement who wasn’t Eichmann, there would be no reason for the family to hide the fact that she and the children were in Argentina – all the more since the children continued to call themselves Eichmann. However, if Klement was Eichmann, the family would be careful not to tell anyone the country where Vera and her children were living. It was reasonably worth our while, if we could, to ‘join in’ the correspondence between the Eichmann family in Argentina and the relatives in Europe, if such a correspondence did exist.
I then began to consider the choice of a self-reliant senior operator to whom to entrust the investigation of the theory that Klement was Adolf Eichmann. The assignment called for a man who could be counted on to keep his inquiries secret and his conclusions logical. I settled on Yosef Kenet, one of the best investigators in the country. A former member of a kibbutz, Kenet was born in Germany and became a specialist in the interrogation of German war prisoners while serving in the British army during World War II. I knew him as a dedicated man who never let go once he got his teeth into an assignment, and I was sure that when he’d finished his mission we would know where we stood.
I approached his commanding officer, Haggai. I knew that in any matter touching on Eichmann I would find Haggai helpful and understanding – he was one of the few survivors of Auschwitz, the primary Nazi concentration camp, and was all too familiar with Eichmann’s satanic deeds in Hungary, Haggai’s native country.
Long before the first news of Eichmann in Argentina was brought to me, Haggai had felt that the two war criminals most responsible for the slaughter of millions of Jews should be tracked down: the bestial doctor of Auschwitz, Josef Mengele, and the fiend who engineered the ‘Final Solution,’ Adolf Eichmann.
Nonetheless, it was no easy matter to secure a release for Kenet to join our operation; he was busy with various important security investigations and couldn’t be replaced. Haggai was prepared to do anything in his power to advance Kenet’s release, but nothing could be done before the end of February 1960.
I was seething with impatience. At a time like this, when I knew we had reliable information, to have to wait two months was galling. But it couldn’t be helped – Kenet was the ideal agent for this job and he was pleased to have been selected. And he did have the opportunity to make a thorough study of the subject in the weeks before his departure. I explained my view that there were solid grounds for hoping that Ricardo Klement was Adolf Eichmann. I also managed to arrange for Kenet to meet with Dr. Bauer to hear everything Bauer knew about Eichmann and to get details of Bauer’s sources and his evaluation of the supposition that Klement was Eichmann. Present at this meeting were Drori and Ilani, who had completed his research and returned home at the end of 1958. Ilani’s participation was particularly important, because of his expert knowledge of conditions in Argentina and because he had acquired experience in conducting inquiries, first with Goren and Hofstaetter and later on his own.
Kenet emerged from this meeting somewhat disappointed, as he had not succeeded in persuading Bauer to reveal the identity of his source; he felt that if he could meet the man and question him his work would be infinitely easier. At the same time, he was impressed with Bauer’s honesty and his total belief that Klement was Eichmann. And Bauer had promised that when he returned to Frankfurt he would put at our disposal copies of all the documents in his possession which could in any way assist in identifying Eichmann.
At this stage I saw the need to inform Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on the increased chances to locate Eichmann. On previous occasions too I told him of our efforts, but I co
nsidered it this time to be a crucial point.
Ben-Gurion listened intently. He was interested in Bauer and saw his deed to be extraordinary. I explained my wish to bring Eichmann to Israel and, if legally possible, to hand him over to the judicial authorities. Ben-Gurion’s response was that the most important thing was to bring him to trial in Israel. If that could be done, he said, it would be an achievement of tremendous moral and historical consequence.
I suggested, and he agreed, that I clear up the legal issues with the Government Legal Adviser, Chaim Cohen. Several days later I met Cohen. At my request we met at his house rather than his office to avoid arousing unwelcome curiosity. He understood that we were dealing with an extraordinary situation and awaited my arrival with tension. Sitting in his study, crammed with books, I told him about our prospects for locating Eichmann and our intention to capture him and to bring him to trial in Israel. The question, I told him, was whether it would be possible to try a man who has been brought into the country under such circumstances.
Chaim Cohen was very moved. It seemed to me that he was somewhat taken aback at the very audacity of the idea. He sat for some time deep in thought; then he rose abruptly and took several thick volumes off his bookshelves. At this moment I understood that he not only took in the idea, but found it positive. He studied his law books for a while, and then turned to me: ‘It can be done.’
He based his opinion on precedents, but before giving his final answer he wanted some time to consult with a close friend, Minister of Justice Pinchas Rosen. A few days later he brought me their joint positive reply. Rosen had only one condition: that if we found out we had the wrong man, the man would be released and compensated. I agreed to this condition willingly.
I proposed to Cohen that we ask for a joint meeting with the Prime-Minister in order to explain and elaborate his position, and so we did. When we sat together with Ben-Gurion I saw in my mind Cohen as the prosecutor at this historical and unprecedented trial of The Israel Government Legal Adviser vs. Adolf Eichmann’. But fate wanted it otherwise. The role of the prosecutor was undertaken by another legal adviser. Shortly before the trial Chaim Cohen was appointed to be a Supreme Court judge.
After Cohen left I stayed for a short while with the Prime Minister. I proposed to him that the Foreign Minister Golda Meir should know the essence of the operation, since it could have foreign political repercussions. As I knew her, I said, she would not object to the plan, but if she did reject some aspect of it we would bring the matter to him for his decision. Ben-Gurion agreed without hesitation.
Since her appointment to Foreign Minister Golda Meir and I had strong co-operation. It was for me a pleasure to work with that brave woman. Although not being under her charge I made a rule – agreed to by Ben-Gurion – to bring before her any issue of my work which was related to her field of responsibility. She, from her side, used to consult me on any unusual problem in foreign issues. We always found common language. At this time too I did not need to elaborate too much as I was describing the state of things we had reached so far. She did not hesitate and gave her full agreement at once.
Toward the end of December 19591 decided to set up an operational team to carry out a thorough check on the Eichmann and Liebl families. The task of organizing the action was assigned to Ezra Eshet, who was stationed in Europe on operational duty. Ezra had come to Israel in 1949, after tasting the bitterness of the Fascist regime in Rumania during the war. His chief mission was to discover when, how, and where Vera Liebl Eichmann and her children had vanished in the aftermath of the war. The team was instructed to shadow her family in Europe in case any of them was in correspondence with Vera, which might give us a lead to the woman’s present address. Eshet was told to conduct similar inquiries about Eichmann’s father – who, in spite of his eighty-two years, was still running an electrical-equipment business in Linz – and his four brothers.
The assignment was by no means easy. And I added to its objective difficulties by imposing severe restrictions on the team: for one incautious step might apprise the family of our intentions and cause them to warn our quarry.
I was so sure that my theories about Eichmann were about to be verified that I began to work out the operational plan for the capture.
To me Argentina was an unknown country, and it was nine and a half thousand miles from Israel. I figured that a task force would have to be set up in Israel and then dispatched abroad for action – a difficult and complicated procedure. But my biggest problem was how to get Eichmann from Argentina to Israel.
No Israeli planes flew to that part of the world, though a regular flight to South America had once been considered. At first I thought of hiring a special plane for the operation. But an Atlantic crossing would require a large aircraft, and I knew we couldn’t charter a large passenger plane without attracting general attention.
I decided to share my problems with Yehuda Shimoni, an El Al manager. We’d known each other for years, so there was no need to waste time on explanations and preambles. ‘Is there any possibility of sending a plane to Buenos Aires?’ I asked.
Shimoni probably knew that my interest had less to do with extending the company’s network than with an impending operation, yet he asked no questions. Technically,’ he said, ‘such a flight could be undertaken, but I can’t give you a final answer without the approval of the directors. The managing director Efraim Ben-Arci isn’t in the country at the moment, but I can speak to Mordechai Ben-Ari one of his deputies.’
We decided he should discuss it confidentially with Ben-Ari, and the following week he brought the reply: ‘Ben-Ari says that any request coming from you calls for immediate action. I can confirm definitely that from the technical point of view there’s nothing to stand in the way. A plane of the Britannia type could fly to Buenos Aires and back with two crews and two intermediate stops – Dakar and Recife.’
‘But what sort of plausible explanation do you think we can make for a special flight like that?’ I asked.
‘The company has been considering a plan to inaugurate flights to South America, as you know. We could say that this is an experimental flight.’
I was satisfied. ‘That’s enough for the time being,’ I said. ‘But I must stress that even the fact that I made this tentative inquiry mustn’t be allowed to leak out.’
Shimoni asked, ‘Can you say anything now about the estimated date of the flight?’
‘At this stage, no. When the time comes I’ll call on you.’ That was in December 1959.
The painstaking work continued. Grain was added to grain, document to document, testimony to testimony.
In Europe, an agent whose mission was just ending agreed to postpone his return to Israel for a few months so that he could work with Ezra Eshet on the Eichmann assignment. During the last weeks of 1959 and the first weeks of 1960, Gad Armon alternated between Germany and Austria, checking on the Eichmann and Liebl families. Wherever he went the relatives and their close friends and neighbors raised an impenetrable wall of silence. The conclusion was self-evident.
Eshet put extra men to work while he himself went into action in Germany and Austria. All attempts to make Eichmann’s brothers talk were of no avail. The men sent to interview them worked under excellent cover and could not possibly have aroused any suspicion whatsoever. One of Eshet’s representatives, perfectly disguised as a German commercial agent, succeeded in making direct contact with Vera’s mother. He stayed in Mrs. Liebl’s little village for ten days, but there, as elsewhere, everyone was steadfastly mum. Her correspondence was examined, the results again were negative. There was no mistaking it: everything relating to Eichmann and his wife and children was taboo to all branches of the Eichmann and Liebl families.
Still, our operational file continued to fatten. In addition to the material in our possession, including the documents and annotations we had obtained through Bauer, there were the items we had unearthed while searching through the archives of various bureaus. Anything that mig
ht help in the identification of Eichmann and his family was meticulously recorded. It was all done in secret and with great caution to avoid public knowledge that we were interested in the criminal and his family.
According to information from a reliable source, Vera Eichmann and her children had been living in an out-of-the-way village in Europe at the beginning of the 1950s but had suddenly disappeared from there without a trace. It also became obvious that none of the German consulates in Europe were prepared, in any circumstances whatsoever, to divulge the name in which Vera Eichmann’s passport had been issued.
When I went to meet Eshet in Europe to learn from him the results of his inquiries and activities, my convictions were strengthened: Adolf Eichmann was undoubtedly alive, well hidden, and apparently living with his family – otherwise his wife and children wouldn’t have vanished so completely and mysteriously, nor would his family in Europe have kept their lips so tightly sealed.
At the end of February, Yosef Kenet was ready to leave for Argentina. Before his departure, I outlined the plan of action with him and set up arrangements for liaison and reporting. We went over the cover story he would be using to conceal the object of his journey, both at home and abroad. Even his family and closest friends, I told him, mustn’t know where he was going or for what purpose.
6
ON HIS WAY to Argentina, Kenet stopped in two other South American countries to see some people who had volunteered to help him in his assignment. There were four of them, all South American residents, fluent in Spanish, and thoroughly familiar with Argentina in general and Buenos Aires in particular, through frequent business or personal visits. Two were a couple by the name of Kornfeld, David, a successful young architect, and Hedda, a graduate in psychology and languages; one was Lubinsky, a middle-aged lawyer with extensive contacts all over the continent; and the fourth was Primo, a second-year engineering student. Kenet made their travel arrangements, outlined future meeting places, and furnished them with new papers under borrowed names.
