Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Pleading-02-02 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 (3) The description in contemporary proposals for promotion of the "requisite hardness" was at that time a sine qua non for promotion, and was consequently included in proposals for promotion as a matter of routine. 8. On Paragraph 70 1. The interpretation of Himmler's directives (Paragraph 69) as meaning that at that time the physical extermination of the Jews was already planned, was assumed by the Accused as a construction on the basis of the material submitted. This is shown by the fact that he explained his assumption with the words, "Until now it has been my opinion" and "now after reading this." This shows that by that time the basic approach had already gained a footing among the superiors and the highest leadership. This occurrence clearly shows the Accused's attempt to contribute to clarifying matters, and the Accused's effort to co-operate becomes evident. If he had been concerned to exonerate himself and to engage in incorrect behaviour, he would have utterly rejected such an interpretation. 2. The Accused's subsequent statement that he did not take part in the meeting in question was not made by him in order to distance himself from his interpretation of the document. After he had had the opportunity to read the documents arranged in chronological order, he was forced to the conclusion that at the time of the meeting on 27 September 1939 he was still in Prague and consequently could not have been responsible for a meeting in Berlin. Nor did the Accused have any practical dealings with the Operations Units, for which the directives were intended. Finally, this was a discussion of Departmental Heads; according to the statement of Witness Six, the Accused would not have taken part in such a meeting. Also, his rank was too low to allow this. It is true that the inclusion of the Accused in the list of persons present tells against him. However, a list of persons present is not always reliable evidence that those listed were actually present. It is possible that the secretary made a mistake. It should also be noted that the document does not have a heading or a signature. 9. On Paragraph 71 - Directing the Vienna, Prague and Berlin Central Offices The Accused's activities do not follow the above directive are alleged to have served the extermination, but on the contrary is designed to achieve emigration. Nor did the Accused direct these offices, but rather he was the authority who, on the basis of the political measures taken on the highest level, was required to transmit their orders. 10. On Paragraph 72 - Nisko In September 1939 "departure" from Nisko can only be understood as meaning emigration, and not killing. 2. The Accused was not to carry out "expulsions," but "settlement operations." In doing this he complied with the instructions he was given to allocate ten doctors to each transport. This is shown by Dr. Loewenherz' contemporary reports. The allocation of doctors contradicts any indifferent neglect of the persons relocated by the Accused. 11. On Paragraph 73 - Abuses during the deportations from the Warthe District The meeting of 8 January 1940 was held under the Accused because the circumstances described by the witnesses had occurred during the local deportations which he had not ordered or been in charge of. It was his task to avoid these as far as possible by co-ordinating matters between the relevant local offices. The documents indicate that responsibility for the transports was borne by the Inspector of the Security Police and the District Governors. The document refers only to the measures which as a minimum were to make it possible to remedy the worst abuses. These concerned the death by freezing of those most at risk, i.e. women and children. The oral instructions which were provided in the discussions against the recalcitrant guilty parties continued to apply. It should be noted that the Accused simply had a mediating role; he had no powers of command over those involved. The Court's assumption that the local branches of the Security Police and the SD were subordinate to the Accused is incorrect. 12. On Paragraph 74 - Deportations of Jews of Stettin and Vienna The factual description in the Judgment could give the impression that the Accused had made a major contribution to promoting the deportation of the German Jews from Stettin in February 1941 and in March from Vienna. The Accused simply explained that he was responsible "to the extent that" he was actually instructed to take part in the central supervision. However, such central supervision occurred only where difficulties arose in respect of the measures taken by offices. There was no intervention in Stettin, as the local offices carried out the deportation on their own. 13. On Paragraph 76 - Madagascar It is not true that the Accused drafted the Madagascar Plan in detail. The Plan is an amalgam of the opinions of all the central bodies involved in the Plan, each of which through its specialist officers gave expression to its own opinion. Factually it is also difficult to imagine that in 1940, the Accused with his insignificant rank would have been able to draft such a plan, which provided the basis for political measures at the highest level, of a national and international nature. The assumption that the Accused was vigorously pursuing the establishment of a slave state of the Jews in Madagascar would appear untenable. It is an error to see "a line of increasing severity" on the part of the Accused in the way things developed from emigration via the establishment of the Jewish pre-State of Nisko to Madagascar. Without the Accused's participation emigration was at the time hampered by other offices. The Nisko alternative solution for blocked emigration was made impossible by Governor General Frank. 14. On Paragraph 77 - Deportations from Baden in October 1940 These deportations were carried out at the instigation of the District Leaders (Gauleiter) on Hitler's direct orders. These orders were transmitted via the Gauleiter to the State Police and the Inspectors of the Security Police. Corresponding orders went from Himmler to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. They went via Heydrich and the Gauleiter to the State Police offices and Inspectors. At the same time the Accused's Section was instructed through Heydrich and Mueller to deal with timetable matters and arranging transport. This shows clearly the Accused's subordinate activities; he was unable to oppose the main operation which was put into motion. Had the Accused not managed to get these transports across the demarcation line, these Jews would not have attained freedom, but would have been taken to a concentration camp at that time; it would have been impossible for them to return to their homes in Baden, because their housing and property had already been confiscated. The Accused therefore acted to the advantage of these Jews. 15. On Paragraph 78 - The Organization Plan in the RSHA At that time the Accused was not head of Department II/112. In Vienna and Prague also the Accused had no executive powers; these rested with the local State Police heads. In his handwritten letters to Hagen, the Accused specifically calls attention to the obstruction caused by these offices. In Berlin the executive powers lay not with the Accused, but with Department IVD3. In addition to the offices referred to in the Judgment, Department II and III (Legislation and Legal Affairs) dealt with Jewish Questions, as did the other central bodies such as the Reich Ministry of the Interior, the Reich Ministry of Economics, the Reich Leadership and the Fuehrer's Chancellery, where the foundations were laid for action against the Jews. It is not correct to assume that the Accused's Section dealt centrally with all the executive measures in Jewish affairs. This assumption is contradicted by the following: Direct orders from the CdS to the BdS and Inspectors. Direct order from the Chief of Department IV to the BdS and Inspectors. Direct dealings of the Chief of Department IV with other central bodies. Himmler issuing orders to the CdS and the Chiefs of Department. It is clear that matters which were of some importance were handled without the Accused's Section. The confiscation of Jewish assets was a purely bureaucratic transaction for the Accused's Section. The basic instruction was Regulation No. 11 under the Reich Nationality Law. The primary responsibility for this lay with the Ministry of the Interior (Hering, Globke, Stuckart). The Accused's Section simply had to implement the Regulation according to the prescribed forms on the basis of the notifications received. The Section was not required to examine the actual matters, whether in principle or on an individual basis. The abbreviated presentation of the contexts in the Judgment prevents a clear presentation of the actual facts, to the detriment of the Accused. 16. On Paragraph 81 - Heydrich's Appointment by Goering for Deportations to the East (July 1941) The assumption in the Judgment that it was obvious to the Accused that deportation meant extermination and that he himself conceded this must be clarified in that the Accused did not at the time know about the extermination; rather, it was only when he was interrogated by the police that he became convinced of the meaning of the authority presented to him. Goering, who issued this authority, himself - according to Justice Musmanno's testimony - knew nothing of such extermination measures. To equate deportation with extermination can also not be reconciled with Ambassador Abetz's proposals to carry out evacuation to the East; there was no mention of extermination. 17. On Paragraph 82 - Jewish Badge The Judgment does not show clearly that the Accused had nothing to do with the introduction of the Jewish Badge. The documents concerning Governor General Frank, Ministry of the Interior, Reich Commissioner, Minister of Propaganda Goebbels, state the correct facts. On the basis of the efforts of these bodies, the lawyers of Departments IV, II and III (see organization chart) and the lawyers of the other central bodies drew up the Police Regulation. The dispatch of two urgent letters, to which the Judgment calls special attention, was simply a technical administrative arrangement. The Accused's insignificant role can be perceived within the overall picture of this matter. While the Judgment highlights the reference on the document that it "was not suitable for passing on to the public," it can be pointed out that a Specialist Officer could not decide on adding such a remark, but only the Chief of Department or the Head of the Security Police could do so. 18. On Paragraph 83 - Deportation as part of the Final Solution In the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 1941 it does not say that the Accused had already, on his own initiative, introduced deportations to camps, but from the context it can be seen that he must previously have received an order to this effect, to which Heydrich refers specifically. The measures desired by Hitler were set in motion by Himmler and Heydrich; they gave the orders for their implementation. 19. On Paragraph 84 The conclusion contained in the Judgment: "The (evacuation) instructions (bear) the reference number of the Accused's Section IVB4, and therefore (were) issued from this Section" is unfounded, if the reference is to authorship. The Accused simply conveyed the higher orders of his superiors by passing them on. The most important orders were therefore signed by Heydrich and Mueller personally. The Judgment makes a connection between the Accused's responsibility for the deportations from Vienna and Lodz on 30 September 1941 and an instruction which was given to [sic, by] Brunner in Vienna. Brunner was not subordinate to the Accused. Contrary to the Court's assumption, Brunner was not in charge of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna; that was the Inspector of the Security Police and the SD. He, in turn, was subordinate to the Chief of the Security Police. He could receive orders from the latter or from the Department Chief, but not from the Accused as Specialist Officer. It may be seen here how a large number of offices were involved in the deportations and not everything was concentrated in the Accused's Section. 20. On Paragraph 85 - Regulation No. 11 under the Reich Nationality Law See commentary on Paragraph 78. 21. On Paragraph 86 - Wannsee Conference The position of the Accused is clarified by the fact that he was employed by Heydrich for secretarial functions, i.e. the sendingh out of invitations. That is not compatible with a position which allegedly carried with it the greatest powers such as the Judgment considers the Accused to have held. 22. On Paragraph 87 - Wannsee Conference continued The Accused's role as secretary is confirmed by the fact that the Accused had the lowest rank of all the participants. The official of the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories had the same rank but a higher position, as he was the head of an independent division in the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories. The fact that the Accused drew up the minutes tallies with his secretarial functions. This also explains the fact that the Accused appears as the responsible "official in charge," with whom the details are to be discussed. He is clearly only able to conduct such discussions as a link who would convey matters to Heydrich, and in addition such discussions could only concern details of implementation. Further corroboration of the secretarial activities of the "official in charge" is provided by the fact that, contrary to the Court's assumption, the Senior Commander of the Security Police, the Commander of the State Police and the Inspector did not belong to the RSHA. These persons did not belong to any of the Departments, but combined the duties of the seven RSHA Departments in the area of their responsibilities. They were subordinate to the CdS, the Higher SS and Police Leader, their competent holders of the power of command, the Reich Commissioner, the Area Commissioner, Ambassador or Military Commander. It follows that the Final Solution referred here only to the "European countries occupied and influenced by us." In other words, not the Warthe District and the Generalgouvernement. 23. On Paragraph 88 - Discussion of the possibilities of killing The description of the contents of the discussion is not an idly uttered statement about such a serious matter, but shows how the Accused co-operated in a serious, convincing fashion in shedding light on what happened at this conference. The Accused provided illuminating information as to what he had heard there. It was not his opinion about killing; it was not up to him to express any opinion in the discussion. Heydrich's designation of the Accused in the February 1942 letter to Luther (Foreign Ministry) as the authorized Specialiast Officer also shows that this was a matter of implementing details, and that the basic decisions were not taken by the Accused. 24. On Paragraphs 89/90 - Implementation of the Final Solution after the Wannsee Conference The findings listed in the Judgment under (d) indicate the main proponents of the persecution of the Jews, i.e. Minister of Justice Thierack, Himmler and Bormann. The Accused's submission to these decisive individuals in top positions and the implementation of their directions cannot be construed as zealous concurrence on his part with the desire for extermination. The directives drawn up in accordance with instructions do not arise from the Accused's own endeavours.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor