Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-044 Last-Modified: 1999/05/27 138. Also in regard to the activity of the Accused concerning Jews in the Eastern Occupied Territories, the Wannsee Conference is a safe point of reference, for there the representative of the Rosenberg ministry, set up to run these areas, was also present. Since there Heydrich's authority received recognition by all those present, without territorial limits, it obviously applied to those areas as well, and with it the authority of the Accused as Referent for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Heydrich himself jealously guarded his authority in the Eastern Territories as is seen from his letter (T/301), in which he demands that his representatives be given the right to participate in the decision as to who is a Jew, for the purposes of applying police measures in those areas (see also T/299; N/13). The decisive proof of the activity of the Accused in the Eastern Occupied Territories is to be found in the matter of the "Brown File." These were detailed directives drafted by the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, to arrange certain matters connected with the administration of these territories (T/296). It seems that these directives were prepared separately for the Reich Ostland Administration (the Baltic countries) and for the Administration of the Ukraine. The Ukrainian draft was passed on to other authorities concerned, amongst them Himmler, for them to state their point of view. The approach to Himmler is explained by the fact that on 17 July 1941 Hitler decided that police security measures in the Eastern Occupied Territories should be in the hands of Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer-SS and Head of the German Police (T/176). Heydrich, in Himmler's name, replies on 10 January 1942 with certain reservations as to the contents of the draft, and in connection with the directives in Jewish affairs he writes: "Since the Central Administration for Jewish Affairs is in the hands of the police, I suggest printing the directives on matters of Jewish questions, as laid down in the version of the Head Office for Reich Security (official in charge: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann)." Exhibit T/297, which is before us, is a copy of a part of Heydrich's letter, the part dealing with Jewish questions. It seems that the letter was divided up at the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, and each department received the part of concern to it. (Dr. Wetzel, the man who dealt with this subject in the ministry, received the part concerning the Jews). In his letter, Heydrich referred to the previous version of the RSHA. In fact, the language used in the letter shows that earlier discussions had already been held in connection with the Brown File for Ostland, and it seems that the RSHA had already drafted its proposals in regard to the Ostland. Further to this letter, Bilfinger, of Group IIA (Organization and Law) of the RSHA, sends to Wetzel the draft directives in connection with the Jewish Question, as approved by Heydrich (T/298). The letter is marked with the reference number SIIA2, the Section of the RSHA dealing with matters of legislation (see T/99). The directives themselves attached to the letter do not bear a signature or a file number, and they have a handwritten note at the top: "New draft of December 1941." It appears that these were the directives which had been prepared prior to Heydrich's letter of 10 January 1942 for the Brown File of Ostland, and they were repeated for the Ukrainian file. The lack of any reference and signature is understandable, because this was only a copy of former directives. The Accused maintained categorically that he had had no part in the preparation of these directives. It is his assumption that they were prepared in Department II of the RSHA (Session 100, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx2-8). This version is immediately contradicted by Heydrich's unequivocable statement, included in letter T/297, that the Accused is the official in charge on behalf of the RSHA to draft directives concerning Jewish affairs. Section IIA 2 in the RSHA might have acted to centralize all material in connection with the formal drafting for the Brown File, but it stands to reason that the legal department did not lay down the substantive contents of the directives concerned with police action. This is within the scope of the authority of the official dealing with the matter itself, that is the Accused, as was stated by Heydrich. We, therefore, find that the directives attached to the letter T/298 were composed by the Accused or in his Section. The general policy of these directives testifies to exceeding harshness in the treatment of Jews, as compared with the policy outlined in the proposals by the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories. Whilst the ministry proposed that, in taking measures against the Jews, economic considerations should come first, the Accused's directives insist that no such considerations should be allowed to interfere with the implementation of the Final Solution, meaning extermination (pp. 1, 3). To the list of Jews who came to these areas from other places, the Accused adds Jews from the Reich (sent to the East on his initiative) (supra, pp. 1, 2). The ministry proposed a gradual ousting of Jews from the cultural activities of the rest of the population; the Accused decides: "Cultural activity by Jews amongst the rest of the population is out of the question." Another grave matter, viz., the introduction of extermination by gas in the Eastern Occupied Territories will be dealt with in detail in its turn. Here, it is to be observed that Wetzel, who prepared the drafts of the letters in the matter (T/308), emphasizes that the Accused, as the RSHA official dealing with Jewish affairs, expressed his consent to the introduction of the new method for the extermination of Jews. This is further proof of the fact that the Accused's scope of activity also included the said areas in the East. The Accused also dealt with the matter of Jews of foreign nationality in these areas, as he did in the Generalgouvernement area. The instructions included in the above-mentioned letters T/310 and T/784, were also addressed to the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD in Ostland and in the Ukraine. He also dealt with individual cases of such foreign nationals. A long struggle developed for the life of the Jewess Jenny Cozzi, of Italian nationality, who lived in the Riga Ghetto (T/348-T/353). Influential Italian circles intervened on her behalf, but to no avail: The chapter was sealed with a short and ominous statement by the Accused, dated 25 September 1943 (T/354), saying that, "In view of the changes which, in the meantime, have taken place in the political situation in Italy" (the reference is to the Badoglio coup) "I refrain from going any further into the matter. I have given instructions that the Jewess Cozzi should be housed, for the time being, in the Riga concentration camp." 139. A further question arises with regard to the Accused's activities in the East, as to whether he was directly connected with the murders committed by the Operations Units, apart from the handing over of Jews to Nebe and Rasch, of whom we have already spoken. The Accused denied the existence of any connection of this kind (T/37, p. 1119). At the same time, he admitted that he was present at a gathering of Operations Units' men on the eve of the war against Russia, and, as will appear later (Section 163), the Operations Units' task in regard to the extermination of the Jews was discussed there. Here, therefore, one can see the first contact between the Accused and the Operations Units. This contact continued through the receipt of reports on the activities of the Operations Units from June 1941 onwards. At a date not later than September 1941, the Accused himself visited Minsk, on orders from Mueller, and saw an Operations Unit in action at the pits (Section 120 and Section 166 infra), and on his return he reported to Mueller on what he had seen. We know from Ohlendorf's sworn affidavit (T/312) that the Operations Units were under the command of Heydrich, in his capacity as head of the RSHA, and the question arises as to whether the line of command between Heydrich and the commanders of the Operations Units passed through the Accused. On this point, evidence against the Accused was given by Justice Musmanno, who testified to conversations which he had at the time in Nuremberg with Schellenberg, of the RSHA, in the course of his investigations about Hitler's final fate. He heard from Schellenberg that the latter had been present, together with the Accused, at the above gathering, when Heydrich and Streckenbach, head of the Personnel Department of the RSHA, gave instructions to the men of the Operations Units (Session 39, Vol. II, pp. 712-713). Schellenberg added that the Accused personally supervised the activities of the Operations Units in regard to the extermination of Jews and controlled these operations (supra, pp. 714). This last statement by Schellenberg with regard to the Accused's duties in relation to the Operations Units, is a far-reaching one, but it was made in very general language by a man who was a war criminal and was himself implicated in the activities of the Operations Units, and we do not have any other corroborative evidence of this statement. Accordingly, we refrain, out of caution, from basing findings of fact upon this version of Schellenberg's. Additional evidence against the Accused is to be found in the evidence of Noske at the Einsatzgruppen trial (T/307). Noske was himself a unit commander in the Operations Units and worked from June 1942 onwards in the RSHA, collecting reports from the East. He gave evidence that, from the spring of 1942, Operations Units' reports on the killing of Jews were transmitted directly to the Accused in his Section IVB4, where these reports were collected. In our view, this statement provides a sufficient basis for drawing conclusions, especially as the Accused himself has not disputed the accuracy of Noske's testimony. This matter is dealt with in his Statement T/37, pp. 2950-2963, and though the Accused alleges there that he does not remember that his Section collected the reports on the slaughter of Jews, his final reaction to Noske's description is (supra, at p. 2963): "...I must say that it [the description] is substantially correct - that I cannot deny." On p. 2962 supra, he also admits that it is obvious that the Section, which collected the reports, also prepared summaries of them, for the use of its superiors. Accordingly, we find that the Accused was in contact with the Operations Units from the commencement of their activities. From the spring of 1942, the Accused began to be active in connection with the issue of operational directives to these Groups, by collecting the material relating to the extermination of Jews and preparing summaries thereof. The preparation of summaries was obviously intended to be of assistance to those who had authority from time to time to decide upon the continuation of the activities of the Operations Units. At a later date, we find further activity on the part of the Accused, with regard to the Operations Units. The reference is to the letter T/310, dated 5 March 1943, which we have already mentioned in discussing the Generalgouvernement area. This letter, which referred, as it will be remembered, to the fate of Jews of foreign nationality, is also addressed to Operations Units B and D. This is proof that at that time the Accused's Section also dealt with transmitting instructions to the Operations Units. The instructions in letter T/784, dated 23 September 1943, on the same subject, are also addressed, inter alia, to the commander of Operations Unit B.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor