Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-076-02 Last-Modified: 1999/06/08 Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/95, document No. 921. The document contains the regulations with regard to the status of the Inspector of the Security Police and the SD. It is dated 23 September 1939. It can, at the same time, serve as evidence with respect to the status of the Senior Officer of the Security Police. In this regard, we have no ordinance or regulation. The document is not before us here. Presiding Judge: Does this document contain anything about the Senior Officer of the Security Police (BdS) or not, and if so, where? Dr. Servatius: It contains nothing on this matter, but it can be deduced from the following: It is only a register of names. In the territory of the Reich, these Leaders are called Inspectors, and in the Occupied Territories, they have the power of command and are called Senior Commanders. Otherwise, they have, in practice, the same duties. These inspectors are the Reichsfuehrer's personal representatives. The same applies to the Senior Commanders. Presiding Judge: Where does it say that? Dr. Servatius: Page 4, item 5. This reads: "The Inspectors are not an intermediate authority in matters on substance between the various offices." Then, in the next sentence, it says: "They are the personal representatives of an internal and external basis of the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service." I have a question in this connection: Could the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Hungary intervene directly in the notorious "foot march" of the Jewish population of Budapest? Presiding Judge: That is Geschke, is it not? Dr. Servatius: Yes, this is Geschke. Accused: Yes, he actually had the authority to do so. However, for this he needed the orders of the Higher SS and Police Leader and the approval of the Reich Plenipotentiary. Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I should now like to submit an organizational diagram. The diagram was drawn by the Accused and then copied, and I shall now submit it to the Accused. Witness, is this the diagram you sketched, drawn according to your draft? Accused: Yes, and I have signed as to its accuracy. Presiding Judge: When a document is to be submitted, you can look at it first. That will be marked N/3. Have you given the Prosecution a copy of the document? Dr. Servatius: Yes. Witness, would you briefly explain what this diagram shows? Perhaps I shall give a brief explanation, and you will interrupt me if I say something incorrect. Accused: Yes. Dr. Servatius: This shows the set-up of the Head Office for Reich Security in three different areas: (a) Reich territory, (b) occupied territories, and (c) a separate section - the Generalgouvernement. Accused: May I interrupt? Not the Head Office for Reich Security, but the officials of the German police who issued orders. Dr. Servatius: The diagram uses various colours. Witness, perhaps you could explain the meaning of the colours green, red and blue here. Accused: For the territory of the Reich, the best colours for Heydrich would be green and blue, because green is for the SD (Security Service), and blue is the Secret State Police (Gestapo). For the occupied territories, we have to do with blue only, because the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the SD combines, in one single authority, the two bodies of the Security Service and the Gestapo. Red is the Higher SS and Police Leader, and, in the Generalgouvernement, we also do not have any SD functions, because the SD functions are included under the Senior Commanders, and the red-coloured rectangles stand for the Higher SS and Police Leader and the four SS and Police Leaders immediately subordinate to him. Dr. Servatius: On the diagram in the bottom right-hand corner, there are comments on the arrows shown in the diagram: one stands for an order, while the other means mutual consultation and limited power for giving orders. The diagram may be referred to later, as required, in order to clarify questions. Presiding Judge: What is the meaning of the words "organization O" at the bottom of the right-hand column? Dr. Servatius: This was simply a note for making order in the Defence documents. I come now to exhibit T/841, original number 889. This is a communication from the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Prague, dated 20 May 1942, and the first sentence shows that the Central Office for Emigration of Jews there is subordinate to the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service. That is the first sentence. I now proceed to exhibit T/174. Presiding Judge: I assume that the Accused is listening to the comments of the Counsel for the Defence, so, if he wishes to say something, he will do so. Accused: (Nods.) Judge Halevi: So that means that his silence is to be taken as a confirmation of the assertions of Counsel for the Defence, and as part of the testimony of the Accused? Accused: Yes. Presiding Judge: If the Attorney General will have objections on the ground that the questions are becoming too leading, we shall have to see what is to be done. He is sitting here and is listening. Dr. Servatius: I have no choice other than to lead the Accused, because otherwise the proceedings will become endless. Presiding Judge: Yes, of course. Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/174, document No. 172: the Madagascar Plan. I would like to discuss just page 7, item "d." This reads: "Along the lines of the Central Office for Emigration of Jews, a special Resettlement Authority is to be set up, with its headquarters in Pressburg, and subordinate to the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service." Accused: If I might draw attention to item "e," the arrangement in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, according to which central control is in the hands of the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Central Office for Emigration of Jews in Prague, which is immediately subordinate to him. Dr. Servatius: Which page is that? Accused: Page 7. Presiding Judge: The reference is to "c," the print is not clear. The heading says: "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia." Dr. Servatius: Yes, that is so. The next exhibit is T/833, document No. 1236. This is a form for a Notice of Assignment, which apparently refers to Theresienstadt. The letterhead says: "The Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, Central Office for Solution to the Jewish Question in Bohemia and Moravia," that is to say, here, too, the independent Commander to whom Theresienstadt, etc., are subordinate. I now submit a photocopied page from Adler's book on Theresienstadt, submitted only because of the stamps which appear at the top, that is to say, the office of the Senior Commander of the Security Police; it is somewhat difficult to make it out, but it appears again in the text. I do not believe that this has to be shown to the Accused; I understand this to be a correct copy from the book. Presiding Judge: This will be marked N/4. Dr. Servatius: I proceed now to exhibit T/159, document No. 874. This is an affidavit by Huppenkothen, dated 17 July 1946, apparently from Nuremberg. At the top of page 4, there is a significant passage, where Huppenkothen says that it was Mueller's habit to give direct assignments for work on specific matters. Further down, in the last paragraph but one, it says: "Since Mueller, moreover, frequently assigned for work on specific cases Sections which were professionally not competent, or individuals without the knowledge of the responsible specialist officer, this assertion is also correct to a limited degree only. The only person who was informed as to everything going on was Mueller himself." It is my impression that Huppenkothen, who was his deputy, is trying somehow to shift the responsibility away from himself. I should now like to refer to page 7 - no, that is an error; there are other documents to which I shall refer, but I do not wish to mention them now. Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, are you simply referring to Huppenkothen's statement, or do you wish to obtain confirmation from the Accused with regard to the points made by Huppenkothen, that is to say, that Mueller did not follow the usual procedure, but acted in accordance with all you have read out from Huppenkothen's affidavit? Are you putting this to the Accused in the form of a question, or are you simply referring the Court to Huppenkothen's statement? Dr. Servatius: No, I was about to ask him this question, together with another question. Witness, you have heard what I have read out from Huppenkothen's statement. Huppenkothen also says that you worked directly with Mueller, so that you had something of a special position. Do you wish to explain what you have to say about this? Accused: I did not in any way have a special position: I was summoned to my office chief just like any other Section Head, and he would give me his instructions; of course, he also summoned other members of the staff of my Section to him directly, as was his wont in the case of other Sections as well. Dr. Servatius: In these proceedings, have you been able to find out any reference to special assignments? Accused: Yes, I have. Dr. Servatius: Would you please specify them? Accused: That can only refer to special assignments about which I could read in the documents when Guenther, my permanent deputy, was assigned duties which professionally did not fall within the sphere of the Section. Presiding Judge: Do you mean to say that Mueller assigned these duties to Guenther? Accused: I do not know whether he made the assignment directly. I did not hear anything to this effect. In my interrogation, I also said that I did not know anything about this, and there were certain things which I found hard to believe, and I maintained that if something like this had occurred, I would definitely have had to know about it. But the documents which were then shown to me here prove to me that I must believe these documents, because I cannot question the accuracy of the documents. Dr. Servatius: I come now to document 40, which has no T number as yet. I shall submit it to the Court but am unable to submit any certification. I can only rely on the fact that it is a document from Bureau 06. Presiding Judge: I mark this N/5. Dr. Servatius: This is part of an interrogation of a certain Hoffmann, subsequently Police Attache, in one of the Nuremberg trials. Here he states that Eichmann had his office in a special house and worked very independently - I am submitting it because, at the end, the witness himself says that he does not really know, and that he is unable to give any precise details about Eichmann's position. Presiding Judge: So far, I have not been able to see this. He speaks about Eichmann's representatives - "I am unable, on the basis of my own knowledge, to give any information as to the precise position of these representatives of Eichmann." Attorney General: I have no objection to the submission of this document, but I believe that Counsel for the Defence needs a decision under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law - I have no objection to the Court allowing the submission of this document, pursuant to this section. Presiding Judge: The Attorney General is quite right to remind us. What do we know about this Hoffmann? Is he alive or dead, Dr. Servatius? Dr. Servatius: I do not know where he lives, nor if he is still alive - I only have this document. Presiding Judge Decision No. 85 We admit the statement by Hoffman as evidence. There is no objection raised by the Attorney General. As has been stated, the document is designated N/5. Dr. Servatius: I have no further comments to make on the document and turn now to T/731, original number 466. This is a basic arrangement between Himmler and Ribbentrop, dated 8 August 1941, in order to clarify the delineation of authority between their various offices abroad, that is to say, the German Foreign Ministry and the offices of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. I would refer the Court to the top of page 3 of the document, item 4. It says there that all personnel of the Reichsfuehrer-SS serving abroad are subordinate to the Police Attaches. Presiding Judge: The Attaches with the missions of the German Foreign Ministry - so I understand it. Is that correct? Dr. Servatius: Yes, that is what it means: with the missions, not only with the embassies. Witness, were there advisers on Jewish affairs at these missions abroad who were able to act independently? Accused: No. Dr. Servatius: For example, what was the official position of Wisliceny? Or of Richter, Dannecker and the others? Accused: They could obtain professional instructions, but they then had to obtain the approval of their immediate superior, the Police Attache, and the Police Attache was subordinate to the mission head. Dr. Servatius: I would refer the Court to item one of this document - where it says that all representatives of the Reichsfuehrer-SS stationed abroad had to obtain the prior agreement of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the case of special assignments. On page 2, under item 3, it says that the Police Attache is responsible to the mission head for the offices of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. And in item 4, it has already been stated that all personnel of the offices are subordinate to the Police Attaches. The next exhibit is T/101, document No. 543. This is a minute from the German Foreign Ministry about co-operation with SS offices abroad. On page 2, there are service instructions for Police Attaches. On the next page, paragraph 4, it says: "Notwithstanding their relationship with the Reichsfuehrer and Chief of Police, with reference to their activities abroad, the Police Attaches are under the control of the mission head." And in paragraph 5, at the bottom of the same page, it says that all reports pass through him. The same point is made in paragraph 6, at the top of the next page. Perhaps I could just quote from the end of paragraph 5: "Furthermore, the directives issued by the Reichsfuehrer-SS apply to the Police Attaches as regards their fields of professional competence. Instructions from the offices of the Reichsfuehrer-SS are sent to them via the German Foreign Ministry and through the intermediary of the mission head, who thus assumes political responsibility for the expediency in foreign policy terms of these instructions." The next exhibit is related to the former one. This is T/105, original number 542. It is a list of Police Attaches, dated 16 October 1943. On page 1, relating to Bulgaria, Dannecker appears as one of the staff, subordinate to the Attache Hoffmann, whom we have come across before. On page 2, Italy, Kappler is listed as Police Attache. He is the witness who is now to be examined in Italy. On page 3, Croatia, Helm is shown as the Police Attache. He is in charge of Abromeit, in Sarajevo, on the next page. Presiding Judge: It is a minor detail, but I cannot see that, according to this list, he is subordinate to Helm. Dr. Servatius: Under the section on Croatia. Presiding Judge: Thank you.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012