The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-085-04

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-085-04
Last-Modified: 1999/06/09

On Question 12:

     "Mueller often insisted on deciding himself on matters
     of varying degrees of importance.  Sometimes they were
     inconsequential routine matters.  This would interfere
     time and again with the proper running of departments,
     and other Group Leaders also complained about this.
     "I also found that he was not particularly keen on
     taking decisions himself, and in non-routine matters
     would often obtain instructions for himself from his
     superiors in many cases.  He was exaggeratedly cautious
     vis-a-vis his superiors.  You could say he was over-
     anxious.  The result of his behaviour was a
     considerable restraint on the departments under his
     control.  Until I became aware of this idiosyncrasy of
     his, it also happened that, when I had taken decisions
     on my own, he would remonstrate with me.  He would
     reproach me for having decided on my own initiative,
     rather than  criticizing the substance of my decision.
     "I do not know whether - and if so, to what extent -
     this behaviour was true of his attitude to the
     Accused's Section as well.  There were general
     complaints about it, but I cannot remember whether the
     Accused also complained.
     "Frequently Mueller would not accept the decisions
     submitted to him as they stood, but would modify them
     or refer to higher authority."

Then, further down on page 10, the reply to Question 14:

     "If in my affidavit, document No. 874, page 6, I said
     that, apart from his Section, the Accused was in charge
     of an office in Prague, the only thing I remember today
     is that I know that he often had business in Prague.  I
     am unable to say whether the Accused had this position
     at the same time as his Section, or whether he was in
     charge of this office earlier.  I cannot today say
     whether the office in Prague was the Central Office for
     Jewish Emigration.  I know there was such an office.  I
     know that the Accused was often away.  However, I know
     nothing about this having been in connection with any
     business in branch offices."

Page 11:

     "I was not in any way close to the Accused, and I also
     had practically hardly any official contacts with him.
     The only time I remember getting to know him slightly
     better was when we travelled together - I believe to
     Prague.  If I am not mistaken, we were going to
     Heydrich's funeral.  I travelled in the Accused's
     official car, because I had no car of my own."

Presiding Judge: Is that all?

Interpreter: Yes.

Presiding Judge: All right.  We shall now turn to von
Thadden's testimony.  I mark this III.  Dr. Servatius, what
do you wish to stress in this testimony?

Dr. Servatius:  Record of 18 May 1961, Court of First
Instance, Neuss.  One of the important passages for the
Defence would seem to be page 4, the last sentence:

     "While I was working with the Special Plenipotentiary
     for Economic Affairs, I never heard of Eichmann
     visiting Greece."

Then, page 7, the last paragraph: "I cannot say anything
about the Accused's powers to take decisions; I do not
remember any cases" to (at the bottom) "which were signed by
his superior, Mueller."

Page 8, at the bottom: "I was unable to understand from whom
basic orders on the treatment of Jews emanated" - to the end
of the paragraph on the next page: "had originated with

Then, page 10, the penultimate paragraph: "I received
Veesenmayer's reports to the Foreign Ministry on the
deportation of Jews from Hungary, for information."  The
next sentence: "In the light of these reports it is quite
obvious that Veesenmayer played a decisive role in these
deportations."  Up to there.

Then, on page 15, the third paragraph: "I know that in
principle any projects proposing the emigration of Jews to
Palestine were foiled by the Foreign Ministry, in view of
the Arab-oriented policy" to the end of the paragraph.

These are all the passages to which I wished to relate.

Presiding Judge: And now, the Attorney General.

Attorney General: We have already provided the marked


     "I am Dr. jur. Eberhard von Thadden.  I was born in
     Berlin on 17 November 1909; I live in Buederich, Kreis
     (District) Grevenbroich, von der Leyenstrasse 4.  I am
     married, have two children, and am a businessman by

Page 3:

     "In the spring of 1943 - I think it was in April - I
     was ordered back to Berlin by telegraph and assigned to
     Department II Inland.  The Chief of this Department was
     Legation Counsellor - subsequently Senior Legation
     Counsellor - Horst Wagner.  The Department was
     subordinate to State Secretary Steengracht, who in turn
     was directly subordinate to the Reich Minister for
     Foreign Affairs.  In 1943 or 1944, I became Legation
     Counsellor, First Class.  I was a member of Department
     II Inland until the collapse."

Page 4:

     "In the Personnel Department, I dealt with a group of
     senior officials in the Foreign Ministry.  At this time
     there were not yet Specialist Officers on Jewish
     Affairs or Advisers on Aryanization with the German
     diplomatic agencies, but there were Police Attaches -
     positions created at that time.  The Police Attaches
     were proposed and also appointed on the basis of
     proposals from the Head Office for Reich Security or
     the Ministry of the Interior - I cannot say today which
     of these two bodies was responsible for such
     appointments - after the approval of the host country
     had been obtained by the Foreign Ministry.  The Police
     Attaches were subordinate to their organization at
     home.  In accordance with service regulations, the
     Legation Head was the administrative superior of the
     Police Attache, but in matters of discipline his home
     organization was in charge of him.  When it came to
     actual work, in practice the Police Attache received
     instructions from his home organization.  In theory, as
     far as I am aware, the Mission Head was entitled to
     cause the recall of a Police Attache who did not prove
     amenable, or to ask for his recall."

Page 5:

     "In Department II Inland, I was mainly involved with
     maintaining contact with the various German offices of
     the SS, i.e., those offices which were subject to the
     Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police.  My
     connections in the course of this activity of mine were
     with the central offices only, while my Department
     Chief reserved for himself any dealings with members of
     those offices who had the rank of an SS Gruppenfuehrer
     or Obergruppenfuehrer.  In terms of rank, my Department
     Chief was of lower rank than the SS Leaders I have just
     referred to.  As part of my job, I also had to deal
     with assignments which were really part of the duties
     of other specialist officers of the Foreign Ministry,
     but were concentrated in Inland II, because the offices
     under the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German
     Police were engaged in handling these assignments.  As
     part of my duties, as described, I also had to make
     contact with German missions abroad and with foreign
     missions in Germany, in order to execute specific

Page 6:

     "In the course of my duties I became aware of the
     extent of the deportations of Jews in the various
     occupied and allied countries.  I only had access to
     the records existing in the Department relative to
     Jewish Affairs which originated before I joined the
     Department, when I had to use such records in order to
     deal with tasks with which I was charged.  Rademacher,
     my predecessor, did not personally hand over the field
     of work to me, because, when I joined Department II
     Inland, Rademacher was already in the army.
     "In the course of my work in Department II Inland, I
     was continuously in contact with the Accused.  During
     the period in question, I was initially Legation
     Counsellor, i.e., Government Counsellor, and
     subsequently promoted to Legation Counsellor, First
     Class, i.e., Senior Government Counsellor.  As far as I
     am aware, Eichmann was an SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.  To
     the best of my knowledge, this rank is equivalent to
     that of Senior Government Counsellor."

Page 7:
     "I had constant dealings with the Accused and his
     office, particularly by word of mouth and by telephone
     with Guenther and Moes, or by written correspondence
     with his office.  I think it was possible for a
     specialist officer of a central body to have personal
     contacts with Ministers or Secretaries of State of
     foreign countries, when he was abroad, but it was not
     customary.  For example, while I was stationed in
     Greece, I once had dealings with the Greek Premier.
     "In the course of my consultations with the Accused and
     the Section of which he was in charge, I was authorized
     to decide myself only in the case of minor matters;
     otherwise I had to submit the matter for decision,
     either to the Head of another Section which was
     involved, or to my superior.  By submission I mean the
     official procedure which passes through normal channels
     in order to reach the authority which finally takes the
     decision.  In the case of the authorities superior to
     me, these were the Chief of Department, the State
     Secretary and the Minister.

     "I cannot say anything about the Accused's powers to
     take decisions; I do not remember any cases in which
     the Accused took a decision about which I would say
     that it exceeded the competence of a specialist
     officer, according to the concept with which I was
     familiar in my own job.  However, from the reports and
     opinion of the Accused, bearing his own signature,
     which I received, I was not always able to deduce
     whether he had taken the decision himself on his own
     responsibility, or whether he was acting in accordance
     with instructions.  I also remember documents, the
     contents of which as such concerned Eichmann's Section,
     but which were signed by his superior, Mueller.  For
     example, I remember a decree about the possibility of
     repatriating foreign Jews, signed by Mueller.  This was
     a circular issued by the Head Office for Reich Security
     to the offices under its control, which was sent for
     information to the Foreign Ministry.  This circular did
     not deal with individual instances.
     "Most of the documents which reached me from the
     Accused's Section were signed by him or by his
     subordinate assistants.  I do not remember getting my
     Department Chief to deal directly with Mueller in
     matters which involved Eichmann's Section, in the
     disposal of which he was to be circumvented.  I think
     that this would have been quite out of the question,
     because if anything affecting Eichmann's Section was to
     be reversed, this, in my opinion, could only have been
     done by the top echelons (State Secretary or Minister).
     "I recollect more particularly now the case of the
     Bondi children.  Sweden had requested exit permits for
     these children.  Despite repeated representations, the
     Accused's office refused such exit permits.  Shortly
     before the collapse - as far as I remember, it was in
     April 1945 - permission was nevertheless granted by
     Eichmann's Section.  My impression of the whole case
     was that this was a decision which was handed down to
     the Accused by his superior as a result of intervention
     by the State Secretary of the Foreign Ministry.  I
     cannot remember right now other instances where a
     decision by the Accused's Section was reversed; but by
     that I do not mean to say that this was the only case.

     "The Foreign Ministry demanded, as a matter of
     principle, to take part in questions affecting the
     treatment of Jews holding neutral or enemy nationality.
     When it came to the power of decision between the Head
     Office for Reich Security and the Foreign Ministry, the
     seat of power was weighted clearly against the Foreign
     Ministry.  However, I am unable to remember any case
     where a dispute arose because of this between the
     Foreign Ministry and the Head Office for Reich

Page 9...

Presiding Judge: We will stop here for a recess.  Mr.
Hausner, perhaps you could consider somewhat abridging this
process and following in Dr. Servatius' footsteps, except
where you consider certain passages to be particularly

Attorney General: Yes.  I shall use the recess to this end.


Presiding Judge: We have not yet finished von Thadden's
statement.  Attorney General, what have you managed to do in
the meantime?

Attorney General: I have dropped certain passages from this
testimony, and I have also asked my colleagues to drop
passages from other testimonies still to be referred to.

Presiding Judge: In that case, I would ask the interpreter
to continue, on page 9, I believe.

Interpreter: Page 9, the second paragraph:

     "Requests from the Foreign Ministry for approval of
     exceptions to general rules were also directed through
     me to the Accused's Section.  As to whether the Accused
     was able to decide on his own initiative on these
     requests, I am unable to say.  As I have already said
     elsewhere, it was not possible to determine from the
     position taken by his Section whether the decision in
     question had been taken by Eichmann himself.  As part
     of my activities, I did learn of positive decisions as
     well - positive in the sense of members of the Jewish
     population - on the part of the Accused's Section.  I
     do not know whether the Accused obtained these positive
     exceptions by intervening personally.  Eichmann spoke
     in very negative terms about requests for approval of
     exceptions.  I remember that when I approached Eichmann
     about approving an exception, he said my attitude was
     `weak-kneed.'  Eichmann did not mince his words."

Then we go on to page 11, in the middle:

     "It is correct that I did once make a journey to
     Hungary in the spring of 1944.  On behalf of my
     organization, I visited then not only the Eichmann
     Special Operations Unit, but other offices as well.
     These were offices which concerned my Section.  The
     real reason for this journey was that my superior
     wanted to give me a few peaceful days, because of the
     constant air raids on Berlin at that time.

     "I wrote two reports about this visit: A copy of one
     report went to the Head Office for Reich Security,
     while the second report was for internal use in the
     Foreign Ministry.  In these reports I indicated that
     the Eichmann Special Operations Unit in Hungary was
     acting in accordance with a definite plan.  I could not
     determine to what extent Eichmann had co-ordinated this
     plan with other authorities.  I myself was horrified at
     the plan which Eichmann had disclosed to me.  I was in
     agreement with other staff of the Foreign Ministry that
     the implementation of the plan must be prevented, at
     least by gaining time.  As far as I know, the plan was
     not implemented in the form disclosed to me originally
     by Eichmann when I saw him in Budapest.  According to
     the original plan, the Jewish population of Budapest
     was to be herded together one night on an island in the
     Danube and interned there, without adequate
Further down, on page 12:

     "Regarding the evacuation of Jews from Hungary, it was
     always said that they were to be deported to the
     Eastern Occupied Territories.  The name of the
     Auschwitz camp was also mentioned in this context."

Attorney General: That concludes von Thadden's statement.

Presiding Judge: Let us now turn to other statements.

Attorney General: Statements concerning Hungary.

Presiding Judge: Here, too, we must first turn to Dr.
Servatius - perhaps we should start with Juettner.  I mark
this testimony IV.  Dr. Servatius, which passages in
Juettner's testimony do you wish to highlight or include in
the record?

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© 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.