Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-01-06 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 In both cases the Accused became involved only at a later stage in order to arrange for the transportation. Justice Silberg: Who convinced the station master at the French border to let these Jews pass, under the pretext that this was a military transport? Was this not the personal intervention of the Accused? After all, the Vichy regime was not bound to receive them. The deportation went to the West and not to the East. The Vichy regime in France was not bound to receive them. The Accused deceived the station master, telling him that this was a military transport. Was that not an independent action? Dr. Servatius: It is true that this was an independent action in the carrying out of deportations, but the deportation and the rounding up did not take place on the Accused's initiative. Had the transports disguised as military transports not passed the border, the Jews would not have returned to their homes in Wuerttemberg. Probably, they would have been sent directly to a concentration camp - to the East. The Jews who were transported to the East went to their death. However, it was not the Accused's function to determine the place of destination; this was done by someone else. Those people had to be brought to the South of France, and at that stage this obstacle arose which he had to overcome. However, this cannot lead to any conclusion as to the deportation and the extermination. Justice Silberg: Who carried out the round-up at the local level? Is it not true that this round-up of the Jews was carried out by the "IdS" (Commander of the Security Police)? Dr. Servatius: Yes, I have already mentioned that the local commanders carried out the round-up. But they did so in exercising their own authority. The Accused only gave professional instructions to the officer in charge in France. But nothing was achieved by the mere issue of these professional instructions. They had to be carried out by the Commander of the Security Police, and he was also capable of doing so. He also maintained direct contact with the RSHA. His superior was the Higher SS and Police Leader who was Himmler's direct representative. Had Himmler wished that something different be done, these intentions would have been transmitted to the Commander of the Security Police, through the intermediary of the Higher SS and Police Leader. What happened on this occasion was only the written implementation of the deportation which had been ordered. Justice Silberg: You are confusing the BdS with the IdS. The senior SS commander was at the front. I am asking you, who rounded up the Jews in Germany itself? They were rounded up by the inspectors of the IdS, and the IdS were subordinates of the Accused. Dr. Servatius: There were no inspectors in the territories under military occupation. There, the title commander was used. In the old, civilian, territories, the name inspector was retained. That is the difference, but the activity was the same. I shall now deal with the deportations from France. The documents produced by the Defence clearly show who was, in fact, the driving force behind the deportation and round-up. Defence exhibit N/36 contains the proposal of Ambassador Abetz made to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, dated 17 August 1940, namely to remove all Jews from the occupied territories. They were to be deprived of their property which was to be disposed of for the benefit of the Germans. Defence exhibit N/37 is a further teleprint message from Ambassador Abetz to the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, dated 1 October 1940. It contains the proposal of proceedings for the collective extradition of German and Austrian Jews in France. This was to be the first step towards the solution of the Jewish Question in France. A further Defence exhibit is N/37, also originating from Ambassador Abetz, dated 3 April 1941. The Ambassador requests that pressure be brought to bear on the French Government to enact legislation on the subject of the Jews, by which Jewish emigration should be encouraged, so that deportation could be carried out later. It cannot be shown that similar pressure was exercised by the Accused at any place. Allegations to the contrary are based upon a combination of single occurrences which, in my view, are irrelevant. In this connection, the Judgment of the District Court refers to a memorandum drawn up by the officer in charge in the department of the Senior Commander of the Security Police, Roethke, according to which the Accused threatened not to use France any more as a country from which deportations would be carried out. However, actually, this was not a matter of principle, but only a dispute in respect of a train which had been made available for transportation from Bordeaux. This was a dispute between those offices involved in the transport, arising from the apprehension of a complaint to be expected from the Reich Railway Administration, that the rolling stock made available with great difficulties was not being utilized. This cannot lead to the conclusion that the Accused had a discretionary power of his own as to whether or not to round up Jews in France. That technical dispute has nothing to do with this aspect. President: Dr. Servatius, I refer to exhibit T/613. This is a document signed by Mueller, in which he refers to that part of France occupied by the Italians, who raised obstacles and were making difficulties. Mueller writes that the Appellant was now negotiating with the Italians, in order to convince them to remove the obstacles. What is the connection between this activity and transportation? Dr. Servatius: That is correct. However, this does not concern the Accused's Section, but the Head of the Department, Mueller, and the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, who together with Mueller, had recently visited Mussolini. I can elaborate further on this question in relation to Southern France. President: I wish to clarify my question. If you say that what Mueller wrote there is a lie, that will be the end of the matter. I shall accept that reply. But if you say that the Appellant is busy trying to persuade the Italians to refrain from making difficulties, then I ask you once again. I do not understand. According to the argument of the Defence, the Accused's responsibility was solely to take care of transportations. What is the connection between this matter and his efforts to persuade the Italians to remove the obstacles, to behave better? If Mueller lied, I understand this reply. But if Mueller did not lie, then what is the explanation? Dr. Servatius: What Mueller stated is correct, but this was a special assignment. I have already mentioned that Mueller and Ribbentrop visited Mussolini, because in the territories occupied by Italy results which would have been obtained there if German methods had been applied were not forthcoming. The Accused was called upon to become involved in this matter, and in this connection, mention is also made of Monaco, where he likewise was called into action. However, this was an activity outside the scope of his normal work, but he had been called upon to act precisely because of the special operation in Southern France. But the matter remained in the hands of Mueller personally and of Ribbentrop. President Just another question in connection with Monaco. If I am not mistaken, in the matter of Monaco, the Appellant in person requested the intervention of the German Foreign Ministry in the matter of the extradition of Jews. This is mentioned in exhibit T/495. Dr. Servatius: If my memory serves me properly, this is correct, although I am not absolutely certain. I believe that was because this was a special operation. President: But my question is: If this was a Sonderaktion (special operation) and the initiative originated from Germans in Germany, like Abetz and Ribbentrop, why should the Appellant apply to the Foreign Ministry to intervene in the matter of Monaco? After all, Ribbentrop himself is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, why did he need the intervention of the Foreign Ministry to exercise its influence upon Monaco? Dr. Servatius: I can only assume that it was because Mueller and Ribbentrop worked together and Mueller entrusted one of his subordinates with additional duties which were beyond his own work capacity. However, the driving force in Southern France was also the Commander of the Security Police, Dr. Knochen. Defence exhibit N/40 refers to this. On 13 January 1943 he writes to Mueller, to General Mueller, that he, Mueller, should urge the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to put an end to the favourable attitude of the Italians towards the Jews, otherwise it would be impossible to continue with the implementation of the policy concerning the Jews as understood by the Germans. This is the beginning of the process by which Ribbentrop was called upon to co-operate, as well as the visit to Mussolini. A number of documents submitted deal with individuals, such as the police officer Togliatti who had been sent by Mussolini, and I know that there are still two other persons who are living in France. These were, therefore, special measures ordered to be taken. However, I am dealing with the general deportation and the round-up. Justice Silberg: Was it not the duty of the Foreign Ministry to apply to the Government of Monaco? This would seem to be the direct channel, isn't that so? Dr. Servatius: That is correct. Justice Silberg: And von Thadden was the officer in charge in the Foreign Ministry? Dr. Servatius: That is correct. Justice Silberg: Von Thadden writes in exhibit T/492: "I do not know how Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann established contact with the Government of Monaco and whether the population was involved in that respect." That is to say, an official of the Foreign Ministry does not know how Eichmann established contact with the Government of Monaco. In any case, he knows that this was not done through the intermediary of the Foreign Ministry. Dr. Servatius: This can be explained only as follows: Von Thadden was sitting in his office, while Ribbentrop, Mueller and the Accused, who was entrusted with the assignment, were in leading positions, and the office did not know the particulars of what had happened and was surprised. This appears from the letter. Inasmuch as the territorial division into police districts is concerned, Belgium was attached to France. In Belgium, too, it cannot be said that the Accused played a leading role in the matter of deportations. Here the beginnings of the deportations are especially clear. It was intended to deport 10,000 Jews. The military commander went to Himmler's Field Headquarters, and together they increased the number to 20,000. The Accused is confronted with a fait accompli and has to accept this decision as a subordinate and has to carry it out. President: How do you explain, Dr. Servatius, T/513, a document signed by the Appellant and addressed to someone in the Navy, in Belgium, a certain - I cannot pronounce his name - Anlaos, ordering him to evacuate stateless Jews? Dr. Servatius: I can't explain that, it was beyond the ordinary scope of his functions. President: That is why I asked you. This is certainly not connected with transportations. Dr. Servatius: I cannot explain it at present. However, it contradicts what was the normal course of action. I think I remember what the Accused said at the First Instance in respect to similar matters: When a deportation took place, various matters had to be taken care of; certain persons were left behind, or there were general instructions as to who was to join the deportation, and thus this matter came within the scope of technical matters. In concluding this part, I shall refer to Hungary. In this connection, too, the District Court did not pay sufficient attention to the documents submitted on behalf of the Defence. The Reich Plenipotentiary, Veesenmayer, was not merely a person entrusted with reporting, as stated in the Judgment, but one of the main actors. In exhibit N/73, Veesenmayer informs the Foreign Ministry that every three to four days trains transporting 5,000 Jews - a total of 50,000 Jews - were made available for departure. He says that Winkelmann made agreements in respect of these transports, and he asks that decisions be taken as regards their destination. Justice Silberg: Can you tell me the date of N/73? Dr. Servatius: The next document to which I wish to refer, the reply to the previous one, bears the date 19 April 1944. Attorney General If it please the Court, N/73 is dated 15 April 1944. Dr. Servatius: The reply, exhibit N/72, contains information that the Accused was entrusted by Kaltenbrunner with procuring freight cars and setting up a timetable, and there you have a neat distribution of tasks. Exhibit N/74 provides a complete and clear picture of Veesenmayer's activities. Veesenmayer writes to the Foreign Ministry: "I ask for postponement of the evacuation of the fifty thousand Jews...which was requested by me...in Hungary." The reply of Ambassador Ritter, Foreign Ministry, addressed to Veesenmayer, is dated 27 April 1944, and is exhibit N/75. Justice Silberg: What date? Dr. Servatius: 27 April 1944. The document reads: "In the matter of transportation of the 50,000 Jews, a decision will be taken by the Head of the SIPO and the SD." He continues: "Responsibility for the delay lies with the authorities responsible for the evacuation of the Jews, who have delayed the departure of the Jews made available for that purpose." The insistence of the Foreign Ministry becomes quite manifest in this document; the Accused is even reproached as having been guilty of lack of zealousness in arranging the trains for that purpose. I further refer to exhibit N/76, dated 8 May 1944, submitted by the Defence. In this document Veesenmayer informs the Foreign Ministry that the Economic- Administrative Head Office will make the necessary dispositions for the assignment of 100,000 Jewish forced labourers requested by Organization Todt. This statement confirms that the aforesaid office will determine the place of destination of the deportation and will dispose of the Jews at the end of the deportation. That means that it is not the Accused. A further document, exhibit N/79, is worthy of note. In this document, at a meeting with the Foreign Ministry, Professor Six suggests that an earlier date be fixed for the evacuation of Budapest. Justice Silberg: What is the date of this document? Dr. Servatius: Unfortunately, I do not have it here at this moment. Anyhow, it was prior to the invasion, and it does not concern the final event. Attorney General 6 June 1944. Dr. Servatius: Even if that happened some months before the evacuation of Budapest, it is nevertheless relevant in respect of the allegation in the indictment that the Accused, at that time, on his own initiative, had urged the fixing of an earlier date, so as not to leave the Jews time for escape. I refer now to exhibit N/80, dated 7 July 1944. It shows General Winkelmann in full action. He writes, on 7 July 1944, to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler in person, complaining that Veesenmayer is too soft, and that he ought to be ordered to bang on the table. On the other hand, the Accused, who was in the limelight in these proceedings, recedes into the background. President: Dr. Servatius, could this be an appropriate place to take a break? Dr. Servatius: Yes. President: How much more time will you need? Dr. Servatius: About an hour, I think. President: We will continue tomorrow morning. Dr. Servatius: As Your Honour pleases. President: The hearing will continue tomorrow morning at 9.00.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor