The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-087-01

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-087-01
Last-Modified: 1999/06/10

Session No. 87
22 Tammuz 5721 (6 July 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the eighty-seventh Session of the
trial open.  The Accused will continue with his testimony in
direct examination.  I remind the Accused that he is still
testifying under oath.
Accused:    I am aware of the fact.

Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius:  Your Honour, I should first like to submit
the document referred to in Becher's statement, number 47.

Presiding Judge: This should really relate to the Becher
statement - I shall therefore mark this exhibit VI A.

Dr. Servatius:  I have concluded my presentation of the
documents for Hungary, but have not yet mentioned the two
incidents testified to by witnesses, namely, Kistarcsa and

Presiding Judge: Yes.

Dr. Servatius:  I should like to ask the Accused a few
questions about these incidents.

Witness, you have heard in this Court an account from
Witness Freudiger, inter alia, of a transport which left
Kistarcsa, was ordered to return by Horthy, and then again
set in motion.  The Jews of the Council of Jewish Elders
were said to have been summoned to your office, where they
were detained with all sorts of minor matters and, it is
said, this was all simply to avoid any intervention, so that
when the Jews were allowed to go home in the evening, the
transport was already again on its way.

Question: What do you know about these transports - the
first and the second transport?

Accused:    I have been trying to picture to myself the
whole affair as it was at the time.  The result is as
follows: I seem to have a very vague recollection of some
transport or other which returned.  I have not been able to
shed any further light on the matter.  I have also tried to
go into the second matter, and to do this I have read
through all the literature made available to me and - if I
cast my mind back to that time - I noticed something here:
that is, that they were removed from the camp in lorries.
Now, I know that I had no lorries at all, and that in
addition, in August or September - in any case, when I had
to leave for the Romanian border - I had the greatest
difficulties in rounding up just two or three lorries for
transport required for my duties.

I have also heard Freudiger's testimony to this Court, and I
asked myself who was in charge of this Kistarcsa camp.  It
certainly was not under my command, but since it was
situated on the outskirts of the city of Budapest, I believe
that it must have been under the command of the Commander of
the Security Police and the Security Service, as a sort of
internal prison (Hausgefaengnis), as we called it.  I could
well imagine that to be the case.  I could also imagine
that, since the head of the camp - as Witness Freudiger has
said - was a Hungarian officer, there must have been some
link here with the Hungarian gendarmerie, since at that time
the Hungarian gendarmerie had sufficient numbers of lorries.

I also heard that this transport - or read that this
transport - was brought back on Horthy's orders.  Since I
did not myself take decisions even in minor matters, I
certainly would have taken care not to issue orders and have
them carried out on my own initiative contrary to such an
order, since it was very easy for me - I had the Higher SS
and Police Leader, and if necessary I could have turned to
Veesenmayer and asked him for further orders.  And, as a
third possibility, there was also the Senior Commander of
the Security Police and the Security Service.  But that
would mean that I would not have needed - as is alleged here
- to detain the Council of Elders for eight hours, in order
to camouflage the implementation of this affair.  Because
then I would have had an official order, for which the
others would have been responsible.  But in any case I do
not know anything about such a matter.

In conclusion, I should like to say that in any case I
cannot have been involved in this affair, as the technical
resources for it were not available to me.

Dr. Servatius:  I now come to the Gordon affair.  Witness,
you have heard in this Court the witness Gordon, who has
testified in detail to the Court as to the maltreatment of a
young Hungarian Jew, which took place in the garden of the
house in which you are said to have lived at that time.
Would you give your reaction to this testimony of the
witness, and indicate whether you were involved in this
matter, the maltreatment or killing of this Jew?

Accused:    On this question I can only say that I have
never killed a human being, I have never slain a human
being, and I have never struck a human being.  I can also
say in the same breath that in that house in which I lived
in Budapest, Sergeant Slawik, whose name has already been
mentioned, could not have done this either, because this man
Slawik was with me almost continuously from 1938 onwards, I
believe, and Slawik would never have dared to do such a
thing.  I can only say that I really wonder where the
witness may have obtained his knowledge.  It is a mystery to
me.  I did not do anything of this kind, and I must deny
this matter absolutely.

Dr. Servatius:  Witness, are you implying that Witness
Gordon has deliberately given false testimony on oath to
this Court?

Accused:    No, I would not dare to allege such a thing, but
I have wondered where this witness can have obtained his
information, because the whole thing is untrue and quite
impossible.  He must be confusing things somehow, because if
the witness claims to have seen it, then - well, if I am
already airing this incident, I might as well say that I am
moreover extremely surprised that others did not see it,
since a fair number of people were frequenting my house.  In
addition, at that time there were quite a few people who
came to see me socially.  I am sure that such an incident
would have been talked about and would not have come up only
now, in the year 1961.

Dr. Servatius:  I now come to a few - four - documents with
reference to the Slovenes.  The matter in question is the
transfer of these Slovenes to Serbia.  The first
communication is T/898, document No. 423.  This is an
invitation or a summons by Heydrich to the Reich Minister of
Finance to attend a discussion of such resettlement matters
in Maribor.

Paragraph 1 reads:

     "In accordance with the Fuehrer's order, a start should
     be made at once to clear up ethnic questions in the
     areas in the south-east which have recently joined the
     Reich.  This basically involves evacuating Slovenes
     from these areas to Serbia.  Provisional indications
     show some 260,000 Slovenes to be involved."

What we have here is only the invitation to the Reich
Minister of Finance, but obviously all the relevant
departments were invited to Maribor at that time.

The next exhibit is T/899, document No. 1080.  This is a
communication from IVB4, Eichmann, to the Representative of
the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service at
the Civil Administration in Lower Styria.  It reads: "Re:
Your teletype communication of 24 April 1941 to the Head
Office for Reich Security, attention of SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ehlich."  Dr. Ehlich is the Chief
of Department III of the Head Office for Reich Security,
Race and Nationality, and is therefore responsible for
resettlement.  In the last sentence of the communication it
says: "For the post of Camp Commander of the camp which is
to be set up at Rahn, a suitable official is to be detailed
from the Graz Gestapo office who is to be assigned to
Department III of the Resettlement Staff." Signed: Eichmann.

The next exhibit is T/901, document No. 1093.  This is a
teletype communication from the Commander of the Security
Police and the Security Service in Lower Styria -
Resettlement Staff to Eichmann.  It reads: "As has already
been indicated by telephone, with immediate effect, evacuees
are to be searched under the supervision of customs

The last exhibit is T/900, document No. 1079.  On 12
September 1941, the same Resettlement Staff notifies
Eichmann of the departure of a transport train.

Witness, to what extent did you deal with this resettlement?

Accused:    Acting on orders, I had to dispatch the letters
of invitation to the central authorities, that is to draw
them up and dispatch them, in accordance with instructions
from Mueller or Heydrich, I forget which.  But in any case
there was no by-passing Mueller.  And the aim of the
conference was to bring the central authorities together at
the compulsory transfer site, as ordered by Hitler.  And
here Heydrich had advised and instructed the central
authorities that they, in turn, were to bring together their
relevant specialist officers at this resettlement site, in
order to be able to control the entire resettlement
operation on a local basis.  This is what happened.  Central
control was in the hands of SS Standartenfuehrer, or
Obersturmbannfuehrer at the time, Dr. Ehlich, the group
leader of Department III.  They handled Race, Nationality
and Resettlement.  This is shown by the organization chart.

And I have found in two documents a reference to something I
announced at the time, that an official or a civil servant
was to be appointed to be in charge of the camp.  And also
that searches were to be carried out by customs officials.
This resulted from the fact that at that time Mueller
instructed me, because of the centralized arrangements of
Department III - which consisted of members of the Security
Service exclusively - to pass down this requirement, because
it was Mueller's position that "this is not a duty of the
Security Service but of the Security Police, or of the
competent officials of the appropriate central authorities."

Today, I forget whether the timetable was drawn up locally
or by the Reich Transport Ministry.  I would tend to assume
that in this instance it was drawn up locally.  Other than
that, I was only used as - I think I would call it the
central office for passing on information.  This can be seen
from the number of documents all included in No. 1079,
recording the departure times of the trains and asking for
Belgrade to be informed, because the local Resettlement
Office was unable to contact Belgrade directly.

In conclusion, I should like to say that there is another
communication included in Prosecution document No. 1079.  I
noted T/900 - I am not sure whether that is correct.  I was
struck by the fact that in the last paragraph but one it
reads: "Hoeppner is en route for the destination, and
together with Krumey is seconded to Serbia."  And then it
says: "Last paragraph in accordance with instructions from
SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann."  That cannot be correct,
since first of all I was unable to pursue any personnel
policy, and secondly that is shown by the fact that the
teletype communication went to the Head Office for Reich
Security, for my attention or for my deputy; in other words,
if I had gone down there and given those orders, there would
have been no need for me to be informed of that back in

In my opinion, this is definitely a slip of the pen.  It
should read here Dr. Lurger, who was the Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in Lower Styria,
and Head of the Resettlement Staff.

Presiding Judge: Let me try and understand your answer about
this matter: How did this involve your Section, IVB4?  At
that time, did the general authority of Section IVB4 include

Accused:    Your Honour, according to the organization
chart, at that time I was dealing with Evacuation and
Resettlement, and it was not until the second organization
chart, in March 1941, I believe, that there were additions
to evacuation and resettlement; but unfortunately I have...I
think...just on the basis of the organization chart... but
in any case I had Evacuation and Resettlement.

Presiding Judge: So that means that at that time
Resettlement and Evacuation were still within the authority
of your Department?

Accused:    Yes, as far as the duties of Department IV were

Presiding Judge: And that is how this matter reached you,
through Heydrich or through Mueller, as you have explained.

Accused:    That is correct, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius:  I come now to the chapter on concentration
camps, file 39.  The first exhibit is T/1375, document No.
11.  The document was already referred to under
sterilization.  The first paragraph is of interest now.
This is a letter from SS Oberfuehrer Viktor Brack to
Himmler, dated 23 June 1942.  In the first paragraph Brack

     "On instructions from Reichsleiter Bouhler, I have
     already long ago made available part of my staff to
     Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, in order to implement his
     special assignment.  Following a further request from
     him, I have now assigned more of my men to him.  In
     this connection, Brigadefuehrer Globocnik argued that
     the entire Jewish operation should be carried out as
     speedily as possible, in order to avoid being
     interrupted in the middle, one day, if difficulties
     were to arise which would require the operation to be
     halted.  You yourself, Reichsfuehrer, had already
     expressed your opinion that, if only for reasons of
     camouflage, the work should be carried out as quickly
     as possible."

He is talking about making his men available.  In
explanation I would point out in advance which people are
involved.  They are referred to later in the documents.
Reichsleiter Bouhler is the person who performed euthanasia,
initially on the mentally ill, and in a later operation also
on others known as "useless consumers."  Dr. Pfannenstiel's
name is mentioned, and then a Regierungsrat or
Oberregierungsrat Lindner of the Reich Ministry of the
Interior, who deals with the bureaucratic aspects, and
several others.  There is also a reference to a Dr.
Blankenburg, a physician, and in this connection the name
Guenther is also mentioned.

I proceed to the next exhibit; this is one of the pieces of
testimony by Judge - SS Judge - Dr. Morgen, dated 7 August
1946.  This is his testimony to the International Military

Presiding Judge: What is the number of the exhibit, Dr.

Dr. Servatius:  Document No. 49.  I submit the exhibit as
evidence.  It contains the testimony and reports on what he
investigated in the concentration camps, with Wirth and

Presiding Judge: What became of Morgen, Dr. Servatius, is he
still alive?

Dr. Servatius:  I cannot say; I can only assume so, as he
was not particularly old, and, according to the documents
available, he would seem to have behaved properly.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, what is your opinion?

Attorney General: I regret that Dr. Servatius did not inform
us accordingly by the time fixed by the Court for submission
of statements, as I would have been glad to examine Dr.
Morgen, at least in Germany.  However, I shall not at this
stage oppose submission of this document.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 90

We allow submission of Dr. Morgen's testimony as an exhibit
in these proceedings.  The Attorney General has no
objections.  I mark this N/94.

Dr. Servatius:  Your Honour, since the witness made several
statements, might I point out that this is the hearing on 7
August 1946.

Presiding Judge: On which page in the transcript before us,
Dr. Servatius?

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.