The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-099-02

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-099-02
Last-Modified: 1999/06/13

Q. But you said that you had no idea that Storfer was there.

A. I did not know either...he...

Q. So how could you obtain permission?

A. From the concentration camp he...I received notification
through official channels that Storfer wanted to talk to me
at Auschwitz, that he was asking for permission to talk to
me.  I then obtained permission to go to Auschwitz in
connection with Storfer.  That is the only instance...there
were special reasons here, and because of that I made a
special application and received authorization.

Q. In your Statement you said...

Presiding Judge: One moment.  But you were asked about this
phrase, about your drawing up a memo and Storfer's situation
being eased on the basis of this memo.  Now that shows - at
least this is how it appears - that you had the power to
draw up such memos?

Accused:    No, I said, Your Honour, that for this Storfer
case I had to obtain a special authorization from my Chief,
and because make sure that nothing would happen to
him.  Because of that I asked the commandant's office to
draw up a memo to this effect, and on the memo it must
definitely - there is no way that it could have been
otherwise - have said "with the approval of Chief of
Department IV, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller."

Attorney General: But up until now you have always told us
that the Head Office for Reich Security had nothing at all
to do with the concentration camps, that both control and
command of the concentration camps lay with the Economic-
Administrative Head Office.  So what difference does it make
whether this came from you or from Mueller, if the Head
Office for Reich Security as such had nothing to do with the
administration of the concentration camps?

Accused:    That is also true, Mr. Attorney General, but in
this case things were special, and so I intervened for the
man, and also obtained the authorization.  That was, if I
can put it this way...

Q. From whom?  From whom?

A. I obtained the authorization from my Chief, from Mueller.

Q. But what did Mueller have to do with this?

A. Well, after all, I did have to ask him for authorization
to intervene on behalf of Storfer.  This was an intervention
on my part.

Presiding Judge: Are you saying that you received Mueller's
permission in advance for Storfer in the Auschwitz camp to
be allowed to sweep the gravel paths in front of the
commandant's office at Auschwitz?  Is that correct?

Accused:    Not about the gravel path, but light work. And
that is where the light work turned up, because we were
standing on these gravel paths in the small piece of garden
in front of the commandant's office, I was standing there
with Storfer, and that is where I asked him...every inmate
wanted that...light work.

Presiding Judge: All right.  And that is what you received
advance authorization for?

Accused:    Not for the gravel paths, for light work.

Presiding Judge: All right, I understand that.

Judge Halevi:  And you felt in advance - you realized in
advance that he would ask you for that?

Accused:    I think in the message which I received it said
that he wanted to talk with me.  I did first try to have him
released from the concentration camp.  I did not manage to
do so, because there was a Reichsfuehrer order against that,
and because I knew from experience that the inmates' next
wish, apart from their release, was to be given light work.
Because of that, I asked for permission that Storfer should
under no circumstances be made to work under the usual
routine.  This was intervention on my part for Storfer, whom
I had known for so many years.

Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Hausner.

Attorney General: When you were in Hungary -

Presiding Judge: I am sorry - I should like to ask another
question, because the previous question has not really been
answered yet.

[To the Accused] You were asked by the Attorney General why
you received this permission from Mueller, and from the
question I understood that on the basis of your testimony
you should have received such permission from - let us say -
Pohl, but not from Mueller, in any case.  How can you
explain this?

Accused:    Not from Pohl; in any case Mueller will
doubtless have consulted with Gluecks on this matter.

Q. Very well, with Gluecks.  That means that Mueller was
also not competent to give this permission.

A. He must definitely have asked Gluecks, but I do not have
any knowledge of this.

Presiding Judge: All right.

Attorney General: Hoess probably asked you whether Mueller
had received Glueck's permission, and on whose behalf you
were acting here, and what right you had to issue any
instructions here, and whether Mueller had Gluecks'
permission.  I suppose Hoess asked you that, did he not?

Accused:    I do not know.  Of my entire visit to Auschwitz
I can only remember the conversation, the meeting with
Storfer.  That is what is present in my mind.

Q. You said that when you were in Hungary, Guenther had
issued instructions to execute Storfer, Eppstein and
Edelstein, and that you were angry about this.

A. That is true.  I heard about this.  When I somehow got
back to Berlin, I heard that the officials with whom I had
had dealings...

Q. Guenther - no, no, it was Guenther who gave these orders.
That is what you said.  You will agree that when you were in
Budapest, Guenther, if he had any powers at all, at the very
most he had your powers, that is to say the powers which you
yourself had as Head of Section IVB4, and certainly nothing
more.  Is that correct?

A. Yes, but he also had to go to Mueller, the Department
Chief, each time in order to get permission.  But it seems
that Guenther originally did not stick one hundred per cent
to the rules, so as not to assume for himself any power of
giving instructions, but it is possible that here perhaps he
acted somewhat more vigorously.  That would have been in his
nature.  But I just do not know.

Q. But you were cross with Guenther and furious at him, and
not at anyone else?

A. Yes, that of course was my first reaction when I came
back and heard this; obviously I exchanged the - how shall I
put it - the appropriate words with the person who reported
this to me and told me about this.  That was my first
reaction, and that is also what I remember.

Presiding Judge: Where is this, please?

Attorney General: Pages 3278-3279, and in Life, on pages 14
and 15, Your Honour.

[To the Accused] From whom did Guenther obtain the
instruction to have Storfer, Eppstein and the others
executed?  Did you not show any interest in this, did you
not look into this?

Accused:    It would definitely have been too late, nor do I
know how the entire business was dealt with in Berlin.  I
could, however, imagine that Gruppenfuehrer Mueller gave
Guenther the instruction - I cannot imagine anything else.

Q. Why did Mueller send you to Kulmhof, for what purpose?

A. It was Mueller's way to be kept informed of everything
going on both on Reich territory and in the occupied
territories.  I had to make these official journeys in order
to report to my Chief.

Q. But why did it have to be you?  There was technical staff
in the Section, people who, as you have said, were much
better versed in these matters; why were you selected for
this mission?

A. I believe that I was not the only one who received such
orders, because I only went to these places, while others
must definitely have been sent to other places.  Anyone who
was ordered had to obey; at that time everybody had to go.

Q. Now look: T/1280 - even at a very late date, the Economic-
Administrative Head Office issued internal directives to the
effect that there were two categories of Jews - transport
Jews, who came from IVB4a, and Jews under orders for
protective custody, which originated from IVC2. The Section
does not recognize any other Jews.  Now will you agree that
this means that all Jews who arrived by some route other
than an order for protective custody were transport Jews,
who arrived as a result of instructions from your Section?

A. Yes, the deportations - I have said as much - these were
routed by IVB4, and how this was divided up by the Economic-
Administrative Head Office - this was, I believe, the task
of the Economic- Administrative Head Office.

Q. That was not my question.  It is shown very clearly by
this that the Economic-Administrative Head Office, which in
your view is the commander of concentration and
extermination camps, this Head Office recognizes only two
categories of Jews: transport Jews who arrive on the basis
of an instruction from your Section, and protective custody
Jews, who arrive on an instruction from IVC2.  Is that

A. Not on the basis of an instruction; but the designation
IVB4a or IVC2a - that distinction is a subdivision made by
the Economic-Administrative Head Office.

Q. And from time to time you ensured that Jews who could not
be included in transports on the basis of general
instructions were sent to Auschwitz as inmates in protective

A. I did not handle this matter - Guenther handled it, but
he must definitely have followed the instructions of the
Chief of Department IV in two decrees, because here he
refers to the decree on protective custody.  These
categories, which under the guidelines were not to be
evacuated, were not to be evacuated.  But if they violated
the general regulations, then the decree on protective
custody, which did not originate with my Section, as I can
see from the reference numbers, would be applied.

Q. That is true, but Guenther makes suggestions as to how
the general guidelines can be circumvented, and how it would
nevertheless be possible to transport Jews to Auschwitz.  Is
that true?

A. This is also a possible interpretation.

Q. How often did you visit Warsaw during the Second World

A. I believe I made a total of two visits to Warsaw - twice.

Q. Roughly when?

A. I have no conception of time and no chronological order
here whatsoever, and I was not able to work this out
afterwards either...

Q. After the uprising or before the uprising?  Or once
before the uprising and once after the uprising?

A. No, it was after the uprising, because I saw the ruins.

Q. Do you know who Georg Michelson is?

A. No, I do not know him.

Q. He says that you were in Warsaw in connection with the
liquidation of the Ghetto, in July/August 1942.  Were you in
Warsaw at that time?

A. I remember there...if I had remembered, I would
definitely have indicated that of my own accord in my
memoirs or in my Statement.

Q. Perhaps we can give you some assistance in refreshing
your memory.  I have before me exhibit T/268, document No.
941 - a report on a meeting you had about the Warsaw Ghetto
with the Foreign Ministry's representative in Poland, and
this took place in April 1942.

A. Yes, I am familiar with the matter, but that does not
mean that I was in Poland because of this matter here,
because in fact, with regard to Jews of foreign nationality
in the Warsaw Ghetto, there was extensive correspondence
between the Foreign Ministry and the Head Office for Reich

Q. Were you in Warsaw at that time, as stated in the
document, on the date indicated in the document, or were you

A. I fail to deduce from the document that I was in Warsaw.

Q. According to your recollection, were you in Warsaw?  Just
forget the document for a moment.

A. I said that I do not know when it was; what I do remember
is seeing the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Q. That was the second time you were there.  The first time
you were there was around April 1942, is that not true?

A. I cannot remember that.  If I had any recollection, I
must repeat, I would have said as much without any
hesitation a long time ago.

Presiding Judge: Silence in Court!

Accused:    I have voluntarily come out with far worse
things than this.

Attorney General: All right.  Do you know who recorded this
note that I showed you a few minutes ago?

Accused:    This last record - no, I did not pay attention
to that.

Q. So perhaps, if I show it to you again, you could identify
the signature?  Perhaps you might remember, perhaps you
could refresh your memory, just look at the signature -

A. It says Wieler, Vice-Consul - I do not know the man.

Q. He wrote that you conducted the meeting as the
representative of the Chief of the Head Office for Reich
Security - of the Chief of the Security Service - this is in
the first paragraph.

A. I did not conduct the meeting, I participated in it.  The
document does not show where the consultation took place -
it could just as well have taken place in the Foreign
Ministry in Berlin.  I said that there were extensive
consultations and correspondence about this matter between
the two central authorities.

Q. It says here: Representative of the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service, Eichmann.  He also sees in
you the direct representative of the Chief of the SD, the
Chief of the Security Police - is that another fatal error?

A. This is, of course, an error which was made very often,
which was also made here...

Q. This is, therefore, your misfortune - everyone sees you
as the representative of Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner.

A. In this I was not alone, this happened all along.

Q. What bad luck... Now look at this.  On page 3215 of your
Statement to the police, you said that you were in Warsaw on
21 April 1942, and took part in a meeting in Warsaw on Jews
of foreign nationality.

A. The only possibility here is that I was shown a document
in this connection, from which I could gather this.  How
else could I know it was 21 April 1942?

Q. So were you in Warsaw or not - on this date or close to
this date?

A. Yes - if the document says so, then I must have been in
Warsaw, but this document does not say so.

Q. Would you please tell me...

Presiding Judge: Just one moment, let us first complete
this.  From what you have said here, it is clear that you
stated this only after looking at the document.

Accused:    Yes - document No. 941 - this was shown to me.
I do not know...I am not sure...Your Honour, I have already
said that from this one cannot tell - from this document - I
have now read it over properly...whether this consultation
took place in Warsaw or in Berlin.  If it took place in
Warsaw, then naturally I must have participated in it.  But
if it took place in Berlin, then I cannot have been in

Presiding Judge: Yes, all right.

Attorney General: At the end of the document here, there is
something about death certificates for Jews.  What do you
have to do with issuing death certificates for the Jews of

Accused:    I cannot make this out - I do not know.

Q. But this is in here.

A. If it is in there, possibly it is somehow connected with
the Foreign Ministry's discussion about Jews of foreign
nationality.  Perhaps some special arrangement was made, I
do not know, as Generalgouvernement affairs were only
considered as being of importance to the Reich if they went
beyond the scope of the Generalgouvernement, in the case of
Jews of foreign nationality, and then it is possible that
here the Foreign Ministry...I am trying to reconstruct a result of interventions urged that certain
things be done.  Right now I do not know what were the
actual facts.

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.