The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-102-02

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-102-02
Last-Modified: 1999/06/14

Q. Who is the Head? Who is the Chief?

A. Of IIB2?

Q. Yes.

A. That was S. Lischka. And as to II/112 - that was no
longer called II/112, but it was called in Department VII...
Just a moment, please, I forget...VII and then there was a
letter and then a figure. That was in Department VII.

Presiding Judge: VIIB1, right?

Accused:    I do not have this here, Your Honour, but it is
on some organization chart.

Presiding Judge: Yes, you do. Two pages previously, just
look this up.

Accused:    Yes: VIIB1 - it says here "Freemasons and
Jewry." At the time it was unoccupied.

Attorney General: And now IVD3, the new one, inherited IIB4
from the Gestapo, did it not? IVB3 took over the duties of
IIB4 from the Gestapo, dealing with the fight against Jewry.

Accused IVB3 took over IIB2's affairs, I believe.

Q. But just a moment ago you said that IIB2 took over the
duties of II/112.

A. II/112 was taken over by IIB2, and the next organization
chart...I do not in fact think that this is at all correct,
since that is not possible in chronological terms, as this
is 1 March 1941, on 1 March it was IIB2. Lischka was then
the Section Head, as the documents show, and then after this
1 March 1941 organization chart, a new one was issued, and
the designation changed: "Churches and Freemasons" changed
from IIB1 to IVB3, and "Jewry" IIB2 changed to IVB4.

Q. Right. And on 1 October 1943 the duties of IVB4 were
expanded, and the former Jewish matters covered evacuation
matters, confiscation of property and forfeiture of
property, and also deprivation of citizenship. Right?

A. Yes, after Regulation 11, these matters were transferred
from Department II to Department IV.

Q. All right, that will suffice.

A. Transferred from Department II to Department IV.

Q. And according to T/55(14), when the Head Office for Reich
Security was organized on 1 April 1944, you were in charge
of two Sections: "Churches" IVA4, and IVA4b, "Jews," jointly
organized as Group IVA4, right?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. You remember the matter of sterilization, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. How many meetings took place on this matter?

A. There are minutes of two meetings, and I have also read
that there is supposed to have been a third meeting after
the second one. I do not remember it.

Q. You do not remember this, then? You no longer have any
recollection of this?

A. I do not remember any other.

Q. You made a presentation at one of these meetings?

A. No, that was not my assignment, we had...

Q. "No" will suffice.

I would like to tell you that in two statements, which are
not today before the Court, but I would like you to confirm
or deny this, Pohl and Bilfinger say that you chaired the

A. I was never in the chair. I was not even present at the
first meeting. Bilfinger must have been in the chair there.
Not someone from IVB4, because according to the minutes, the
list of those present, no one from IVB4 attended.

Q. We have already heard all this, that on 3 March 1942
there was another meeting in the building, and that you were
in fact present at it. I do not wish to go into this matter
now. I am asking you whether it is correct that at the
beginning of the meeting you were present, and that you kept
coming in from time to time? Is that correct or not?

A. No, then I would in any case have been included in the
attendance list, particularly since I did not dictate it,
but someone else dictated the minutes.

Q. But in the minutes of the second meeting you do appear,
and these minutes were kept by IVB4. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And not only you appear here for IVB4, but also Guenther,
Suhr and Hunsche.

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. So why was it necessary for four gentlemen from Section
IVB4 to be at this meeting?

A. That would not have been necessary, but the meeting was
in fact held in the office building, and when meetings took
place, I can imagine that everyone took advantage of the
opportunity to have a break from their normal, dry paper
work and join in here, where there were various
representatives from other bodies with whom various things
could be discussed. Four would certainly not have been
necessary, since IVB4 had nothing to do with this in
material terms, although it did in administrative terms.

Q. So why then was this meeting held in your offices, and at
your invitation?

A. Well, Heydrich's order about this had been given. The
documents are in fact available.

Q. Are you telling us that the only place on which Heydrich
could decide that such meetings be held was precisely in
your Section? In all the Departments or Sections which took
part in the meeting was there no other place, no room for
holding such a meeting?

A. For Department IV of the Head Office for Reich Security,
Bilfinger was in overall charge of handling this matter. It
would, therefore, have been logical to transfer the whole
matter to Department II, but Department II had no
accommodation available, it was very crowded in
Albrechtstrasse, and so I was...not only in this instance,
but in many instances Kurfuerstenstrasse was used
as a building to which this and that could be shifted, not
only official business, but also non-official matters. The
documents do in fact show that neither I nor any of my staff
said a single word about the subject matter.

Q. Heydrich personally informed Luther that the meeting on 3
March was organized and convened by you. Are you therefore
arguing that the whole point of this letter was to notify
Luther that only IVB4 had a room available which could
accommodate ten to twelve people? Is that what you are
trying to say?

A. I am not trying to say anything, because I cannot say
anything about that. The documents speak for themselves, as
the Wannsee Conference...

Q. No, would you please tell us how you can explain this -
why Heydrich should write to Luther: "My Section Head has
organized a meeting," all of this simply because you have a
couple of rooms, while there are no rooms in Department II?
Is that what you are arguing?

A. If I hypothesize about something today, this is something
I can do if I am being interrogated, but if I am making a
statement on oath here, there is no point in my
hypothesizing. I would simply like to refer to the files and
to what is in there, and what can be seen from that. This
must be valid in this instance, because there are letters
and seals, signed, and these are normal letters. And then
there are also the minutes.

Q. Very well, that will do, I accept that. That is your
explanation. Before we now proceed to the next chapter, I
should like briefly to touch upon your links with the
Operations Units. In your police interrogation you admitted
that T/310, document No. 788, was drafted in your Section
and then passed on to Kaltenbrunner for signature. Is that

A. It was not drafted in IVB4. It is the outcome of the
consultations between the officials-in-charge of the Foreign
Ministry and Section IVB4, together with the other Sections
in the Head Office for Reich Security, and in accordance
with the instructions of the superiors - both Luther and
also IVB4 - and this ordinance was then issued. Yes, that is

Q. But you said that it was drawn up - that it was drafted -
on page 1342, and you said that it was most probably
Guenther or Suhr who drafted it.

A. In the meanwhile I have had the opportunity to study the
matter on the basis of the documents.
Presiding Judge: Which page is this?

Attorney General: 1342.

Presiding Judge: No, no. Is that right? You must give
shorter answers. This way we cannot make any progress. Let
us just look at this - briefly say what you have to say.

Attorney General: Shall I show him the passage?

Presiding Judge: Certainly.

Attorney General: Here is the passage, on page 1342.

Presiding Judge: Have you read this? Page 1342; have  you
read it?

Accused:    Page 1342? Oh, I was reading 1345.

Attorney General: But it is underlined. Why are you reading
a different passage - it is underlined.

Accused:    Today, I can elucidate this matter more exactly
and precisely than I did at the time, when I did not have
available to me the many documents which belong to this

Q. So would you then explain which documents might have
altered your opinion about the drawing up or drafting of
this instruction.

A. Does the Attorney General mean the corresponding draft?

Q. Which document could today change your opinion about the
drafting of this instruction, compared with what you said to
the police a few months ago?

A. Yes - all the relevant documents with the heading
"Treatment of Jews with Foreign Nationality" and which were
dealt with before 5 March 1943. There are not very many of
these - there would be around - I would estimate ten to
twelve documents, and from this it can be seen quite clearly
and undoubtedly how this matter came about. Unfortunately, I
do not have the numbers of the documents here, but I could
give them at a later stage, as I have them all together.

Q. Very well. I would, therefore, ask you to indicate these
numbers and show them to me. But now you will, in any case,
admit that this instruction, in which IVB4 also took part,
was also sent to the Operations Units? Is that correct?

A. To every single body there was.

Q. And the same is also true for T/271 as shown there on
page 5 - also an order from you from IVB4?

A. Yes, this is one of the precursors of this document, No.

Q. All right, but it is also addressed to the Commanders of
the Operations Units, is it not?

A. It is a draft, I would put it this way, for these

Q. Now, you were present at a large meeting in a cinema when
orders were issued to the Commanders of the Operations
Units, where you not?

A. No - there were no orders issued there - the names of the
leaders of the Operations Commandos were called out.

Q. And, I believe, their assignments or duties were also

A. There was no mention of assignments and duties. The Heads
of the Operations Units had already been notified of those
earlier. But I only ascertained that later. I did, I
believe, say in my statement that the leaders of the
Operations Commandos were appointed, and today I can still
remember this...

Q. Was Ohlendorf there?

A. I do not remember today, but it is unthinkable for the
Operations Units Chiefs not to have been present.

Q. Who presided over this meeting?

A. As far as I know and can remember - Streckenbach. But I
cannot say for certain. It is also possible that Heydrich
discussed this and read out the names, but I believe it was
probably Streckenbach.

Q. How many persons were present?

A. Almost all of the Section Heads of the Head Office for
Reich Security were present, and the Department Chiefs. And
perhaps there were also other officials-in-charge, but I do
not know. In any case, the cinema auditorium was full. I sat
in the back, in the last row, or last row but one. That I
still remember.

Q. That was before the outbreak of the Russo-German war, was
it not?

A. That must have been just before then.

Q. And there was reference there as to what were to be the
organizational preparations for the activities of the
Operations Units, right?

A. No. As far as I know announcements were made there as to
who were the leaders of the Operations Commandos, not
leaders of the Operations Units, but leaders of the
Operations Commandos. And the reason why I know this is...

Presiding Judge: You were asked whether there was any
reference there to the duties of the Operations Units or
Operations Commandos. It does not matter whether they were
Operations Units or Operations Commandos, it is the same
thing. Was there any reference made there to that or not?

Accused:    No, there was no such reference. And I can prove
why I know that there was no such reference to that...

Presiding Judge: We do not want any proof. That means that
all these men had been gathered together in the cinema
simply to be notified as to who was being appointed Chief of
an Operation Commando? Right?

Accused:    That is how I found out about this, because I
myself wanted to be an Operation Commando leader.

Presiding Judge: Yes, that we know.

Attorney General: Really, you made efforts in that

Accused Efforts did not help. One had to wait and see if
one's name was called out, and because I imagined that a
leader of an Operation Commando on the Eastern Front meant a
military assignment, I was all enthusiastic. And then I was
disappointed not to have been called up - I still remember
that vividly.

Q. At this meeting, was there talk of the organizational
preparations which had already been made for using the
Operations Units?

A. I do not know what was discussed there, but in any case
there was no talk of duties, otherwise I would have known of

Q. I am referring to the organizational preparations for
using the Units.

A. As to organization, I do not know what was talked about,
and whether in fact anything was talked about. What I do
know I have already said.

Q. At the police interrogation you remembered somewhat more,
did you not? Look at your Statement. You said that there was
also some reference there to organizational matters. Look at
page 249.

Presiding Judge: Where is that, please, Mr. Hausner? Oh, I
see, at the top.

Accused:    Although I did not read about organizational
matters, what I have said here is in fact more or less
accurate, and I have in fact also said this now.

Attorney General: Very well, I am reading what it says here.
And if you are saying that it is true, then say as much.

Accused:    I do not read anything about organizational

Presiding Judge: The second paragraph from the top - please
look at this. Page 249.

Accused:    Yes, that is correct, this refers to the
organizational work prepared long beforehand. It refers to
the - how shall I put it - to the functional setting up of
the commandos. This is also the only...this was the
mainspring and the driving force, not only for me but for
many - we wanted to get out and go to the front. And I have
already said I was disappointed that I did not become a
leader of an Operation Commando. So what I have said is
correct, because I really can still remember this very
vividly. This is one of the few things which I still

Attorney General: And to this day you regret not having been
appointed Commander of one of these Operations Units?

Accused:    No - when at the time I heard that these were
not commandos against the enemy, which go to the front, then
I was utterly relieved to be back in Berlin again.

Q. We have already discussed the reports from the Operations
Units. I do not wish to take up too much of the Court's
time. From 20 June 1941 you received reports about the
actions of the Operations Units?

A. Yes, I received a considerable number of such reports.

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.