Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-03-05 Last-Modified: 1999/06/15 The heads of the State and top echelons of the Reich took part in the Conference. The Head Office for Reich Security is referred to in the minutes. It was represented by three of those present: Heydrich, the chairman, Mueller and Eichmann. It was agreed that the entire Final Solution, unfettered by any geographical limitations, throughout the entire area under the control of the Reich, would be in the hands of the Head Office for Reich Security. A list was drawn up of countries where the problem of the Jews had to be solved definitively, including fifteen countries which at that time were already in German hands and sixteen countries over which Germany still needed to gain control in order to exterminate their Jews also, including England, Switzerland and so on. In all, the list covered eleven million Jews to whom the Final Solution was to be applied. As it said in the minutes, the subject was: Various types of possible solutions -- this is on the last page. As we know from Eichmann's testimony in Session 106, Vol. IV, p. 1810, the meaning of this reference to "various types of possible solutions" is that they discussed ways of killing Jews. On page 9 of the actual minutes it says that an authorized Referent will be appointed on behalf of Heydrich for these matters, and that he will hold discussions with representatives of the Foreign Ministry on matters concerning the Foreign Ministry. And when a representative of the Foreign Ministry raises problems - in the second paragraph on page 9 - the Foreign Ministry representative will discuss matters with the authorized Specialist Officer of the RSHA and the SD. Immediately after this Heydrich writes T/186 to the Foreign Ministry, and there he announces that the "zustaendiger Referent," i.e. the Section Head who is competent to deal with matters concerning the Solution, is Eichmann. Heydrich repeated this in another document that deals with the famous "Brown Folder," which contained the announcement of the destruction of East European Jewry (T/297). President: In conjunction with the guidelines. Attorney General: In connection with the guidelines and changes in instructions that Rosenberg wanted: He writes that the person responsible for dealing with them is SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, which was his rank at the time. My question: "Did Heydrich write the truth in the document?" And he admitted in Session 92, Vol. IV, on page 1621, that Heydrich had written the truth. When he was questioned on this subject during the police interrogation, when I showed him the minutes of the Wannsee Conference and asked him: Who is the authorized Specialist Officer who is referred to on page 9 of the minutes? - and here I am reading from T/37, page 856 - he admitted that the authorized Specialist Officer who is referred to on page 9 of the minutes of the Wannsee Conference as dealing with all these matters is Adolf Eichmann. I questioned him about this, whether there was anyone else who handled the complex of Jewish affairs. And after much determined prevarication when being questioned, trying to find accomplices in other Sections and Offices, finally he admits that his Section was the only one to deal as a centralizing body with all Jewish affairs. In Session 92, page 1622 - and this takes up a page and a half, with evasions and prevarications - finally he says: "If I ignore the unfilled post in Department VII, I have to agree that there was this arrangement in Department IV." I asked him: "Apart from you, there was no other?" And the reply: "I was the only Section Head in Department IV." And what were "Jewish affairs"? We know this full well. This was to exterminate them. They did not deal with education for the Jews; or welfare for the Jews, or cultural, economic or artistic matters. Department IV was the department for suppressing opponents, and as of the summer of 1941, suppressing the Jewish opponent meant his extermination. Eichmann also admitted in Session 93, Vol. IV, p. 1627, that all of the instructions, directives and decrees that were issued after the Wannsee Conference were part of the Final Solution. Justice Silberg: Reading from the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, I have a question: Is there a difference between Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des Sicherheitsdienstes (Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service) and Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des Sicherheitsdienstes? My question is: was there any duplication here, or is this the same thing? I am asking in order to understand several documents. Attorney General: This is the "BdS." Justice Silberg: Are they both "BdS"? Attorney General: I do not think so. I think that the Kommandeur is the district official, the local figure, while the Befehlshaber is the person appointed for the entire country. Because as Your Honour will see, the Kommandeur comes as a representative of the "BdS." Justice Silberg: This is a wider appointment, because this refers to the entire Baltic area and White Russia. Attorney General: This is an entire region. The internal division, if the Court is interested in it, can be seen in T/98. This is one of the Prosecution exhibits which we submitted to the Court in order to explain the structure of the SS and the structure of the Gestapo. Justice Silberg: Is that T/99? Attorney General: No. In T/99 there is the distribution of authority within the RSHA, the designation of the departments and their various tasks. Justice Silberg: I asked my question in order to identify the persons. Attorney General: I said that the various decrees that were issued, as he admitted, were part of the Final Solution. These decrees, as he admitted, concerned the expulsions, which you can find in Session 95, Vol. IV, p. 1650, and matters concerning Jewish property in Session 95, also on page 1650. He admitted in general terms that all of the instructions he issued after the Wannsee Conference were part of the Final Solution. This was in Session 93. After that I asked him about the contents of the decrees. He said that they concerned deportations and matters of property. President: Was that in Session 95, page 1650? Attorney General: Yes. Further down the page there is reference to matters of property. For example, here is a document typical of these instructions, which came out just eleven days after Wannsee, T/730. It is issued in Eichmann's handwriting, dated 31 January 1942, to all the Gestapo offices in the Old Reich, as well as to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Vienna, and for information of the Inspekteure der Sicherheitspolizei im Altreich und Inspekteure der Sipo, Wien. Subject: Deportation of Jews. He opens by saying: "Deportation of the Jews to the East is the beginning of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Old Reich." From now on, the problems will be that the "Aufnahmemoeglichkeiten im Osten und Transportschwierigkeiten beruecksichtigt werden konnten" (the possibilities for reception in the East and transport difficulties might have to be taken into account). These are now the problems confronting the Final Solution: Are there enough trains to transport the Jews? Are there enough places to accommodate them in the concentration camps? But he did not deal just with this. Justice Silberg: This was after the Wannsee Conference? Attorney General: Immediately after the Wannsee Conference. This is part of the Final Solution. He was also involved in locating and marking the Jews - this transport clerk! In Session 97, Vol. IV, on page 1681, it says: "Matters of marking - as proved by the documents - had to be dealt with by Section IVB4, and so the Commander of the Security Police had to pass on matters of marking to Section IVB4 - that is to say, to my Section." President: There is also an exhibit in which he secretly contacts the Foreign Ministry and informs them that he has already received authorization concerning marking with the Jewish Badge. Attorney General: When he wanted to know whether it was possible to introduce throughout the Reich the wearing of the Jewish Badge and whether this could also be required of foreign subjects, he contacted the Foreign Ministry. Justice Silberg: And who issued the decree concerning the wearing of the Jewish Badge in the occupied territories, which began as early as November 1939? Attorney General: The operational order is always issued locally. Justice Silberg: But this was done some two years earlier? Attorney General: It was done about two years earlier, and was certainly issued by Frank in Poland. We also submitted these exhibits. But this was a result of another operation, about which we have heard no appeal whatsoever here, and consequently I did not refer to this either. This was in the famous meeting with Heydrich on 21 September 1939, immediately after the partitioning of Poland between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, to which much reference is made in the Judgment, and Counsel for the Defence did not see fit to speak about this. Justice Agranat: In this meeting in September 1939, reference is made to the other deportations to the Generalgouvernement. Attorney General: Reference is made there to a long_term solution, which for the moment will remain completely secret, and to short-term stages: ghettoization, marking, establishing Councils of Elders and settling the Jews next to railway junctions, in order to make it possible to transport them. Elsewhere Eichmann admitted that, as far as he was concerned, the aim of the Jewish Badge was to facilitate rounding up Jews for deportation (Session 96, Vol. IV, p. 1672). He also admitted that every individual inquiry and instance of an individual Jew who asked for help, rescue, an exception or exemption, was a matter for his Section (Session 98, Vol. V, at the bottom of page 1702). Such matters came to his attention, hundreds and thousands of individual cases, he said (Session 93, Vol. IV, p. 1630). Expropriation of Jewish_owned dwellings was a matter for his Section (T/736). This is a document which deals with the dwellings of expelled Jews. President: But what is this exhibit? Is this someone's testimony? Attorney General: This is an instruction for implementation. President: An instruction for implementation to whom? Justice Silberg: It says there that there was to be no expropriation of the dwelling of the Jewish Countess Sacconi. Justice Sussman An instruction not to adopt any measures against the Countess, and not to confiscate her dwelling until further notice. Justice Agranat: As an example of the attention given to an individual case. Attorney General: Individual attention to the confiscation of a dwelling. He also intervened in the postal arrangements at the Westerbork transit camp (T/559). When I asked him, why was it your business what the postal arrangements were at Westerbork, he gave me a general reply - Session 95, Vol. IV, at the bottom of page 1651, and after that on page 1652: "It was Jews..." About the postal arrangements I asked him: "Why did your Section deal with it, why not Department VI?" Answer: "Because Jews were involved." President: It is not sufficient to tell us that there is T/559. I want to know what this is - an instruction or testimony? Attorney General: This is an instruction that goes from Eichmann's Section with his signature to the Police Commander in Holland and it concerns the passports provided to Jews who were in the Westerbork camp, for emigration purposes. Eichmann issues an instruction not to give the passports to their recipients, to destroy the passports, and if the Swiss Post Office which sent the passports to Holland expresses interest in what happened to the passports or what their fate was, to inform them that they were lost in an enemy action. Justice Silberg: In our list it says that in T/559 Eichmann contacts Neumann and forbids correspondence with the detainees in Westerbork because of the counterfeiting of passports. Attorney General: Inter alia he issues instructions that from now on, one postcard will be sent and no letters, and on the postcard there are to be only greetings. He issues instructions as to how the Jews in the transit camp are allowed to deal with correspondence. I asked him: What does this have to do with you? He gives a simple reply: It concerns me, it is a Jewish matter. Justice Sussman I did not find an instruction here to destroy the passports. I do not know whether this is important, but I did not find such an instruction here. Justice Agranat: He asked for each of the cases to be examined. Justice Sussman And to provide a report. Justice Agranat: It says that a special instruction will be given as to how to deal with this further. But in connection with the mail, he says that it must be collected every week by plane in order to check it. Attorney General: I remember, Your Honour, that there was an instruction for destroying the passports. Perhaps the instruction was in another document. My colleagues will help me find it. I shall inform the Court in the course of my argument. In Session 97, Vol. IV, on page 1681, I questioned him about documents T/511 and T/580, which concern a military escort that had to be provided for the transports. It appears that he was contacted, so that he and his Section would apply to the Supreme Command to instruct the Armed Forces to co_operate with the expulsion and transport operations. Justice Silberg: Did you say T/511 and T/580, Mr. Attorney General? Attorney General: Yes, I shall return to these two documents when I get to the chapter on France. In Session 93, Vol. IV, pp. 1634-1635, I questioned him on the destinations of the transport sites. I asked him: "Look at the instructions issued here with your signature. You issue instructions for a report on each transport to be sent to you, to the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, Cracow, and to Globocnik, and Globocnik is furthermore instructed to report back to you on every transport which arrived. Is that correct? "Answer Yes, that is what I ordered." In other words, the dispatcher had to inform Eichmann that the transport had left; Globocnik, the commander of the death camps in the Lublin area, was to inform Eichmann that the goods had arrived. On page 1635 of Session 93: "Question When in T/476 you instructed Roethke to send the transports to Cholm on 23 March 1943 and 25 March 1943, where were these transports to go, what were their destinations? "Answer It says here - to Cholm. "Q. That means to Sobibor, does it not? "A. As far as I know, Cholm is not the same place as Sobibor. "Q. That was the station from which you would dispatch transports according to Globocnik's instructions to Sobibor, to Treblinka and to Majdanek. Did you know that? "A. Yes, and also Cholm."
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor