The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-080-03

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-080-03
Last-Modified: 1999/06/08

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/374, document No.
1412. on page 2, point 4, it shows that the Polish workers
are to replace those Jews who were still being used for
labour during the War. And that is where there is a
reference to the whereabouts of the children - it is
mentioned in point 2.

Were you involved in this matter of the children?

Accused:    Indirectly, yes, for the following reason. In
the letter to Himmler, signed by Mueller, Department IV, in
the document - in the document which has just been dealt
with - the reference is "Instruction 3 October 1942 in
Cracow," in other words, Himmler issued the relevant
instructions in Cracow. Now Himmler set the age limit for
children who were to be evacuated at ten. In the telegram
dealt with previously, Guenther indicates that this matter
involves problems, insofar as children of ten who cannot
work, but who are to be deported under an order from
Himmler, are to be accommodated in children's camps, and
these camps must first be set up. Section IVB4 was not
concerned either with the children's camps or with the
question of principle, but it would have meant the transport
figures would have changed, and the figures of those to be
transported had to be provided to the Reich Transport
Ministry, so IVB4 proposed that the age limit be changed
from ten and that it be at least fourteen. The Chief of
Department IV agreed to that, because that avoided these
children being separated from their families, and that in
turn avoided giving extra impetus to the Polish resistance
movement by this matter, as is shown in the communication.

Dr. Servatius:  That will do.

Accused:    But my explanations are incomplete if I do not
deal also with the interpretations, that is to say, the way
in which the various criteria were formed.

Presiding Judge: I shall tell you once more - probably you
did not understand what I told you two days ago. We are not
interested here in general explanations about every exhibit.
A great deal of explanation can be given. The purpose - the
only purpose - of these proceedings is to obtain answers to
questions which you are asked. You are not being asked to
give general lectures on the exhibits. Will you please bear
this in mind in future when answering questions.

Dr. Servatius:  The evaluation of the evacuees by the
Migration Office has absolutely no bearing here.

I now come to several exhibits which concern the taking
possession of the Rothschild Foundation's Nordrach
Sanatorium in Baden - exhibit T/745, document No. 1569, then
an exhibit which has not yet been submitted, number 1570,
which I submit, and another exhibit T/746, document No. 915.
This shows that other Departments were alert to measures
against the Jews.

Presiding Judge: Exhibit 1570 will be marked N/27.

Dr. Servatius:  The first document, exhibit T/745, is a
communication from the Director of the Lebensborn (Source of
Life) society to Eichmann dated 30 September 1942. The
beginning of the letter reads: "The Higher SS and Police
Leader South West SS Gruppenfuehrer Kaul has drawn the
attention of Lebensborn to the Sanatorium of the Rothschild
Foundation in Nordrach in Baden, and in accordance with the
wishes of the Reichsfuehrer-SS would wish for this institute
to be opened as a Lebensborn home for this district."  It
continues: "The owners are the Reich Association of Jews."
The writer assumes that Eichmann can dispose of the property
without any problem.

The second document which has been submitted, is a letter of
thanks from Lebensborn to the Higher SS Leader, Kaul, for
his support and for establishing the connection with

The next exhibit in this group is a letter from
Gruppenfuehrer Kaul to the Director of Lebensborn, and this
makes it clear that this SS Gruppenfuehrer provided not only
theoretical, but also practical assistance - he had the
sanatorium occupied by an advance party, in order to steal a
march on the District Leader.

Witness, did you take any steps in this matter after you
were approached?

Accused:    It was not necessary for me to take any steps,
since faits accomplis had been created. It is quite possible
that formalities had to be attended to subsequently in this

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/754.

Presiding Judge: Does this still have something to do with
the Lebensborn affair?

Dr. Servatius:  Certainy: there were three exhibits.

Judge Halevi:  Is the Lebensborn matter concluded now, or
are you going to ask something further about Lebensborn? I
should like to ask a question.

Dr. Servatius:  I am proceeding to a new section.

Judge Halevi:  In that case I should like to ask: With
regard to the formalities which you said had to be attended
to, one of these three documents indicates that there had to
be a transfer of property and of ownership from the Reich
Association of the Jews to Lebensborn, and that as the
official in charge of the Reich Association, you were asked
to make the arrangements. Were these the "formalities" you
were referring to when you said that they had to be attended

Accused:    Today, I forget what type of formalities were
involved then. The Chief of the Security Police was in fact
the overall authority in charge of the Reich Association of
Jews in Germany. Normally it was up to me to carry out the
requisite formalities on the basis of the instructions from
my chief in the Land Registration Office. I do not know
which were the authorities in charge - but at that time the
Reichsleistungsgesetz (Law for Contributions to the Reich)
came into force, which allowed other authorities to carry
out confiscations, and so today, I cannot say what actually
was the procedure at that time.

Judge Halevi:  Please turn to exhibit T/745, the last
paragraph. This reads:"The owner of the property is the
Association of Jews in Germany. On behalf of the Director of
the Lebensborn, SS Standartenfuehrer Sollmann, I would ask
for the Reich Association of Jews in Germany to be given
instructions for transferring the sanatorium to the
Lebensborn Registered Society. If you, Obersturmbannfuehrer,
are not competent for such matters, I would ask you to pass
on my request."

This was the request to you. Did you see yourself as
empowered to deal with it, and did you issue instructions
for the transfer?

Accused:    I had to obtain instructions from my chief. I
could not issue instructions on my own initiative.

Judge Halevi:  Thank you.

Dr. Servatius:  I now come to exhibit T/754, document No.

Presiding Judge: What is the subject now, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius:  In this document?

Presiding Judge: No - which section are we now coming to?
What is the heading of the section we have reached?

Dr. Servatius:  There are now some specific matters related
to the Gestapo and Police authorities. There is a memo from
the Duesseldorf Secret Police Headquarters, dated October
1942, with notification of the facts to IVB4 at the bottom
of page 2. The Duesseldorf Gestapo is asking for a ruling as
to whether the children in question have to wear the Jewish
Star, and then proposes, on the basis of a subtle
explanation, that the application for exemption of these
children from the obligation to wear the Jewish Star be
rejected, since the documents might be forged. They are
children of a mixed marriage and the father, a man called
Heimann, has an order for protective custody issued against
him, signed by Mueller, dated apparently 5 January, but it
should be 5 November 1943 - the date varies. It is issued by
Section IVC2.
Witness, would you comment, please, on what you had to do
with the order for protective custody issued here.

Accused:    My Section had nothing at all to do with the
order for protective custody - otherwise the reference IVB4
would appear somewhere on the order for protective custody.

Dr. Servatius:  How did it come about that the matter was
dealt with by Department IV? Why was it signed by Mueller?

Accused:    Because the whole matter started out originally
from IVB4. This is clear from the communication from the
State Police Headquarters to the Head Office for Reich
Security, Section IVB4. Reference is made to decrees by
Section IVB4. Thus complaints must have been submitted.
Those complaints were referred by the Section to the
competent State Police Headquarters for investigation, and
then the results of the police investigations came back, and
clearly Mueller himself dealt with the conclusions and sent
them on directly to IVC2, because otherwise, as I have
already said, the reference IVB4 would have appeared

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/254, document No.
1246. This is a communication, dated 25 December 1942, on
actions against Jews in Cracow, who had been found in a
hiding place. Mueller informs Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, a
member of Himmler's personal staff, of the actions' success.
Witness, did such communications as this one from Cracow
cross your desk, and were you able to take any measures in
such cases?

Accused:    They did not cross my desk, these
communications, and I was not able to take any measures

Dr. Servatius:  I come now to exhibit T/292, document No.
192. This deals with large-scale deportations of Jews on the
basis of instructions from Himmler. The document in question
is an urgent telegram from Mueller to Himmler, dated 16
December 1942. The total is made up as follows: 30,000 from
Bialystok, 10,000 from the Theresienstadt Ghetto, 3,000 from
Holland and 2,000 from Berlin - total, 45,000. At the end of
the communication it says that only 15,000 of the total, at
the utmost, will be able to work, so that 30,000 will be
unfit for labour. Mueller then adds that of the 10,000 to be
evacuated from Theresienstadt, only 5,000 will be able to
work.  He also says that such evacuations could be carried
out in order to build up the Theresienstadt Ghetto, which
with 48,000 people is already overcrowded.

What did you have to do with this affair?

Accused:    I had to make arrangements for the transports.
Mueller himself had to get the necessary authorization from
Himmler. I myself was not able to make any proposal, but had
to follow orders.
Dr. Servatius:  How could Mueller make proposals unless he
received the documents from you?

Accused:    The first sentence of the telegram, "In respect
of the increased transport of labour to concentration camps
ordered by 30 January 1943," means that in accordance with
this order from Himmler I received instructions from the
Chief of Department, with regard to the figures of Jews
capable of being evacuated, to contact the various State
Police Headquarters of Commanders of the Security Police in
order to obtain these figures. This is how I obtained the
data from the various sectors, and then Mueller himself set
the whole operation up.

Dr. Servatius:  At the end it says: "Im Interesse des
Ausbaus des Ghettos" (In the interest of building up the
ghetto). I assume that this is a typing error: logically it
must be Abbau, or reducing the numbers.

Judge Halevi:  I have another question, Dr. Servatius, with
reference to the Theresienstadt Ghetto. The document refers
to the evacuation of 5,000 Jews from Theresienstadt - 5,000
old people, over 60 years old, who are no longer capable of
working, in order to reduce the number of ghetto
inhabitants, which has become too high. This required
special authorization, as old people over the age of 60 were
actually allowed to remain in Theresienstadt. Whose idea or
proposal was this?

Accused:    The driving force behind this matter was the
Stae Secretary for Security in the Protectorate of Bohemia
and Moravia, K. H. Frank. Not only in this instance - in
other cases as well. This Higher SS and Police Leader
instructed his Commander in Prague, who was directly in
charge of Theresienstadt, to ensure that the numbers in
Theresienstadt were reduced. When, in accordance with
orders, such a circular was from time to time sent to all
points from where evacuations were to be arranged, these
agencies complied with these instructions which they in turn
received from their local superiors, and they would report
to Berlin and make the necessary applications.

With regard to dealing with Theresienstadt, another
communique which was issued shows very clearly, Your Honour,
which says how reporting...which shows, that such a report
was received from the Protectorate. However, in this case
neither the Department Chief nor the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service could take a decision, as
Himmler had to be approached directly. Orders to this effect
were given by Mueller and he himself acted accordingly.

Judge Halevi:  Thank you.

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/765, document No.
1282. These are directives for the technical implementation
of evacuation of Jews to the East, to Concentration Camp
Auschwitz, dated 20 February 1943. The directives are from
IVB4, and they are new directives, signed by Guenther. As
far as I can see, there are no essential changes compared
with the earlier provisions, and reference is made to
matters related to property law. But regulation of this
subject is reserved under item VIII. Page 2 contains the
most important directive, that is to say the definition of
the categories of persons to be evacuated. The basis is
paragraph 5 of the First Regulation Persuant to the Reich
Citizenship Law, and then several exceptions are listed.

Witness, under these directives you are notified of the
departure and arrival of evacuee transports. On the basis of
such notifications did you get an overall picture which
might have given you more accurate figures of how many
persons were evacuated?

Accused:    I did receive orders to give a precise report to
my superior on a particular day every calendar month as to
the number of evacuees. However, today, I am unable to say
what the overall figure might have been.

Dr. Servatius:  I shall return to the question in
conjunction with the report of the statistician Korherr. But
first I would like to turn to exhibit T/1135, document No.
186. This concerns the Accused's taking part in the possible
grant of an exit permit. This is a published extract from
the diary of Jochen Klepper, the poet. Jochen Klepper had a
Jewish wife, and as a result of persecution he committed
suicide on 10 December 1942. The entries in the diary show
that Eichmann spoke to the poet, Klepper, on the day before
the latter's death, that is on 9 December 1942, after a
preliminary consultation. At the end he said to him that he
thought that things would work out. This is in column 3 of
the report.

Witness, do you remember this meeting?

Accused:    I do. I have some recollection of the meeting. I
myself was unable to take any initiative. I will have given
him an intermediate reply. The words I use show this. I
could take no initiative in this matter because there was a
general ban by Himmler, and only my superiors could relax or
annul the ban in individual cases. The document also shows
that the driving force in this case was the man's fear that
as compulsory divorce was concerned, separation might be
possible. What is interesting is that his own State
Secretary  insisted on compulsory divorce at the Wannsee
Conference with great intensity.

Dr. Servatius:  I should like to add that according to this
text, Frick said that the main thing is compulsory divorce,
so that after the divorce the Jewish party would immediately
be deported. This was the consequence of the legal measure.

Presiding Judge: I should like to ask the Accused if he
actually remembers submitting this case to Mueller.

Accused:    I cannot remember this actual case and
submitting it to Mueller, since after all these years I
cannot reconstruct my actions. But given the fact that Reich
Minister Frick was involved in this case, it is totally
unthinkable for me to have dealt with such a case on my own

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.