The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-087-04

Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-087-04
Last-Modified: 1999/06/10

Presiding Judge: But the question is, why did you not
include something about this point right from the beginning
in your questionnaire, if this question is important.

Dr. Servatius:  Lack of time, Your Honour - it is impossible
to envisage in advance every development in an encounter.
Only now, going over it, does it become obvious that there
are still a few important passages - I would simply refer to
the last sentence in the record.  The judge at the Court of
First Instance, Bad Aussee, a Senior Judge of District
Court, writes at the end: "...As shown in the Record, I am
expecting a supplementary request for legal assistance, and
have therefore retained copies."  In other words, he himself
realizes that his procedure is defective.

The last sentence reads: "In any case I shall not consider
my task to be complete until I am notified by whatever
channel that the Jerusalem District Court no longer requires
my legal assistance."  I request that the Court use its
powers and  admit the document as evidence.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, in any case that is not
possible, unless there is a special application and a
further examination of Hoettl as a witness abroad.  That is
our opinion.  Do you have such an application?  If so, we
shall deal with it.

Dr. Servatius:  I shall not apply for an additional hearing
because of these minor questions, but I do think that the
simplest way would be to accept the document.

Presiding Judge: I have already intimated that, in our
opinion, it cannot be done in this way.

Dr. Servatius:  In that case, I hereby apply for permission
to carry out an additional hearing of the witness Hoettl, on
certain questions of which I shall notify the Court.

Judge Raveh:   On what topics are you applying for Hoettl to
be further examined?

Dr. Servatius:  I received the document only this morning,
and I have not yet had the time to read it carefully, in
order to see what he might already have said about this
point.  The matters at issue concern the official
relationships, under whose control were the concentration
camps, as he puts it.  It is possible that in his statement,
in the seventy pages, he has already said something about
this - this has to be checked, and so I am not yet able to
state my position - I might later be able to indicate
whether it is necessary.

Presiding Judge: Do you mean whether there is any need for a
supplementary examination?

Dr. Servatius:  I should only make an application if the
statements he has made clash with what he said before.

Presiding Judge: We will therefore postpone our decision on
this point until tomorrow.  This will enable you to consider
again whether you wish to examine Hoettl for a second time.

Dr. Servatius:  I thank the Court.

The next document has not yet been submitted; it is a
statement, a declaration by Karl Sommer, dated 22 January
1947, made in a Nuremberg trial and taken by the Civil
Evidence Division.

Presiding Judge: What do you know about Sommer?

Dr. Servatius:  He received a heavy sentence; I do not know
what happened to him.  He was sentenced to death.

Attorney General: As far as we know, he was sentenced to
death, but the sentence was not carried out - it was
commuted to twenty years' imprisonment on 31 January 1951.
If he has not yet been granted a pardon - if he is still
alive - he should still be in prison somewhere.

Presiding Judge: And what is your attitude to the submission
of this statement or testimony?

Attorney General: We refrained from submitting this.  I
regret that Counsel for the Defence did not inform us
earlier, and did not inform the Court by the time set by the
Court for both sides to inform it which statements they
wished to submit.  However, I do not want to be over-
difficult and shall therefore agree to the document being

Presiding Judge: Is this a testimony?

Attorney General: It is a sworn affidavit.

Presiding Judge

Decision No. 92

We allow the submission of Sommer's affidavit as evidence.
The Attorney General has no objections.

I mark this N/98.

Dr. Servatius:  This is a statement by Karl Sommer.  He was
an Obersturmfuehrer who worked in the Economic-
Administrative Head Office.  He belonged to Section D 2 and
had the rank of Section Head.  On the third page from the
end it says, at the bottom:

     "It was the task of the Department" - it is very
     difficult to make it out - Department I, it must be,
     but it could also be II - "and therefore [the task] of
     Hoess, to indicate to the Gestapo which camps were
     still able to absorb detainees.  It says that it was
     Hoess' responsibility to indicate those camps to which
     large numbers of detainees could be transferred, where
     there was still room.  Hoess made a certain arrangement
     and decided where the people should be delivered to.  I
     remember that Hoess also came to see us and asked me
     personally in which camp there was still room, as
     transports were arriving from France."
On the last page, the last paragraph, it reads:

     "In the spring or summer of 1943, when the Jews were
     deported from Berlin, an order arrived that all Jewish
     prisoners in the concentration camps were to be
     evacuated to Auschwitz, as the territory of the Reich
     was to be cleared of Jews.  Maurer had to give this
     order for the evacuation of Jewish prisoners.  Maurer
     passed the order on to Gluecks and demanded new people
     to replace those who had to be sent to Auschwitz on the
     orders of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler."

Maurer's identity can be established from the first page.
This reads: "The Section Chief of Section D 2 was
Standartenfuehrer Maurer, from the Economic-Administrative
Head Office.

Presiding Judge: We shall now recess for twenty minutes.


Dr. Servatius:  I come now to exhibit T/216, document No.
843.  This is an affidavit by Blobel, dated 6 June 1947.  I
refer to page 2.  This reads:

     "In January 1942, I was replaced as head of Special
     Commando IV A and was transferred to Berlin for
     disciplinary reasons.  For a while I remained there
     without employment.  I was under the supervision of
     Department IV, under the former Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
     In the autumn of 1942 I was assigned the task of
     travelling to the Eastern Occupied Territories as
     Mueller's representative, and covering up the traces of
     the mass graves which resulted from the executions by
     the Special Operations Units. I retained this
     assignment until the summer of 1944."

Witness, at this time, did you know Paul Blobel, and did you
have official consultations with him, or any other official
dealings, at that time?

Accused:    I did know the former Standartenfuehrer Blobel.
I had no official dealings with him, as neither he, nor any
members of his operations unit, were subordinate to me.
Neither did I - nor was I in a position to be able to - give
him or any member of his operations unit any specific

"Blobel also makes the point explicitly here that he was
directly subordinate to Mueller.  That means that he had his
assignment directly from Mueller.  However, the home address
of this operations unit was Kurfuerstenstrasse - I think it
was 118, or whatever, but in any case next door to
Kurfuerstenstrasse 116.  That is where the operations unit
was housed for supply purposes. That means that in this
building, where I believe the second and third floors were
inhabited by...they were used for accommodation of the
personnel, not only of Section IVB4, but also of other
personnel of the Head Office for Reich Security, when they
were seconded or transferred to Berlin, in any case on their
own, without their families - so there were also a few rooms
in which Blobel and his personnel lived when they were in
Berlin, which happened very rarely, however.  That is the
only...the only connection I had with this operations unit."

Dr. Servatius:  Then, on page 4, under point 7, it says:
"Special Operations Unit IV A shot women and children as
well.  In September or October 1941, I received from Special
Operations Unit C under Dr. Otto Rasch, a gas truck, and
execution was carried out by using the gas truck."

Did you have anything to do with the supply of a gas truck
in this case, via Special Operations Unit C, and with the
execution carried out here using a gas truck?

Accused:    I had nothing at all to do with the whole gas
truck affair.  However, the documents presented here
indicate which division in Department II dealt with this

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/218, document No.
1549.  This is a report by Hoess on a journey he made on 16
September 1942.  In addition to Hoess, participants included
an Untersturmfuehrer Roessler and an Untersturmfuehrer Dajo,
or something like it.  The report reads: "Arrival at
Litzmannstadt (Lodz) at 9 a.m."  There was then a tour of
the ghetto, followed by a visit to the special installation.
Tour of the special installation and discussion with SS
Standartenfuehrer Blobel about setting up such an

     "The construction material ordered specially by
     Sturmbannfuehrer Blobel from the Ostdeutsche
     Baustoffwerke Company of Posen, Wilhelm
     Gustloffstrasse, is to be delivered immediately for the
     Auschwitz concentration camp.  The order is shown in
     the enclosed document, and the materials in question
     are to be ordered and redirected, in agreement with
     Obersturmfuehrer Weber of Office C V/3 of our Central
     Building Management Office.  The relevant number of
     copies of consignment notes are to be sent to the above-
     mentioned firm.  With reference to the discussion of SS
     Sturmfuehrer Blobel with the firm of (illegible) & Co.,
     Hannover, Buergermeister Link-Strasse, delivery should
     be made of the ball mill (that is what it looks like)
     already reserved there for grinding substances for the
     Auschwitz concentration camp."

Witness, I shall be asking you questions later about your
own visits to the various camps.  For the moment I would
like an answer to the following question: Did you have
anything to do with this visit?  With the preparations, or
the supply of the ball mill?  Would you give your reaction,

Accused:    I was not present during this visit, nor did I
have anything to do with the supply of a ball mill, nor with
the supply of any other materials and components for these

Dr. Servatius:  I come now to exhibit T/1309, document No.
185.  This is the Dr. Gerstein affair.  There are various
documents, some in German, some in English, some in French.
The first one, in English, is an initial assessment by the
Americans and is dated 5 May 1943, which must be a typing
error, as it has to be 1945.  There is then a more detailed
summary on the same subject, dated 14 February - no, it does
not have a date of its own.  It is an annex to the first
document.  However, I would here draw attention to the third
paragraph, where it says, "because of his medical training,
he was ordered to the SS Main Administrative Office, Section

Then, in the second paragraph, there is a detailed
description of his visits to the Lublin camp, "where he was
shown around by SS Major General Globocnik, a man who
received his orders from Hitler and Himmler directly."

Then, on page 5, which is also marked page 18, there are
some bills in a condensed form, and these show that Gerstein
carried these bills around with him as evidence of the first
meeting; on the page marked 19, at the bottom, it is not
quite clear how the dates fit together.  It reads, "More
deliveries - " then it says, from March 1944 to April 1945,
but the other dates at the top are May 1944 and 18 May 1944
- this is not entirely clear, but the actual bills are also
given later.

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.