The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 85
(Part 3 of 7)

"As for the words I used in testifying about Eichmann's statement that he was wanted as a war criminal, I should like to add the following explanation: It was said that at that time the BBC was already reporting who on the German side was considered by the Allies as a war criminal; a list of these persons was being drawn up and constantly updated, for use in later criminal proceedings against such war criminals. Dr. Kaltenbrunner had also once made the same sort of comment, i.e., that he was considered as a war criminal by the Allies. I do not know where Eichmann found out that he was on such a list of top war criminals."
Page 62:
"This conversation, including the first part where I informed Eichmann about the situation at the front, went on probably, as far as I remember, for more than an hour, during which Eichmann drank at least four or five large brandies, if not more. The reason why I remember this fact so precisely is that, when I said goodbye to Eichmann, I asked him expressly not to drive his car himself. However, he did not give the impression of being drunk. In fact, I believe that at this time Eichmann was drinking a great deal all the time; in any case, there was quite open talk about that in German police circles in Budapest.

"I cannot give any details as to where Eichmann was going on his journey, or what his assignment was; I can only repeat that he said to me that he was leaving for Romania, which seemed to be confirmed by the fact that he was in battledress. I cannot state exactly when Eichmann's visit took place - at least not to the day.

"Despite the fact that when we were having this conversation Eichmann was in a very bad psychical state and drank a fair amount of alcohol in a short time, I did not have the impression that the figures Eichmann gave me were the result of something he had suddenly invented, but that he himself was, subjectively speaking, convinced that the figures were correct.

"In reply to a question as to whether in this context I heard Eichmann use the term 'six million murdered Jews,' I should like to state that this term 'murdered' was one which I used, while, as far as I remember, Eichmann used an expression such as 'exterminated' or 'liquidated' Jews.

"I have no way of knowing how Eichmann arrived at these figures of Jews murdered, and he also gave me no indications whatsoever about this.

"Then, on Question 26: These are the concluding sentences of a television interview which, as far as I remember, I gave in March of this year to the North German Radio. I therefore answer in the affirmative."

"On 27 and 28: I answer both questions in the affirmative."

Attorney General: Perhaps I might request, in order to clarify things, that the questions be read out?

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could quickly read them out?

Attorney General: [Reads ]: "Did you recently say the following about Eichmann: `I met him' (Adolf Eichmann) `again in Budapest in 1944. He was that Eichmann who sent hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews to the extermination camps, following orders without scruples, just as he had done previously in Vienna in 1938-1939. I think the best way of describing Eichmann's role would be to call him the Big Forwarding Agent of Death'?"

Judge Halevi: And what was his reply?

Attorney General: That that was correct.

Presiding Judge: He said this in a broadcast interview.

Attorney General: In a television interview.

Presiding Judge: Recently?

Attorney General: Yes. And then Question 27: "Do the affidavits you made on 5 November 1945 and 25 November 1945 to the American authorities conform to the truth?" The reply is in the affirmative.

Interpreter: [continues Hoettl's statement]:

"As to Questions 27 and 28: I answer both questions in the affirmative.

"As to whether the last sentence, quoted in the request for legal assistance of the District Court of Jerusalem, of your affidavit applies to Eichmann's activities generally or only to his activities in Hungary specifically, I have the following to say:..."

Page 65:
"As can be seen from my statement so far, it was only in Hungary that I was able to observe deportations of Jews with my own eyes, and to ascertain who was responsible for them. My statement at Nuremberg at the time is therefore primarily based on Eichmann's activities in Hungary, but in the first months of captivity I discovered in the meantime that Eichmann had been active in other occupied countries in a similar manner."
Attorney General: I should be grateful to the Court if the questionnaire could also be attached to the record of the examination and be made a part of it, because otherwise it is often difficult to understand the answers.

Presiding Judge: Yes, of course, the questionnaire which was dispatched by this Court, and is therefore part of the record. That is clear.

I suggest that we now turn to Huppenkothen's testimony. Dr. Servatius, is there anything in this statement you wish to emphasize?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I was only able to glance through it yesterday evening. I would ask the Court to allow me, if it should prove necessary - just with regard to the credibility of the witness - to raise some further points. I have not so far managed to examine it from this point of view. While it was being read out now, I did not have this document in front of me. I have only read it through, and my impression was that there is nothing I need to bring up, but possibly, when I read it carefully...

Presiding Judge: You are speaking about Hoettl, are you not? Very well, if you wish to add anything, you are at liberty to do so. There will not be any problem.

I was referring to Huppenkothen, Dr. Servatius. Have you read it yet?

Dr. Servatius: As far as the other documents are concerned, there is no such objection. I have read them thoroughly.

Presiding Judge: What I was asking was whether you wish to emphasize anything in particular in Huppenkothen's statement? Do you want to read anything out for the record? Once again, I would stress that the entire statement is an integral part of the record of these proceedings, and I now mark this statement II.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, perhaps I could just indicate the passages which appear to be of importance for the Defence.

Presiding Judge: Certainly. Please proceed.

Dr. Servatius: The record dated 19 June 1961. Court of First Instance, Cologne.

Presiding Judge: If you could give the first words of the passage in question?

Dr. Servatius: Certainly.

On page 3:

"On 3: It is true that the Chief of Department IV, Mueller, saw to it that the provisions on preserving secrecy be strictly observed" - to the end of the page. Then on page 6: "On 8: It is true that generally Mueller dealt directly with the Heads of Sections."
Presiding Judge: The whole of this paragraph?

Dr. Servatius: Almost to the bottom of page 6, with the last line: "for nobody at all to be in an intermediate position between him and the Section Heads."

On the next page:

"On 9: When in the affidavit I made at the time I said that" to "particular position." And at the bottom of the same page, "On being questioned by the prosecution: If it is true" until the next page.

"If it is true" and on page 8, to the end of the first paragraph: "I can even state positively that he was not in fact in an exceptional position."

Then page 8, on 10, the first sentence: "It is true" to "without the knowledge of the specialist officer responsible."

Then page 9, on 12: "Mueller often insisted on deciding himself" to the middle of the following paragraph: "The result of his behaviour was a considerable restraint on the departments under his control" - up to there.

Then page 10, on 13, the last paragraph: "The individual Section Heads were not permitted" to " would have been required for that."

Then the last passage, page 15: "On 15: in Lublin" to "as his own preserve" - the first sentence.

The Defence does not wish to refer to any other passages.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, what do you have to say to this?

Attorney General: We have marked the passages in red.

Presiding Judge: [To the interpreter] Translate, please.


"Walter Huppenkothen, employee, 53 years of age, Koeln- Weidenpesch, Theklastr. 14." Negative reply to the other questions. "I worked in the Head Office for Reich Security. The Head Office for Reich Security was the highest authority of the Security Police. The original Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security was Heydrich, followed by Kaltenbrunner."
On page 2:
"I myself was the Chief of Group IVE, which continued after 1944 as Section IVA3. When I took over the Group in January 1941, I was State Counsellor and SS Sturmbannfuehrer. At the end I was Regierungsdirektor (Directing State Counsellor) and SS Standartenfuehrer. My Group was the central authority for police counterespionage."
On page 3:
"From 1941 to 1945 I worked exclusively at the Head Office for Reich Security. My Group was also in charge of the duties of the Inspector General for the Frontiers."
On page 4:
"Together with all its personnel, the Head Office for Reich Security was subject to military jurisdiction, on the basis of a special ordinance enacted in 1939."
Page 5:
"The supreme judicial authority was the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, i.e., the Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security. The competent court was subject to his jurisdiction. The applicable code was the Code of Military Criminal Procedure. The supreme judicial authority had to issue orders for an investigation when notified of a case, to rule as to whether proceedings were to be quashed or charges preferred, and to confirm or not to confirm judgments. In addition, he appointed the members of the court. He could also quash proceedings in minor cases and impose a disciplinary sanction instead of a judicial one. Thus, supreme judicial authorities were in such a strong position that very much depended on their influence on a case. Through his discretion by virtue of his office, he enjoyed wide powers of decision, as detailed in the Code of Military Criminal Procedure. In terms of substantive law, the Military Penal Code applied alongside the general criminal law."
Page 6:
"It is true that Mueller generally dealt directly with the Heads of Sections - in other words, without the participation of the Group or Department Chief - so that, in such cases, the Group or Department Chief concerned would only be able to find out from the Section Heads concerned what Mueller had decided, or what was involved at all. It was Mueller's opinion that the intermediate appointment of Group or Department Chiefs between him and the Section Heads - this had been done without his agreement - impeded the proper running of official business. On various occasions, he said that he would have preferred for nobody at all to be in an intermediate position between him and the Section Heads. It was his nature to do everything himself wherever possible. This was particularly true of his special field of interest. As far as I was aware, this field was combatting Communism. He worked in this field in the Bavarian criminal investigation service from the time after the First World War."
On page 7, in reply to Question 9:
"When in the affidavit I made at the time, Prosecution document No. 874, I said that the Accused's Section in Department IV was in a special position. I say by way of explanation that I would rather speak of a particular position. Unlike most of the other Section Heads, the Accused was not a civil servant, but was attached to the Department only as a member of the SS. That was probably because the Security Service was an SS organization and not part of the Civil Service.

"In fact, the Accused was only part of Group IVB in formal terms. He had a special position in it, insofar as he had no dealings with the Group Leader, but reported directly to the Department Chief, Mueller. I am unable to state whether he also reported directly to the Chief of the Head Office or to Himmler himself. I assume, however, that thereby Mueller was not passed over. It seems to me that he was in this particular position only with regard to Mueller. However, I cannot say anything certain on this matter."

Page 8, Question 10.
"It is true that Mueller repeatedly assigned work on specific cases to sections which functionally were not competent for them, or to individuals without the knowledge of the specialist officer responsible. This occurred in my Group as well as in others. The group leaders found such practices unpleasant, and they made representations to him about it. Such instances normally involved his particular hobbyhorse of fighting Communism, but not only that."
Page 9: "I do not know whether the Accused was also passed over as Specialist Officer in this fashion."

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.