The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 108
(Part 4 of 4)

Presiding Judge: There are various documents appended.

Attorney General: Thank you very much. I do not wish the document to be read out; I would simply wish the document to be before the Court, because it is referred to in the passage which I wish to quote.

Interpreter: I have no material attached.

Attorney General: For the sake of brevity, we will do without this.

Presiding Judge: This was the same telegram which you later wanted to show to the witness Kappler.

Attorney General: Yes.

Judge Raveh: Does it start with the word "Obergruppenfuehrer"?

Attorney General: Yes, that is the telegram I am referring to. "Instructions for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Kappler."

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the translation with which I have been provided does not show which appendices are referred to. I have not seen them.

Attorney General: To clarify things, perhaps we shall also re-examine the exhibits, in order to avoid any confusion.

Presiding Judge: We have received a number of appended documents from the court in Rome, and we had them translated into Hebrew. Apparently only the testimony was translated into German, but Counsel for the Defence did not receive the telegram when we sent it - apparently he did not receive it when we got the documents back from the court in Rome.

Presiding Judge: This set of documents is not properly organized, and I see that Dr. Servatius has not been able to look at these documents at all.

Attorney General: We have not had a look at this, since the documents were returned.

Presiding Judge: As usual, I gave instructions to show you everything which reached us. I do not intend to ascertain just now what has happened here. In any case I shall mark Kappler's statement as XV. Now Dr. Servatius has the further problem of Slawik's testimony.

Attorney General: I am informed by my colleague Wechtenbruch that he has not received Slawik's statement. So there must be some mistake on the part of the office.

Presiding Judge: I, therefore, suggest that we try to finish as much as possible today, and that these two matters - the Slawik statement and the documents appended to the Kappler statement - subject to both parties' consent be dealt with after the recess which is to take place shortly. I do not believe that it is worthwhile having a special Session tomorrow to deal with these matters. I trust that both parties agree to this.

Attorney General: Yes, of course.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, if I might - if I can just look at this quickly, I can comment after 15 minutes.

Presiding Judge: Apart from these two matters, Dr. Servatius, does the Accused have any other witnesses for the Defence?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, we have received this sworn affidavit by a lady lawyer called van Taalingen-Dols, who has also sent the book belonging to it, which contains reproductions of the documents. I consider this to be most important and informative with regard to the events in Holland, and the involvement of Department IV and Himmler in authorizing emigration in special cases; here this concerns Professor Meyers, an expert in constitutional and international law who wished to leave the country, and here we can see all of the difficulties which are dealt with in the book. And then I also wished to...

Meanwhile I have had investigations carried out regarding the deponent and her character, and I would like that arrangements be made for the cross-examination of this witness. I realize that, at this stage, such an application would lead to a considerable delay in the proceedings, and I would like to emphasize that it is only because of this fact that I am waiving the cross-examination.

Presiding Judge: And what about the book?

Attorney General: There is no problem whatsoever in referring to the corresponding passages in the book.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is this lady's name?

Dr. Servatius: Dr. Luise Isabelle Lucie van Taalingen-Dols, domiciled in Erdenhaut-Blumendahl, Holland.

Presiding Judge: The book is written by the same lady, is it not?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, she is the author.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 96

We authorize the submission of the sworn affidavit by Mrs. van Taalingen-Dols and the book by her as evidence in these proceedings. The Attorney General has no objections on this score, and his statement in this respect has been noted in the record of the proceedings.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, you see the sworn affidavit, together with a large number of enclosures - translations from the book - which are necessary because reference is made to these pages in the sworn affidavit.

Presiding Judge: The sworn affidavit has been marked N/103...

Judge Raveh: We already have that.

Presiding Judge: I am sorry - not N/103, but N/104, and I mark the book N/105. Please proceed!

Dr. Servatius: The sworn affidavit was given on 17 July 1961 before District Notary Mink at Karlsheim in Wuerttemberg, Baden. The witness is on holiday there.

The statement runs as follows:

"During the 1940-1945 War I was a lawyer in Haarlem, Holland, and the lawyer of my former chief university teacher, Professor E.M. Meyers. This professor was Jewish. On 28 August 1942, I personally submitted an application, dated 27 August 1942, and addressed to the Senior Commander of the Security Police IVB4 in The Hague for the emigration of this professor with his spouse and daughter - I submitted this to the woman civil servant whose task it was to pre-process emigration applications for her chief, who was resident in Holland. This woman was known to have quite a lot of influence over her chief, who trusted her as a result of her efficiency and expertise. She promised me that the application would be submitted to Berlin soon with a recommendation. See page 95, the end - 98, the middle, and 99, middle of my book, The Struggle for a Man's Life (Osterban and Lekinter, Geiss, Holland, 1960). In this application I offered 150,000 Swiss francs for the permit. "When I asked who was the person in Berlin who took decisions about emigration applications, she replied: Mueller. Eichmann was never indicated to me as being responsible for decisions on applications for emigration, although I did talk about this very often with several Security Service and SS officials. He was always indicated to me as the top chief in Group IVB - the Jewish department complex in the Head Office for Reich Security, Berlin."
Presiding Judge: Who is "he"? Mueller or Eichmann?

Dr. Servatius: I imagine this should be Eichmann.

"As such, he was depicted to me as being extremely important and influential. Consequently, I was extremely set on talking to him when the decision on Professor Meyers' application was delayed for a long time, and the offer of 150,000 Swiss francs made in it had to be withdrawn because of certain circumstances. See pp. 169-175, 206-208.

"It is essential to peruse these passages which show that the Swiss banks - although initially authorization had been granted - blocked the payment, without giving any further details. I was told that the application was being examined at the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin. Therefore, it was clear to me that if this examination was to be carried out by one of the Sections of Group IVB - as I was told - (which I thought quite likely, because basically it was a Jewish matter, even if finally such an application would come for a decision to Mueller in Department IV of the Secret State Police), the application could not fail to come to the attention of the head of the Eichmann group, on its way from the examining department to the decision-making authority. See the book, on page 207.

"In addition, the possibility of the emigration application being rejected had increased, since the offer of free foreign currency had had to be withdrawn. As a result of this, I had to ask for other favours, but no one was able to indicate any other relevant decision-making authority. I, therefore, wanted to submit this, too, to Eichmann. Even if he himself was not responsible, he would know the right way, if I could win him over for our case.

"On 22 July, 1943, the meeting I had asked for took place at the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin, not with Eichmann himself, since, according to his deputy Guenther, he had gone on an official journey, but with Guenther, who had previously been informed accordingly. There, I learned that the Head Office for Reich Security was not competent for decisions on emigration matters, and that the only person competent in matters of emigration was Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, but that an application to him would be futile, as recently all similar applications had been rejected. Guenther indicated comparable cases, all of which had been refused, although the highest diplomatic authorities had advocated them. However, a promise was given that my application for the Meyers family not to be sent to the East would be granted. Precisely who was responsible for approving this favour requested, or who approved it, I do not know. The main thing for me was that it was approved and that I knew exactly how to get this. See the book, pages 214-220 and 252.

"As a result of this meeting I gained a better understanding of the report which was sent to me previously, on 14 July 1943, by the Amsterdam Security Service branch office, indicating that the office of the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler was asking for references for Professor Meyers, which it would take into account regarding emigration. See the book, page 210.

"In view of what I heard from Guenther about the likelihood of an application to Himmler for emigration being successful, and in the light of the initial submission and subsequent withdrawal of the offer of free foreign currency, and the doubts I began to have as to the acceptability to Himmler of the names and addresses of references in Germany with which Professor Meyers had provided me, I decided to wait first for an examination of the references before I would initiate anything further with Himmler. I was notified that the references had to be not only racially, but also politically, totally impeccable. In addition, there was the fact that in those confused times it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for non- initiates to carry out any political checks. Moreover, in view of the danger facing those who made positive statements about Jews, we were not at all sure that we would be able to obtain favourable statements for our purposes. This was particularly true in the light of the fact that the references required by Himmler's office had to be domiciled in Germany. This had already taken me aback and made me twice as cautious. When, in fact, it became clear that it was just not feasible to carry out these checks, I decided not to jeopardize the favour obtained from the Head Office for Reich Security that they would not be deported, by having emigration rejected by the supreme ruler, Himmler. Consequently, I did not follow up the 14 July request from Himmler's office. I was familiar with the inter-office rivalry, which also existed between persons in one and the same office, as well as the resultant dangers for people concerned."

I would, in this connection, point out that the documents show that this Professor Meyers then went to Theresienstadt; he could, in fact, I believe, have remained in Holland, but he preferred to go to Theresienstadt, and then he returned after the War. The book shows all of this.

Presiding Judge: Thank you. Dr. Servatius, how much more time do you need at this stage? I should like to find out whether we can finish today, apart from those matters we mentioned previously, or whether we have to arrange for another Session tomorrow.

Dr. Servatius: I believe that we can conclude things today, after a short recess. I still have to look at this Slawik statement.

Presiding Judge: I am not referring to that; we can leave that until the beginning of the next stage, that is to say, after the recess. But apart from that, what else do you have?

Dr. Servatius: I still have here the documents to which Eichmann referred, which I wanted to submit, on the "special treatment"; he indicated here various documents from Reitlinger, and I have had them photocopied and wanted to submit them now.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Mr. Hausner.

Attorney General: First of all, with the Court's permission, so that this statement does not appear onesided, I should like to read out two quotations, and I also have various short matters which would not take the Court longer than twenty minutes to deal with.

Presiding Judge: You may mention the quotations, and tomorrow morning we shall arrange for a short session. In the meanwhile, Dr. Servatius can look at the Slawik statement and also the Kappler documents, and then we shall know that we have more or less finished.

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I agree.

Attorney General: Just two short passages on page 214. I am referring to the transcript appended by Counsel for the Defence. The first eight lines from the word "Besprechung" (conference) on page 214.

Attorney General: 22 July, at the top it reads:

"Conference in the Head Office for Reich Security at 10 a.m., inter alia re Meyers."

"Eichmann who, as Himmler's representative, is the supreme authority on all Jewish matters throughout Europe, is in Czechoslovakia. His deputy, Guenther, appears to be well-informed and, as he has indicated, is authorized to take binding decisions. The participants in the conference were SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther, his secretary, Dr. Geusmann, Mrs. Kanne and myself."

Just to clarify matters: As appears in the book, Mrs. Kanne was the wife of Dr. Kanne, who was a physician in the Dutch navy. Her brother, Dr. Geusmann, was an SS Legal Officer in the Head Office for Reich Security.

Presiding Judge: We know about Mrs. Slottke, the secretary.

Attorney General: We know about Mrs. Slottke.

Presiding Judge: Apparently another woman was present.

Attorney General: The next quotation is on page 218. I would ask to read out the first three lines and the beginning of the fourth line, and then to finish in the middle of the quotation - the lines I have marked:

"The conference is now over, Guenther shakes hands with me, and says that I can rely on everything being carried out as promised. Outside, Dr. Geusmann congratulates me on the major success I have achieved," and then, in the middle: "he states that the fact that I was actually allowed to appear in person at the Head Office for Reich Security, the `Holiest of Holies' (as it says here), and that I was allowed there to talk to the representative of the Supreme Commander for Jewish Matters, that in itself is a major exception to the principles that an outsider has absolutely no access at all to this office."
In my submissions in my summing-up, I shall draw the Court's attention to other passages in the book, but at this stage these two quotations will suffice.

Perhaps I might request a further decision, because on that will depend whether a certain person has to stay in Jerusalem tonight, someone who has been sitting here all day, in connection with a rebutting testimony which I intend to ask for.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, it is already 6.20, and we have extended the session, in the hope that we would finish altogether. I am sorry, but he will have to spend another night in Jerusalem.

The Court will adjourn until 8.30 tomorrow morning.

[ 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.