Appeal Pleading 02-02, Eichmann Adolf

(3) The description in contemporary proposals for promotion
of the “requisite hardness” was at that time a sine qua non
for promotion, and was consequently included in proposals
for promotion as a matter of routine.

8. On Paragraph 70

1. The interpretation of Himmler’s directives (Paragraph 69)
as meaning that at that time the physical extermination of
the Jews was already planned, was assumed by the Accused as
a construction on the basis of the material submitted. This
is shown by the fact that he explained his assumption with
the words, “Until now it has been my opinion” and “now after
reading this.”

This shows that by that time the basic approach had already
gained a footing among the superiors and the highest

This occurrence clearly shows the Accused’s attempt to
contribute to clarifying matters, and the Accused’s effort
to co-operate becomes evident. If he had been concerned to
exonerate himself and to engage in incorrect behaviour, he
would have utterly rejected such an interpretation.

2. The Accused’s subsequent statement that he did not take
part in the meeting in question was not made by him in order
to distance himself from his interpretation of the document.

After he had had the opportunity to read the documents
arranged in chronological order, he was forced to the
conclusion that at the time of the meeting on 27 September
1939 he was still in Prague and consequently could not have
been responsible for a meeting in Berlin.

Nor did the Accused have any practical dealings with the
Operations Units, for which the directives were intended.

Finally, this was a discussion of Departmental Heads;
according to the statement of Witness Six, the Accused would
not have taken part in such a meeting.

Also, his rank was too low to allow this.

It is true that the inclusion of the Accused in the list of
persons present tells against him. However, a list of
persons present is not always reliable evidence that those
listed were actually present. It is possible that the
secretary made a mistake.

It should also be noted that the document does not have a
heading or a signature.

9. On Paragraph 71 – Directing the Vienna, Prague and Berlin
Central Offices

The Accused’s activities do not follow the above directive
are alleged to have served the extermination, but on the
contrary is designed to achieve emigration.

Nor did the Accused direct these offices, but rather he was
the authority who, on the basis of the political measures
taken on the highest level, was required to transmit their

10. On Paragraph 72 – Nisko

In September 1939 “departure” from Nisko can only be
understood as meaning emigration, and not killing.

2. The Accused was not to carry out “expulsions,” but
“settlement operations.” In doing this he complied with the
instructions he was given to allocate ten doctors to each
transport. This is shown by Dr. Loewenherz’ contemporary

The allocation of doctors contradicts any indifferent
neglect of the persons relocated by the Accused.

11. On Paragraph 73 – Abuses during the deportations from
the Warthe District

The meeting of 8 January 1940 was held under the Accused
because the circumstances described by the witnesses had
occurred during the local deportations which he had not
ordered or been in charge of. It was his task to avoid these
as far as possible by co-ordinating matters between the
relevant local offices.

The documents indicate that responsibility for the
transports was borne by the Inspector of the Security Police
and the District Governors.

The document refers only to the measures which as a minimum
were to make it possible to remedy the worst abuses. These
concerned the death by freezing of those most at risk, i.e.
women and children.
The oral instructions which were provided in the discussions
against the recalcitrant guilty parties continued to apply.

It should be noted that the Accused simply had a mediating
role; he had no powers of command over those involved. The
Court’s assumption that the local branches of the Security
Police and the SD were subordinate to the Accused is

12. On Paragraph 74 – Deportations of Jews of Stettin and

The factual description in the Judgment could give the
impression that the Accused had made a major contribution to
promoting the deportation of the German Jews from Stettin in
February 1941 and in March from Vienna.

The Accused simply explained that he was responsible “to the
extent that” he was actually instructed to take part in the
central supervision. However, such central supervision
occurred only where difficulties arose in respect of the
measures taken by offices.

There was no intervention in Stettin, as the local offices
carried out the deportation on their own.

13. On Paragraph 76 – Madagascar

It is not true that the Accused drafted the Madagascar Plan
in detail.

The Plan is an amalgam of the opinions of all the central
bodies involved in the Plan, each of which through its
specialist officers gave expression to its own opinion.

Factually it is also difficult to imagine that in 1940, the
Accused with his insignificant rank would have been able to
draft such a plan, which provided the basis for political
measures at the highest level, of a national and
international nature.

The assumption that the Accused was vigorously pursuing the
establishment of a slave state of the Jews in Madagascar
would appear untenable.

It is an error to see “a line of increasing severity” on the
part of the Accused in the way things developed from
emigration via the establishment of the Jewish pre-State of
Nisko to Madagascar.

Without the Accused’s participation emigration was at the
time hampered by other offices.

The Nisko alternative solution for blocked emigration was
made impossible by Governor General Frank.

14. On Paragraph 77 – Deportations from Baden in October

These deportations were carried out at the instigation of
the District Leaders (Gauleiter) on Hitler’s direct orders.
These orders were transmitted via the Gauleiter to the State
Police and the Inspectors of the Security Police.
Corresponding orders went from Himmler to the Higher SS and
Police Leaders. They went via Heydrich and the Gauleiter to
the State Police offices and Inspectors. At the same time
the Accused’s Section was instructed through Heydrich and
Mueller to deal with timetable matters and arranging

This shows clearly the Accused’s subordinate activities; he
was unable to oppose the main operation which was put into

Had the Accused not managed to get these transports across
the demarcation line, these Jews would not have attained
freedom, but would have been taken to a concentration camp
at that time; it would have been impossible for them to
return to their homes in Baden, because their housing and
property had already been confiscated.

The Accused therefore acted to the advantage of these Jews.

15. On Paragraph 78 – The Organization Plan in the RSHA

At that time the Accused was not head of Department II/112.

In Vienna and Prague also the Accused had no executive
powers; these rested with the local State Police heads. In
his handwritten letters to Hagen, the Accused specifically
calls attention to the obstruction caused by these offices.

In Berlin the executive powers lay not with the Accused, but
with Department IVD3.

In addition to the offices referred to in the Judgment,
Department II and III (Legislation and Legal Affairs) dealt
with Jewish Questions, as did the other central bodies such
as the Reich Ministry of the Interior, the Reich Ministry of
Economics, the Reich Leadership and the Fuehrer’s
Chancellery, where the foundations were laid for action
against the Jews.

It is not correct to assume that the Accused’s Section dealt
centrally with all the executive measures in Jewish affairs.
This assumption is contradicted by the following:

Direct orders from the CdS to the BdS and Inspectors.

Direct order from the Chief of Department IV to the BdS and

Direct dealings of the Chief of Department IV with other
central bodies.

Himmler issuing orders to the CdS and the Chiefs of

It is clear that matters which were of some importance were
handled without the Accused’s Section.

The confiscation of Jewish assets was a purely bureaucratic
transaction for the Accused’s Section.

The basic instruction was Regulation No. 11 under the Reich
Nationality Law. The primary responsibility for this lay
with the Ministry of the Interior (Hering, Globke,
Stuckart). The Accused’s Section simply had to implement the
Regulation according to the prescribed forms on the basis of
the notifications received. The Section was not required to
examine the actual matters, whether in principle or on an
individual basis.

The abbreviated presentation of the contexts in the Judgment
prevents a clear presentation of the actual facts, to the
detriment of the Accused.

16. On Paragraph 81 – Heydrich’s Appointment by Goering for
Deportations to the East (July 1941)
The assumption in the Judgment that it was obvious to the
Accused that deportation meant extermination and that he
himself conceded this must be clarified in that the Accused
did not at the time know about the extermination; rather, it
was only when he was interrogated by the police that he
became convinced of the meaning of the authority presented
to him.

Goering, who issued this authority, himself – according to
Justice Musmanno’s testimony – knew nothing of such
extermination measures.

To equate deportation with extermination can also not be
reconciled with Ambassador Abetz’s proposals to carry out
evacuation to the East; there was no mention of

17. On Paragraph 82 – Jewish Badge

The Judgment does not show clearly that the Accused had
nothing to do with the introduction of the Jewish Badge. The
documents concerning Governor General Frank, Ministry of the
Interior, Reich Commissioner, Minister of Propaganda
Goebbels, state the correct facts.

On the basis of the efforts of these bodies, the lawyers of
Departments IV, II and III (see organization chart) and the
lawyers of the other central bodies drew up the Police
Regulation. The dispatch of two urgent letters, to which the
Judgment calls special attention, was simply a technical
administrative arrangement. The Accused’s insignificant role
can be perceived within the overall picture of this matter.

While the Judgment highlights the reference on the document
that it “was not suitable for passing on to the public,” it
can be pointed out that a Specialist Officer could not
decide on adding such a remark, but only the Chief of
Department or the Head of the Security Police could do so.

18. On Paragraph 83 – Deportation as part of the Final
Solution In the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October
1941 it does not say that the Accused had already, on his
own initiative, introduced deportations to camps, but from
the context it can be seen that he must previously have
received an order to this effect, to which Heydrich refers

The measures desired by Hitler were set in motion by Himmler
and Heydrich; they gave the orders for their implementation.

19. On Paragraph 84

The conclusion contained in the Judgment: “The (evacuation)
instructions (bear) the reference number of the Accused’s
Section IVB4, and therefore (were) issued from this Section”
is unfounded, if the reference is to authorship.

The Accused simply conveyed the higher orders of his
superiors by passing them on.

The most important orders were therefore signed by Heydrich
and Mueller personally.

The Judgment makes a connection between the Accused’s
responsibility for the deportations from Vienna and Lodz on
30 September 1941 and an instruction which was given to
[sic, by] Brunner in Vienna. Brunner was not subordinate to
the Accused.

Contrary to the Court’s assumption, Brunner was not in
charge of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in
Vienna; that was the Inspector of the Security Police and
the SD. He, in turn, was subordinate to the Chief of the
Security Police. He could receive orders from the latter or
from the Department Chief, but not from the Accused as
Specialist Officer.

It may be seen here how a large number of offices were
involved in the deportations and not everything was
concentrated in the Accused’s Section.

20. On Paragraph 85 – Regulation No. 11 under the Reich
Nationality Law
See commentary on Paragraph 78.

21. On Paragraph 86 – Wannsee Conference

The position of the Accused is clarified by the fact that he
was employed by Heydrich for secretarial functions, i.e. the
sendingh out of invitations. That is not compatible with a
position which allegedly carried with it the greatest powers
such as the Judgment considers the Accused to have held.

22. On Paragraph 87 – Wannsee Conference continued

The Accused’s role as secretary is confirmed by the fact
that the Accused had the lowest rank of all the
participants. The official of the Ministry for the Eastern
Occupied Territories had the same rank but a higher
position, as he was the head of an independent division in
the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories.

The fact that the Accused drew up the minutes tallies with
his secretarial functions.

This also explains the fact that the Accused appears as the
responsible “official in charge,” with whom the details are
to be discussed.

He is clearly only able to conduct such discussions as a
link who would convey matters to Heydrich, and in addition
such discussions could only concern details of

Further corroboration of the secretarial activities of the
“official in charge” is provided by the fact that, contrary
to the Court’s assumption, the Senior Commander of the
Security Police, the Commander of the State Police and the
Inspector did not belong to the RSHA. These persons did not
belong to any of the Departments, but combined the duties of
the seven RSHA Departments in the area of their
responsibilities. They were subordinate to the CdS, the
Higher SS and Police Leader, their competent holders of the
power of command, the Reich Commissioner, the Area
Commissioner, Ambassador or Military Commander.

It follows that the Final Solution referred here only to the
“European countries occupied and influenced by us.” In other
words, not the Warthe District and the Generalgouvernement.

23. On Paragraph 88 – Discussion of the possibilities of

The description of the contents of the discussion is not an
idly uttered statement about such a serious matter, but
shows how the Accused co-operated in a serious, convincing
fashion in shedding light on what happened at this
conference. The Accused provided illuminating information as
to what he had heard there. It was not his opinion about
killing; it was not up to him to express any opinion in the
Heydrich’s designation of the Accused in the February 1942
letter to Luther (Foreign Ministry) as the authorized
Specialiast Officer also shows that this was a matter of
implementing details, and that the basic decisions were not
taken by the Accused.

24. On Paragraphs 89/90 – Implementation of the Final
Solution after the Wannsee Conference
The findings listed in the Judgment under (d) indicate the
main proponents of the persecution of the Jews, i.e.
Minister of Justice Thierack, Himmler and Bormann. The
Accused’s submission to these decisive individuals in top
positions and the implementation of their directions cannot
be construed as zealous concurrence on his part with the
desire for extermination. The directives drawn up in
accordance with instructions do not arise from the Accused’s
own endeavours.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15