Persons instrumental in the process of legislation have not
been called upon to stand trial, and it seems that, in this
respect, the chain of causation seems to have been broken.
The defence of the interruption of the chain of causation
constitutes, on the other hand, a more forceful argument in
favour of the Accused. He was not active at the point where
the persecutions originated; he was not involved in the
process of legislation which caused the lethal results. He
only passed on the orders he received under these laws. One
must not forget the major driving force of ministries.
Moreover, the Accused is blamed for having rejected so many
applications submitted by individuals. However, the refusal
in the cases in respect of which this allegation is made, is
based upon the laws and orders as stated above. Even so, not
all of his decisions amounted to a refusal, as is shown by
the testimony of the witness von Thadden. In this respect I
beg to refer only to the case of the Dutch Professor Meyers.
The grave accusation made in this case against the Accused –
namely that he had prevented this professor from leaving the
country, notwithstanding the ransom of 150,000 Swiss francs
offered in consideration for permitting the departure –
could be refuted by a statement volunteered by the
professor’s Dutch lawyer. It appeared that the departure,
which had already been permitted by a prior decision, failed
later on to materialize owing to the conduct of the Swiss
authorities and that, later on, the power to permit the
departure was reserved to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler in
person.
I shall now move on to my arguments on the Accused’s status
outside the Reich, and, to begin with, in the
Generalgouvernement.
The Accused’s status in the Generalgouvernement derives from
the situation that the administration of this area, headed
by the Governor General, Frank, was independent to a large
extent. Of course, this did not exclude the exercise of
supervision by the authorities of the Reich. The Accused
declared, in this respect, that this power of the Reich
existed in all matters of concern to the Reich as a whole.
Therefore, the Accused’s Section was involved only by virtue
of a special assignment, as for example in all matters
concerning Jews of foreign nationality. No evidence has been
produced to show that a comprehensive power existed. In
accordance with this special status of the
Generalgouvernement, orders concerning this area were signed
personally by Kaltenbrunner or Mueller.
The arrangement made between Ganzenmueller and Wolff
concerning the transportation of Jews, mentioned in the
trial, provides strong evidence for the exclusion of the
Accused from this matter. Even if an officer belonging to
the Accused’s Section attended a meeting where the timetable
of the transportations were discussed, this attendance would
be irrelevant in this respect.
Also in the so-called Warthegau district, special conditions
prevailed. In this region, too, the powers of the agencies
of the Reich were restricted. The governor of the district,
Greiser, maintained his own Stapo and exercised an
independent right to issue orders. In addition, Stapo
offices of the Reich also functioned there.
Therefore, no contradiction, as stated in the Judgment, can
be found in the Accused’s explanations.
Correspondence between Greiser and Himmler refers to the
treatment of Jews and Poles, as well as to the Lodz Ghetto
and the Bothmann Commando. Characteristically, this
correspondence did not pass through the Accused’s office.
The Accused’s powers over agencies abroad were restricted to
the passing on of orders. It has to be emphasized that no
agency abroad came within the jurisdiction of the Accused in
his capacity as Section Head. The Advisers on Jewish Affairs
appointed by the RSHA had no executive powers, as is
evidenced by their very name. As to measures of
implementation, they were subordinate to the commander of
each area, who gave the necessary orders on his own
initiative. This becomes manifest for the area of Greece, in
respect of which a specimen of the rubber stamp of the
Adviser on Jewish Affairs, acting as an agent of the
Military Governor of Salonika-Aegaeis, has been produced.
The orders for implementation are signed by the senior
officer in the military administration, Dr. Merten.
In the most important places, Section Heads were appointed
to carry out the policy regarding Jewish affairs. They were
Section Heads or Police Attaches serving with the heads of
the mission in the area concerned, as for example in
Hungary, or they were Section Heads in the office of the
Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security
Service, attached to the Military Commander, as in France
and Belgium. A few examples will illustrate this situation:
The head of the mission in Slovakia, Ludin, confirms having
received the order for the deportation of the Jews from the
Foreign Ministry. No mention whatsoever is made of an order
from the Accused, forwarded by the Adviser on Jewish
Affairs.
As to the situation in Hungary, the Higher SS and Police
Leader, General Winkelmann, quite clearly gives expression
to the relevant hierarchy. In a letter addressed to the
Foreign Ministry, he mentions that the Adviser on Jewish
Affairs had acted, of course, upon orders received from him.
It is a patent mistake of the District Court to assume that
the Reich Plenipotentiary, Veesenmayer, had merely passed on
orders transmitted to him.
The subordination of the Accused to the authority of General
Winkelmann and, through him, also to the Reich
Plenipotentiary, Veesenmayer, derives distinctly from the
fact that the latter asked for the return of the Accused
after his commando had been disbanded, and reappointed him.
In this connection, reference is made to exhibit N/89
(document No. 879) in which the Reich Plenipotentiary,
Veesenmayer, informs the Foreign Ministry:
“Upon the urgent and repeated request of SA
Obergruppenfuehrer Winkelmann, I have asked Szalasi to
lend us at least 25,000 Jewish forced labourers…
Winkelmann’s request, in fact, was for 50,000 Jewish
forced labourers.”
This is a most important document concerning the Jewish
Question.
At that time, the Accused was again in Berlin. It is
noteworthy that the Accused, who is alleged to have been the
main person responsible for the persecution of the Jews in
Hungary, is not mentioned at all in this document.
In France, the responsibility for carrying out the policy
regarding Jewish affairs was borne by the Senior Commander
of the Security Police and the Security Service, Dr.
Knochen. Strong evidence in this matter is now available,
namely the documents obtained by the Defence, the periodical
Le Monde Juif of June 1960. I have filed this document
together with the notice of appeal and respectfully apply to
this Court to admit it in evidence.
Justice Silberg Are you not mistaken? You have filed a
document dated 28 January 1944, and the Court relies on a
document dated 28 January l941?
Dr. Servatius If the original of the document has not yet
been filed in Court, I wish to…
Justice Silberg The document is before us, but it refers to
another date. In 1944 Dannecker was not in France. The Court
relies on documents written by Dannecker, and you are
relying on a document written by Knochen three years later.
Dr. Servatius But I am not submitting this piece of
evidence in connection with a specific date, but with regard
to the chain of command, in order to prove that only the
commander was empowered to authorize the carrying out of
orders, and that the Accused merely passed on the orders of
his superior.
This periodical contains two documents: The first is the
order dated 27 January 1944, after the declaration of war by
Argentina, addressed to the Senior Commander of the Security
Police and the Security Service, Dr. Knochen, and passed on
by the Accused. This was an order for the arrest of
Argentinian Jews.
Attorney General With the Court’s permission, in order to
avoid misunderstandings, I would point out that Argentina
entered the war against the Axis Powers, on the side of the
Allied Powers in March 1945.
Dr. Servatius I do not know the date of the declaration of
war. My statement is made on the strength of information
given to me. It is possible that the order was given in
connection with the impending declaration of war. However,
the motive for the issue of the order is irrelevant. The
document in question is produced only to show the chain of
subordination and of command. The order passed on by the
Accused, in its German original, was highlighted in the
above publication.
The second document quoted in the periodical, and which was
given less prominence in the publication, is the order to
carry out the arrest, issued, on the strength of the first
document, by the Senior Commander of the Security Police,
Knochen, on 28 January 1944. This commander was subject to
the authority of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, whose powers in
France were exercised by the Higher SS and Police Leader,
Oberg. It is quite clear from these documents that these
senior officers were not bound to carry out orders issued by
a Section Head.
The District Court has found that there was a connection
between the Accused and the activity of the Einsatzgruppen
(Operations Units). The Court assumes that, on the occasion
of the appointment of the first commanders, the Accused was
already aware of their duties. The official scope of
activities of the Operations Units was to guarantee the
security in the vast areas behind the front line against the
activities of gangs formed by isolated groups of Russian
soldiers and partisans. However, it has not been proved that
the persons attending that meeting were informed of the
illegal activities of the Operations Units. It is also not
reasonable to assume that, in this connection, the Accused
was entrusted with any important duty. The commanders of the
Operations Units held considerably higher ranks which made
it highly unlikely that they would come under the Accused’s
authority.
According to the statement of the witness Bach-Zelewski, it
is impossible to imagine that such a situation could exist.
The same view is held by the witness Six.
However, later on, the Accused received the current
reports of the Operations Units on the extermination actions
and thus he learned of their illegal activity. But these
reports were distributed also to fifty to sixty other
offices. Therefore, no conclusions may be drawn on the
privileged status of the Accused from the distribution of
this information alone.
Justice Silberg Who testified that the reports were sent to
fifty to sixty other places, other offices?
Dr. Servatius No one actually testified, but documents by
members of the Party have been produced showing which
offices were included in the distribution.
Justice Silberg Which documents?
Dr. Servatius I cannot give the specific number of the
exhibit. However, the final summing-up was filed in the
Lower Court, and from this it may be learned which are the
exhibits in question.
Justice Agranat The Court has found that as from June 1942,
the reports on the activities of the Operations Units were
compiled in the Accused’s Section, where summaries of the
reports were drawn up. The compilation of the reports took
place in the Accused’s Section, and he did not only receive
copies.
Justice Silberg This was not admitted by the Accused.
Dr. Servatius I do not remember that the Accused admitted
having drawn up summaries, having transmitted the reports or
having compiled them.
Justice Silberg No. The Accused confirmed Noske’s testimony
in exhibit T/307, page 2963.
Dr. Servatius I do not have the relevant documents with me;
I had to take with me an enormous amount of documentary
material, and I have not brought it back. However, according
to my recollection, the Accused stated that he himself did
not draw up any summaries and that this was done in another
Section. The Accused himself could be asked about this.
President Please continue.
Dr. Servatius From the documents discussed in this
connection, it transpires that a special command was set up
in the RSHA to maintain contact with the Operations Units.
In this respect, I wish to refer to the testimony of the
witness Bach-Zelewski who testified that in his
conversations with the commander of Operations Units,
Ohlendorf, in the prison at Nuremberg, the latter never
mentioned the Accused. Furthermore, the relationship
between the Accused and the concentration camps has to be
elucidated. It appears from the documents that a distinct
separation existed between the RSHA and the Economic-
Administrative Head Office. Both offices were subordinate to
the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler.
The RSHA was subordinate to Heydrich and later on to
Kaltenbrunner. It was entrusted with the duty of guarding
the process of rounding-up and assignment to the places of
internment. Department IV, including the Accused’s Section
IVB4, belonged to the RSHA.
The Economic-Administrative Head Office was headed by
General Pohl. In Jewish affairs, it had the duty to assign
persons able to work; later on, it carried out the
exterminations. The Superintendent of the concentration
camps, Lieutenant-General Gluecks, together with his
subordinates, the camp commanders Globocnik and Hoess, was
under the command of General Pohl. Obviously, in his
capacity as Section Head in the RSHA, the Accused could not
interfere with the affairs of the Economic-Administrative
Head Office.
Moreover, a regulation issued by the Economic-Administrative
Head Office has been produced, according to which the
transfer from one concentration camp to another was effected
exclusively by order of the Economic-Administrative Head
Office. Thus, neither the RSHA nor the Accused had any
authority in these matters. This separation has to be
remembered when passing judgment on the events connected
with transfers attributed to the Accused.
In addition to these concentration camps and extermination
camps, transit camps were established abroad. These camps
were not controlled by the Accused, but by the authorities
in those countries, and were supervised, by virtue of a
tacit arrangement, by the Senior Commander of the Security
Police and the Security Service. This also applied to
Terezin. This camp, as shown in the evidence submitted, was
under the control of the Senior Commander of the Security
Police and the Security Service in Cracow. Thus, it was not
under the Accused’s control. Neither was the Bergen-Belsen
concentration camp under the control of the Accused. The
Accused’s duties were restricted to the organization of the
transportation to these camps. The transportation itself was
not carried out by his Section.
President What about the evidence relied upon in the
Judgment regarding the Appellant’s activities in Terezin?
Dr. Servatius Mr. President, I have not referred to the
numerous documents in this Court. The written summation
submitted contains a summary of the various documents, in
which reference is made to Terezin. In that summation, the
arguments of the Prosecution and those of the Defence are
listed separately. The numbers of the exhibits are also
listed there. If I had to refer separately to all these
particulars and to the exhibits, this would require a
presentation lasting a week. I considered that the time of
the Court should not be wasted by reading aloud the entire
amount of this material, which can be understood from the
perusal of what was submitted in writing.
The acts with which the Accused was charged have to be
judged on the basis of this situation in matters of
organization and of the chain of command.
Last-Modified: 1999/06/15
