Appeal Session 01-05, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius It is true that this was a rather
incriminating document; however the Accused says: “I did not
do anything because the matter did not concern me, because
it was not within the scope of my duties.”

I now come to the case of the children of Lidice. In this
case, no Jewish children, but Czech children are involved.
The case, therefore, should be excluded from this trial for
legal reasons. The Israeli Court has no jurisdiction in
this matter and the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law does not apply.

President Dr. Servatius, does the theory of the difference
of blood between races still exist?

Dr. Servatius The difference of blood is legally irrelevant
as distinguished from citizenship. The Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law provides for the punishment
of persons who persecuted the Jewish People and not the
Czech people.

Justice Agranat But it also provides for the punishment of
crimes against humanity, of persecution of a civilian

Dr. Servatius This Court does not have the authority to
punish crimes against humanity wherever they were committed.

President Well, that is different.

Justice Agranat Counsel for the Appellant – this
observation has nothing to do with the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law.

Dr. Servatius I do not know whether I have understood
correctly. I think that the State of Israel has authority
only to prosecute crimes against humanity committed within
the territory under its jurisdiction. It cannot prosecute
people for offences committed in Czechoslovakia or, if you
will, in any other country.

As to the charge itself, I wish to point out that the
Accused was not involved in the activities of the Central
Office for Jewish Migration in Lodz. It was not under his
authority. If the competent authority did not give
directives as to what should be done with the children, and
his Section was approached, no conclusions can be drawn from
this fact as to the Accused’s authority.

A similar situation exists in respect of the executions by
shooting in Serbia carried out by military and operations
units in cases of attempted rebellion. The telephone call
from the officer in charge in the Foreign Ministry,
Rademacher, and Eichmann’s alleged reply “Eichmann
recommends shooting” cannot alone establish his
responsibility. The Accused is convinced that he never
uttered such words, and he believes that they are absolutely
untrue. What actually happened seems to me, rather, that the
Accused did not remember this short incident after such a
long time. I think that his reply to this cursory question
was spontaneous, unwilling, and when he was irritated; for
the matter by which the military authorities considered
themselves threatened was not his business at all.

Justice Silberg But in T/37 he says, he did it upon the
orders of his superiors. That is to say, he did do it. “I
did not personally issue the order for execution by shooting
but, as in all such matters I dealt with them through the
proper channels of the service, and the order of my
superiors was execution by shooting.”

Dr. Servatius That is correct. The Accused says, in respect
of his attitude in this matter and in similar matters, that
his first reaction, after the document was shown to him was,
“It will probably be correct,” without being able to examine
the matter more thoroughly. Upon further consideration, so
he thinks, he came to the conclusion that it cannot be
correct at all. It seems that Rademacher’s note in this
respect was a short summary of the negative reply, namely
that the military itself had to find the proper solution
and had to shoot, but it did not indicate his basic
attitude. Actually the Foreign Ministry sent the officer in
charge, Rademacher, to Serbia and intervened itself.

President They sent, in addition, another person. Who was

Dr. Servatius Hunsche.

President Which Section did Hunsche belong to?

Dr. Servatius Hunsche belonged to the Accused’s Section.
Whether he was assigned for service in Serbia, or whether he
was stationed in Berlin, I am unable to state at this

President According to the Judgment, both of them went to
Serbia and carried out an operation against 8,000 Jews. They
took 500 for compulsory labour and executed 7,500 by
shooting. That was the outcome of Hunsche’s and Rademacher’s

Dr. Servatius But Rademacher served in the Foreign

President Yes, that is correct.

Dr. Servatius Unfortunately, I am unable to call on the
witness Rademacher. He is in one of Israel’s neighbouring
countries, so that I cannot produce evidence of what
actually happened. This is a situation in which the Accused
is prevented through no fault of his own from producing his

Justice Witkon Suhr went with Rademacher.

Dr. Servatius However, Rademacher does not mention Suhr
again. Thus, it looks as if he was not there at all.

President Paragraph 106 of the Judgment reads that instead
of Eichmann, “One of them was Suhr, who is known to us as a
member of the staff of his Section. He was accompanied by
Rademacher…” Rademacher reports on the journey in T/883
that “500 of them were needed” for work and “the rest would
be shot.”

Dr. Servatius I have not yet found the passage.

Attorney General May I perhaps call the Court’s attention
to T/882 where it is stated that instead of Eichmann, Suhr
and Stuschke would go with Rademacher.

President That is precisely what I read from the Judgment.

Dr. Servatius, have you found the passage? It is paragraph
106 of the Judgment.

Justice Silberg In the second half of paragraph 106.

Dr. Servatius I have found it. I cannot explain it at this
moment. I shall have to ask the Accused himself, and I
cannot do that at this moment.

President Please continue.

Dr. Servatius We are dealing here with a permanent
organization. However, the Court refers to particular
events, and it arrives at the construction of a picture
which does not give appropriate weight to documents likely
to be construed in favour of the Accused. If these
documents, too, are taken into consideration, a somewhat
different picture will emerge.

I shall now deal with the events which occurred in Vienna.
It is alleged that the Accused was guilty of rude behaviour
towards the Jews and thereby revealed his intention to
exterminate them.

President I have to interrupt you, Dr. Servatius. Perhaps I
am mistaken, but my impression from the Judgment is that, in
respect of that period, an intention to exterminate is not
imputed to the Appellant, but only compelling persons to
emigrate under the worst conditions. But it seems to me –
and please correct me if I am mistaken – in respect of this
period in Vienna, there is as yet no intention to
exterminate imputed to the Appellant.

Dr. Servatius Yes, that is correct, inasmuch as the alleged
purpose was the immediate extermination, but not the
annihilation of the Jewish People by emigration and
direction to places where bad conditions prevailed.

As to the complaint of rude behaviour, I think that manners
customary in the military will be regarded in the eyes of
every civilian as harsh. Even soldiers having returned to
life as civilians will share this feeling. Possibly the
Accused at that time…

Justice Silberg Is it not correct that the seventh count of
the indictment includes the Accused’s activities in Vienna,
Prague and Berlin? It says here, that the Accused is found
guilty, under the seventh count, of crime against humanity,
in that “during the period from March 1938 to May 1945
he…caused, in the territories…, the plunder of the
property of millions of Jews, through mass
terror…starvation and deportation of those Jews.” This
indictment refers to the period beginning in 1938. Do you
understand me? This is not a crime against the Jewish People
but a crime against humanity, so that you will have to
express your view in that respect.

Dr. Servatius This does not constitute a crime against
humanity, either. May I continue? It will transpire from
the arguments that what applies to one, will apply to the
other as well.

President As you wish.

Dr. Servatius The Accused, at that time, had to deal with
the technical aspects of the emigration only, and he
facilitated its implementation by these technical
arrangements. Had he not been instrumental in this matter,
hardly anyone would have left Vienna. His activity was not
inhuman. The witnesses’ statements that the procedure was
connected with endless waiting and that it was resented by
the persons affected thereby as harassing, may well be
believed. But one of the witnesses also understood the
expediency of the organization. The witness Six, who was not
involved, considered the Accused’s organizing activity also
as serving the interests of the Jews. The candidates for
emigration were saved the ordeal of application to the
various offices, which often proved to be futile.

It is significant that, according to the report made at that
time and produced in evidence, Dr. Loewenherz complained to
the Accused of the bad treatment inflicted upon Jews by
other agencies. This would have been pointless, had he
[Eichmann] been the monster as he was portrayed later.

However, two private letters from the Accused to his comrade
Hagen have been submitted. They are framed in the slang of a
subordinate officer desirous of “getting things going
properly.” In my opinion, nothing in this letter shows

At that time, the Jews of Vienna would have liked to
emigrate had they not been deprived at the same time of
their property. However, this plunder was caused by laws
which were not made by the Accused. In this respect, the
Ministries are to be held responsible.

In Vienna, an exception from the currency regulations was
made, and the Jews were allowed to acquire the foreign
currency necessary for their emigration. This exception was
the result of the Accused’s personal intervention only, and
this was quite a feat, at a time of most vehement agitation
against the Jews.

The Accused also arranged the discharge of Jews from the
concentration camps for the purpose of their emigration.
This measure has also to be brought into account in favour
of the Accused.

At that time, the political goal proclaimed by the
Government was, precisely, to clear the country of its Jews.
Inhuman conduct cannot be attributed to the Accused.

In the chronological order of events, the Nisko Plan now has
to be discussed. This plan proposed by the Accused, as well
as the Madagascar Plan, originated in the circumstances
under which emigration, for all practical purposes, had been
made impossible by the policy of the countries of
destination. The political situation at that time must be
considered, and therefore the Accused can hardly be found
guilty of having had the intention of bringing about the
extermination of the Jews.

In connection with emigration, the Accused is found guilty
of having seized the property of the Jews and having
disposed of their property. However, everything which
happened to property was only the result of legal
provisions originating in the Ministries. Jewish property at
that time was automatically vested in the State when the
owner crossed the boundaries of the Reich, and was
sequestered by the Head of the Finance Department. In these
circumstances the Accused could not receive anything.

It is obvious that the Accused had neither the knowledge nor
the manpower to carry out the voluminous administration of
property and finances required in these circumstances.

President How do you explain T/55(12)? This is his personal
file. He had returned to Berlin, and this file contains a
memorandum showing his merits in the acquisition of enormous
property for the Reich, and it is also marked to his credit
that he cleared Austria of its Jews.

Dr. Servatius I think this is a testimony intended for his
promotion which stressed, in an exaggerated fashion, the so-
called merits of the candidate for promotion, whilst
actually these merits were not those of the Accused at all.

Inasmuch as later on seizures of property were effected
during the Accused’s period of service, only the legal
requirements, by way of filling out forms, had to be
complied with, without any connection whatsoever with
measures of persecution by the Accused.

In this connection, the Accused’s activities in Vienna have
to be mentioned. According to Dr. Loewenherz’s report
referring to that time, he always consented to substantial
withdrawals of monies from the funds of the Jewish
Community. Furthermore, the case of the transfer of a Jewish
sanatorium as a recreation home to the Lebensborn
organization, which has been mentioned, is striking evidence
of the fact that other agencies had seized the property of
Jewish Communities, without having asked for authorization.
The Accused was confronted with a fait accompli, and it
remained for him only, formally, to add his signature.

The scope of the Accused’s functions was, in fact, in the
field of deportations.

The Judgment contains obscurities as to the activities
ascribed to the Accused; they are called summarily “rounding
up and deportation.” The following are to be distinguished:
orders for deportation; determination of the time of
deportation and of its destination; drawing up the
timetable; the rounding up of the deportees, their
transportation and their delivery.

The Accused received the order for the deportation, as well
as its time and destination, from the political command,
through the intermediary of his superior. He then
transmitted this deportation order to the Reich Railways
Administration for the drawing up of the timetable, and then
informed his superior who had given the order of the
alternative trains available.

Justice Silberg Wasn’t the connection with the Ministry of
Transport established by Novak?

Dr. Servatius Novak was employed in the Section and was
entrusted, in particular, with these matters of
transportation, and for that purpose he was also sent to
enquire what could be put at his disposal by the Reich
Railway Administration. Thereafter, the deportation order
was transmitted to the local commanders. The round-up was
then carried out by these commanders and the transportation
carried out by the same organization. The deportation
operation was completed by the delivery at the place of

However, the District Court wrongly found that the Accused,
on his own initiative, zealously carried out this round-up.
A number of examples are typical in this respect:

The deportation of 1,000 German Jews from Stettin was not
carried out on the initiative of the Accused, but was an
independent operation of local authorities for the purpose
of vacating apartments.

Another case was the deportation of Jews from Baden-
Wuerttemberg. In this case, the order for deportation had
been obtained by the District Leaders (Gauleiter) through
direct contact with Hitler.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15