Appeal Session 02-01, Eichmann Adolf

17 Adar Bet 5722 (23 March 1962)

President: Dr. Servatius, please proceed.

Dr. Servatius: Mr. President, please allow me to make some
short additions and emendations to my address yesterday. As
to the relationship of subordination of the Advisers on
Jewish Affairs and Section Heads, I submitted that
Winkelmann himself had stated that the Section Head had
acted upon his instructions. In this respect, I confused the
event in question with another event which occurred in
Romania, but which is also relevant. This becomes perfectly
obvious from the perusal of the Romanian document – Defence
exhibit N/6. In this document, Ambassador Killinger reports
to the Foreign Ministry by a teleprint message, dated 6
August 1940, concerning the post of the Adviser on Jewish
Affairs that, “he is simply subordinate to me as Adviser,
without any staff and power of command, and will act
according to my instructions.”

Furthermore, I wish to explain in more detail the position
of the Inspectors (SS and Police Commanders). The Accused
considers that I have already answered in the affirmative a
question put by the President: of the Court as to whether
these Inspectors were subordinate to the Accused. I am not
aware of having given such a reply. Anyhow, such an
assumption would not be correct. The relationship is as
follows. The Inspectors were the local representatives of
the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Heydrich, and
later on Kaltenbrunner. They were personal representatives,
in the same manner as the Higher SS and Police Leaders were
the personal representatives of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Now,
the Chief of the Security Police and the SD could transmit
orders to the Inspectors, through the intermediary of the
seven Departments of the RSHA, also through the Head of
Department IV, Mueller. Whenever Mueller issued an order, he
could have transmitted it through the Accused’s Section, and
this would explain documents which might have been produced
bearing the Accused’s signature with the addition of the
words im Auftrag (by order). Therefore, the Inspectors were
not subordinate to the Accused in any way.

Finally, I wish to refer again to the Wetzel documents. I am
prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that these
documents are genuine, and would point out that the
typewritten drafts bear at the bottom a notation “NDHM” (by
way of information, to be submitted to the Minister). Wetzel
told me, in reply to a further enquiry on my part, that
these drafts were not submitted and that none of them was
sent off. Now, it is striking that the contents of these
drafts were published. A remark Wetzel made to me – that
other persons participated in drawing up this manuscript
raises the assumption that the various drafts were also
prepared by different persons.

Justice Silberg: I would like to understand, Dr. Servatius,
whether the first draft is not a summary on the basis of
which the second draft was prepared. There are no
substantial differences in their contents. The first draft
is a summary and constituted the basis for the preparation
of the second draft. Is this correct or not? If you compare
both documents, you will see that they are the same, they
have the same contents, but in one of them it looks as if it
had been taken down in shorthand. Is that correct or not?
Dr. Servatius: In general, that is correct. However, there
are some deviations.

Justice Silberg: What deviations?

Dr. Servatius: A total of four.

Justice Silberg: Four deviations?

Dr. Servatius: At present, I do not have the documents
before me. It strikes you just by looking at them that one
of them is substantially longer than the other.

Attorney General: I believe that there is a basic
misunderstanding. This exhibit consists of two separate
documents. We have one letter addressed by Wetzel to his
superior and another letter from the Minister for Eastern
Occupied Territories addressed to the Reich Commissioner for
the Eastern Territories. These are two different documents
attached to each other, typed on different typewriters and
of different size. This is not the same document.

Justice Silberg: But the contents are identical?

Attorney General: They do refer to the same subject. On one
occasion Wetzel writes about the use of gas, and on another
occasion Rosenberg writes to the Reich Commissioner for the
Eastern Territories on the same subject.

Justice Sussmann Are you referring to T/301?

Attorney General: I am referring to T/308. There is also

Justice Silberg: I think you are mistaken. The longer letter
is also addressed by the Reichskommissar fuer besetzte
Ostgebiete (Reich Commissioner for the Eastern Occupied
Territories) Rosenberg to the Reichskommissar fuer das
Ausland (Reich Commissioner for Territories outside

Attorney General: One of the letters bears the date 25
October 1941, while the other letter is not dated at all.

Justice Silberg: The second letter contains the word
Reichsminister and is not dated.

Attorney General: It reads “gegen Ihren Vorschlag zur
Loesung der Judenfrage habe ich Bedenken” (I have objections
to your proposal for the Solution of the Jewish Question).
These are different matters.

Justice Silberg: The addressee is the same addressee and the
writer is the same writer.

Attorney General: But these are two different letters. One
cannot say that these are two drafts of the same letter.

Justice Sussmann If these are not two drafts of the same
letter, but the headings are the same, then there were not
two letters written on the same subject to the same person
by the same person.

Attorney General: That is possible. But if Your Honour
would look at the drafts, you will see that one is
typewritten and the other is written by hand. But I shall
explain this when I submit Vol. 1 of the Green Series

Justice Silberg: The first is a summary, the second is
more detailed.

Justice Agranat: I want to understand this. Are you
arguing that what was stated in the Judgment is not

Attorney General: No. I agree with the finding of the
Judgment. But we have here a draft, and it is written by
hand, and there is also a typewritten draft, and that is
the sum total of the drafts.

Justice Agranat: I understand that there was a minute of a
conversation. This was written by hand. It contains the
contents of the conversation, and thus it was found by the
Judgment. The minute states who was present, one of the
three is not mentioned specifically.

Attorney General: Which paragraph of the Judgment is Your
Honour referring to?

Justice Silberg: 167.

Justice Agranat: Then there are two typewritten drafts in
which it is stated who was the third person, namely the
Accused. One of the drafts is a summary, and the second
one is more detailed. In addition we have the letter dated
25 October 1941.

Attorney General: That is exactly what I am saying.

Justice Sussmann All this constitutes one letter, two
versions of one letter.

Justice Silberg: Mr. Attorney General, will you please
note that the first, short, draft is actually a copy of
the typed version.

Attorney General: That is correct.

Justice Silberg: And afterwards, on the basis of this
draft the expanded, longer, draft was drawn up. The writer
is the same person and they are addressed to the same
person. The writer is the Minister for the Eastern
Occupied Territories, the person dealing with the matter,
Dr. Wetzel, and the addressee of the letter is the Reich
Commissioner for the Eastern Territories, and they deal
with the same matter. Attorney General: These documents
were submitted in the Doctors’ trial, and the Court can
learn from Vol. 1 what happened to them.

President:  You can go into the details in your reply.

You may continue, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: In view of this uncertainty, it is my
opinion that the examination of the witness Wetzel cannot
be dispensed with. His testimony is indispensable. This is
a key document for all matters concerning gas.

I would like to continue from where I left off yesterday.
I was talking about Hungary and the operations carried out
there. In this connection we have a further subject, the
so_called Feldscher Operation where the diplomatic
representatives intervened to facilitate the emigration of
Jews. In this matter, too, the District Court did not pay
sufficient attention to the documents produced by the

First of all, I refer to Defence exhibit N/83, dated 3
July 1944. In this letter, the Reich Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Ribbentrop, rejects the humanitarian efforts of
the diplomats as being inopportune. This is followed by
Defence exhibit N/84. This is a memorandum of an oral
statement made by Wagner in the Foreign Ministry.
According to this, emigration should be permitted only if
recompense of value is provided. Moreover, a delaying
tactic should be adopted so that, in the meantime, the
evacuation of the Jews of Budapest will largely have been
completed, so that in essence the intervention of
diplomats will then have become pointless.

This again is followed by exhibit N/85. This is a letter,
dated 10 July 1944, containing Ribbentrop’s basic
nullifying condition that a concession would be made to
the foreign diplomats, but only if the Hungarian
Government completes the transportation of the Jews to the
Reich immediately and as rapidly as possible.

Considering this evidence, it is impossible to argue that
the Accused had a strategy with regard to the persecution
of the Jews. In my opinion, this finding of the District
Court ought to be reviewed.
A case considered by the Judgment as particularly
incriminating to the Accused is the deportation of the
Jews from the Kistarcsa camp. The finding of the District
Court that, by cunning, the Accused caused the transport
to continue its journey after it had been turned back by
Horthy, is questionable. The chain of command in respect
of the camps has to be explained in general. The camps
were under the authority of the Hungarian gendarmerie.
Smaller units of the German Security Police (SIPO) were
posted to these camps. These were subordinate to the
competent SIPO commander. There were four or five such
commanders. Their superior was the commander of the SIPO,
Geschke, and his superior was General Winkelmann. The
Embassy instructed Grell to visit the various camps and to
ensure that no Jews of foreign nationality be deported.
However, Grell had no police powers of his own. Therefore,
on the strength of an understanding with Veesenmayer and
Winkelmann, the Accused was ordered to post an officer to
every camp, whose duty it was to ensure that Grell’s
orders were carried out.

This is the explanation the Accused has given me now.
Previously, it was not clear to me even in this form.

An officer of this type, appointed by the Accused, was
stationed in the Kistarcsa camp. However, this officer had
no authority in the camp, nor had he anything to do with
the transport. Therefore, Novak, too, could not have taken
the initiative for the transport from Kistarcsa.

Justice Silberg: Are you submitting that, contrary to the
finding of the District Court, we should not believe Dr.
Brody? What is your contention?

Dr. Servatius: I did not understand, who should not be

Justice Silberg: The Court, in its finding that Novak
came to Kistarcsa and ordered the deportation of 1,550
Jews, relied upon the evidence of Dr. Brody given in the
Court. Are you asking us to refute these findings of the
Court which believed Dr. Brody?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, Your Honour, the witness Novak was
examined and testified that he did not have anything to do
with this transport. The Court will have to determine
which of these testimonies is to be preferred. However,
the witness Grell, who likewise testified in respect of
this transport, heard about it only as a rumour.
Possibly, this is the rumour based upon the guesswork of
the Judenrat. The Accused, too, stated that he had heard
something about such a transport. The facts as found are
not sufficient to find the Accused guilty with any
certainty. There are other possible explanations. The
Hungarian gendarmerie, which controlled the camp, and the
members of the Arrow Cross, were anything but pro-Jewish,
and the means of transportation were at their disposal.
There were a number of alternatives for carrying out the
deportation without the Accused’s collaboration. In my
opinion, no reliable evidence against the Accused has been

Justice Agranat: Did the members of Arrow Cross actually
have control?

Dr. Servatius: I understand from the documents that,
formally, Horthy was still in control. However, the Arrow
Cross was already very influential.

Justice Agranat: I understood that the Arrow Cross only
seized power in October 1944, and that the event in
Kistarcsa had happened earlier, in July, so that this
alternative has to be excluded.

Dr. Servatius: Nevertheless, the Arrow Cross was active
before to quite a substantial extent and intervened in the
the events. That is precisely what may have occurred in
this case.

I shall now refer to the march from Budapest to the
Austrian border. Originally, the number of 50,000 Jews was
mentioned as having been requested by Veesenmayer and
Winkelmann. In my opinion, the peremptory finding of the
District Court in this respect should be reviewed. The
starting point should be that, after the Accused’s
commando was disbanded, he returned to Berlin. He did not
go back, as stated in the Judgment, to the scene of
action, but he was ordered to go there. His return was
urgently requested by his superior in Hungary, Winkelmann,
to organize the transports which had already been agreed
upon with the Hungarians.

Justice Silberg: How long after Szalasi was appointed
Prime Minister was it that the Accused returned to
Budapest? A day or two, isn’t that so?

Dr. Servatius: A timetable is in the files. I do not
remember the exact dates. Anyhow, he was returned on
Winkelmann’s initiative after the commando had been
disbanded. That is what I wanted to stress. Veesenmayer or
Winkelmann, after all, knew that the deportation could be
effected only on foot, for the railways had been

Justice Silberg: I want to ask you, do you not admit that
the march began approximately a month after the Accused’s
return to Budapest?

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15