Appeal Session 04-05, Eichmann Adolf

Justice Sussman: It says here: “betreffend Evakuierung von
Juden aus Rumaenien” (concerning evacuation of Jews from
Romania). But this is not T/1021.

Attorney General: The same day that Eichmann wrote T/1021,
he ensured that a letter would be written to Himmler, which
is referred to in T/1023, and this reveals his deception.

Justice Sussman: Is there proof that the Appellant drafted
the contents of T/1023?

Attorney General: I read this out to Your Honours.

President: This was for T/1021.

Justice Sussman: In any case, 1021 is signed by Mueller,
that is his Department. But what about T/1023?

Attorney General: I believe that in T/37, page 1737, he
speaks about both documents. If that is not the case, I
shall find the reference in a moment.

On page 2222 he mentions that the letter which is quoted in
T/1023 was drafted by himself.

Justice Sussman: But we do not have the letter itself.

Attorney General: It is referred to in T/1023.

This chapter comes out very clearly from my examination of
Eichmann in the District Court in Session 97, Vol, IV, page
1685. I ask him:

“That means, then, that at one point you write to the
Foreign Ministry that only able-bodied Jews are to be
deported, and to the Reichsfuehrer you write that non-
able-bodied Jews are also to be deported. Is that

“A. I had to deal with this as I was instructed by
orders. I do not want in any way to dispute this
business, but I cannot give the details.”

Justice Silberg: Have you finished this point, Mr. Hausner?

Attorney General: Not yet, Your Honour.

Apparently the Foreign Ministry reprimanded Killinger for
his weakness, and then Killinger wrote exhibit T/1029 in
which he indicates his anger at Eichmann’s interference in
his affairs and claims that of course it is he, Killinger,
who despatched Richter to act in this affair. Killinger
speaks here of the methods of the gentlemen from the SS,
with which he is only too well acquainted.

But what actually happened we know from the Sassen Document
and from my examination of Eichmann in Session 102, Vol. IV,
page 1760. I read out to him the following passage which he
said to Sassen:

“Richter came to Berlin several times and complained
that he had been muzzled by Killinger, which was why he
had come in person, as he could not report it in
writing. This happened half a dozen times, as I
recommended to Richter – or gave him my opinion – that
whenever he was unable to see clearly how to cope with
his matters, if it involved opinions of principle, to
get on a plane or a train and to come to me and report
to me. From what I knew of Richter, he combined
business with pleasure, and that is why it was half a
dozen times. Apparently Killinger in Bucharest was a
gentleman who wished to command in a very authoritarian
fashion, who got along very well with everyone,
including Richter, as long as he knew that Richter was
tied to one of the traces of his carriage. People there
had all the freedom which they were entitled to on
grounds of their official positions.

“But if Ambassador Killinger complained about me, I
must counter this by saying that in Bucharest, far from
home, Ambassador Killinger did not know how the cards
were shuffled and played there. He could not know that
at least once a week, the responsible Legation
Counsellor of the Foreign Ministry turned up in my
antechamber and asked to see me. For several years that
was Rademacher, and after that von Thadden. If
Ambassador von Thadden now says that he, like a good
soul, sent all letters via the Foreign Ministry to the
Security Police and the Security Service – but the
other way round there were complaints – then he is
doing the Security Police and the Security Service a
grave injustice, which because of his general stupidity
might be forgiven him. He could not know that
Department IV initially had a far closer connection
with the Foreign Ministry than chasing written notes
back and forth. And he could not have any idea that the
competent officials-in-charge of the Security Police
and the Security Service – the Foreign Ministry – sat
down at the same table at least once a week with the
man from the Security Police about whom he spoke so
unkindly, and discussed the matter.”

“Q. You did say that, didn’t you?”

“A. Yes.”

After that there begins the discussion as to whether this is
substantively correct, and now he tries to show some
handwritten corrections. And at the end he says : “In
general it is right.”

Justice Silberg: Now that you have completed this point,
Mr. Hausner, I should like to ask you a question in a
different context. If you would take T/1023, you will see
that the date is 19 August 1942. Heydrich is already dead.
Kaltenbrunner has not yet been appointed. Who now is the
Chef of the Sicherheitspolizei and of the
Sicherheitsdienst? This would appear to be Himmler himself,
as the Court found. Now see what it says – it says here:
“Der Bericht des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des
Sicherheitsdienstes,” in other words Himmler is writing on
26 June to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, that is Himmler once again.
Himmler is writing to Himmler?

Attorney General: No. The Office of the Chief of the
Security Police is sometimes Eichmann and sometimes Mueller
and sometimes someone else who signs below the heading “Chef
der Sicherheitspolizei.” All the letters which Eichmann
issued went under this heading.

Justice Silberg: It specifically says here, “des Chefs,”
and it does not say on behalf of or “i.A.”

Attorney General: It cannot be assumed from this that there
was official correspondence which bore this heading, nor we
cannot say who signed and in what form. But Eichmann
testifies that he dictated this letter that somebody signed.
In any case, this does add anything in favour of the

The argument that, allegedly, Eichmann was passive in
respect of the Operations Units is also contradicted by all
the exhibits in the evidence submitted. From Blume’s
affidavit (T/306)…

President: Where was the affidavit given?

Attorney General: At Ohlendorf’s trial in Nuremberg, Your

We know what happened at the briefing of Operations Units
Commanders at the Prince Albert Palais in Berlin, a meeting
in which Eichmann took part, as he himself admits, where an
instruction was given to exterminate Jewry in the East. This
was just before Operation Barbarossa, before the Germans
invaded the Soviet Union. This was a briefing session for
Operations Units Commanders. Apparently the date was June
1941. There were several meetings, and Blume refers to one
of these, and Eichmann speaks about it in his Statement.
Blume says:

” The Commandos met in May-June 1941 when the
Operations Units were being set up. At that time we
were already informed about the tasks of exterminating
the Jews. It was explained that East European Jewry
provided the intellectual reservoir for Bolshevism, and
accordingly, in the opinion of the Fuehrer, it had to
be destroyed.”

This address was delivered to a small circle. Heydrich
subsequently made the same points in a speech at the Prince
Albert Palais in Berlin, and the Accused admitted that he
was present at a meeting where the Commanders were briefed.
He says that he remembers that they based themselves on some
order, but he cannot remember what it was.

Justice Agranat: Where was this testimony submitted?

Attorney General: At Ohlendorf’s trial in Nuremberg.

His Section sent out instructions to the High Command of the
Police, including the Commanders of the Operations Units,
concerning anti-Jewish measures. T/271.

President: Which Office was Blume in?

Attorney General: Blume belonged to the Einsatzkommando.

President: What is T/271?

Attorney General: T/271 is an instruction from Section IVB4
about dealing with Jews who were foreign nationals, mixed
marriages and others, which went to all the police units,
including the Einsatzgruppen. And in his police
interrogation Eichmann admitted that this instruction was
drafted by his assistants Guenther or Suhr. T/37 page 1432.

Justice Agranat: Was this instruction drafted by his staff?

Attorney General: Yes, and it bears the reference IVB4.

President: What were the instructions?

Attorney General: That is not of particular importance to
me at the moment, Your Honour, rather what is important to
me is to show to whom the instructions went.

Counsel for the Defence talks about that part of the
activities of the Operations Units which was illegal and
which was not known to the Accused. He knew about their
activities right from the start, and he admitted as much,
and this is found in the Judgment, and what were these?
Justice Musmanno defined them: “a slaughter_house on wheels.
All of their actions right from the outset were the
bloodshed of innocent victims.”


Attorney General: I shall now discuss Eichmann’s control
over the concentration and death camps. Counsel for the
Defence claims that only the Economic-Administrative Head
Office had control over these camps, and not Eichmann. Let
me state at the outset that no one from the Inspectorate of
Concentration Camps participated in the Wannsee Conference,
because they only served as the instrument. In T/1357, page
24, Hoess testified that the machinery was operated by the
Security Police Unit. In Hoess’ testimony at his trial,
T/1356 page 5, it says that when Himmler’s orders were
issued that it was forbidden to exterminate any more Jews,
he went to Berlin to check what had happened. It says:

“I was sent by Pohl to the Head Office for Reich
Security, to Mueller. Mueller was unable to give me any
information and sent me to Eichmann, who was conducting
negotiations in Switzerland and in Turkey, together
with somebody called Becher. For this reason they sent
me to Budapest in order to check whether the
extermination of the Jews had been temporarily halted,
or whether it would continue later.”

In order to check on what brought about the ban on
exterminating the Jews, Hoess is sent to Eichmann in

Justice Silberg: When was this?

Attorney General: At the end of 1944, when there was an
order from Himmler to stop.

On page 19 of the same exhibit Hoess talks of transports
which were despatched by Eichmann’s Section. He is asked by
the prosecutor: Were these orders from Berlin that they all
have to be taken? And he answers: Eichmann personally
supervised the transports and also set the date for the

I would also like to mention T/1278. This is an instruction
by Mueller to all Security Police and SD Units with a
notification to the Economic-Administrative Head Office
dated 30 May 1942, to the effect that the transfer of the
concentration camps to the Economic-Administrative Head
Office in no way infringes the authority of the Head Office
for Reich Security in respect of the transports and
releasing of detainees from the camp.

I have referred to the directives which required Globocnik
to report to Eichmann concerning the transports which
Globocnik received at his camps in the Lublin area. This is

Justice Silberg: During which period?

Attorney General: March 1942. I move on now to T/1399.

Justice Agranat: Is that the Duesseldorf File?

President: You related that to T/737.

Attorney General: T/737 contains directives concerning the
dispatch of a transport of Jews to the Generalgouvernement.

President: From whom do these directives come?

Attorney General: From the Gestapo. From the Wuerzburg File
and part of the Duesseldofr Documents.

Justice Silberg: The Duesseldorf Documents relate to
transports to Riga, and Riga is not in the

Attorney General: In the Duesseldorf File there are all the
directives which related to transports from the Reich as a
whole. Out of these, the Court based itself on the
transports to Riga.

T/1399 is an instruction to Duesseldorf signed by Eichmann,
to which instructions are attached as to how the expulsion
of the Jews to Generalgouvernement territory would be
carried out. On page 7 the Court will find the instruction
that the recipient of the transports, Globocnik, must report
back to IVB4 that the transports had been received.

Justice Silberg: On this point did the Court rely on Hoess,
to the effect that Eichmann determined the date of the
killing? The Court says in Paragraph 145: “It follows,
therefore, that every trainload of `Transport Jews’ reached
the Auschwitz camp with its Jewish passengers condemned to
death by a general decree.”

President: Here it based itself on the Appellant’s powers
concerning deportations to Terezin that exterminations were
to take place six months later. In the Judgment there is a
reference to the Paragraph which deals with the subject of

Attorney General: Precisely.

President: What is the proof?

Attorney General: There were various testimonies, both by
Yehuda Bakon who was one of those deported to Terezien and
related his experiences, when the instruction to exterminate
them was postponed for a while in order for them to send
postcards in the meanwhile to Terezien in which they would
reassure the remaining inhabitants of the Ghetto that they
were all right.

Justice Silberg: I understood that the Court found, on the
basis of various testimonies and documents, that the
transports to Auschwitz included a transport which was
conditionally destined for death subject to the proviso that
the Camp Commander could postpone the implementation on
Eichmann’s order. If he did not receive such an order, that
meant that a selection was to be carried out and the unfit
were to be killed. Is that correct?

Attorney General: Hoess says that Eichmann was involved
with the gassings.

President: Apart from Hoess, who else said anything about
this? What is the witness’s name?

Attorney General: Yehuda Bakon.

The Appellant ignores the abundance of proof of Eichmann’s
responsibility for Terezien – the setting up of the Ghetto,
maintaining it and running it. All of this has already been
detailed in the Judgment, and I shall not repeat it.

I come now to the Wetzel document (T/308). In the Doctors’
Trial Brack was questioned about these documents.

President: Was Brack the name of the accused?

Attorney General: The accused. He was sentenced to death
and executed. This is in Vol. 1 of the Green Series, page
886. He was first questioned about the short document.

President: What is the short document? In general there are
four documents: there is a memorandum, the typescript of the
memorandum, a draft and a letter.

Attorney General: His argument is that the first two are
separate, the draft and the typed draft. And I am speaking
of the short document.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/15