Judgment 28, Eichmann Adolf

96. In connection with expulsions of Jews from the Reich,
Austria and the Protectorate to the East and to Terezin, we
wish to point out two more special phenomena:

(a) The expulsion to Terezin was called technically “change
of residence” (T/850), and the plundering of the property of
the Jews expelled to Terezin sometimes took on a special
form. Exhibit T/854, which was submitted to us, is a sample
of “a Home Purchase Contract.” Such contracts were made,
nominally, between the Association of Jews and the candidate
for expulsion. The candidate transferred his property to
the Association (in the case of T/854 over 200,000
Reichsmark) and, in consideration, the Association undertook
to grant him housing in Terezin, as well as food and medical
care for life. The transfer of property to the Association
of Jews amounted to confiscation, because, as has been
stated, the accounts of the Association were blocked in
favour of the RSHA, and when the Association was liquidated
in 1943, final ownership was vested in the RSHA. This also
applied to property of public institutions first transferred
to the Association and to the huge “emigration funds” in
Vienna and Prague which were fed, in the last analysis, from
the property of the Jewish communities (vide, for instance,
the original document T/154 at p. 44). To demonstrate the
authority of the Accused’s Section over the public property
of German Jewry, we shall mention here also exhibit T/681,
containing a list of Jewish communities to be merged in the
Association of Jews, and an order dated 27 May 1941, signed
by the Accused, ordering that one of the communities
mentioned in the list be, in fact, so merged. All the
communities mentioned are in the Province of Baden, from
which the Jews were evacuated already in 1940, as will be
remembered. Exhibits T/745, T/746 and N/27 testify to the
transfer of the Jewish hospital in Nordrach to a Nazi
institution by the name of Lebensborn in the autumn of 1942.
In letter T/746 it is stated that:

“…the property belongs to the Reich Association of
Jews, which is subject to the authority of
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Department IV of the
RSHA, as being an institution of the Security Police.”

Therefore the application for the transfer of the property
is addressed to the Accused.

(b) The problem of foreign nationals amongst the Jews
worried the planners of the extermination in no small
measure. Two problems arose:

(1) Which foreign nationals can be expelled?

(2) Who will benefit from their property?

There is considerable exchange of correspondence between the
Accused’s office and the German Foreign Ministry in
connection with these questions, which we shall not relate
in detail. The conclusion reached at the stage of the final
evacuation can be seen in circular T/761, dated 5 March
1943, emanating from the Accused’s office and signed by
Kaltenbrunner. The circular gives a list of countries,
nationality of which will not exclude the Jew from the
application of the general decrees. In 1944, Hungary was
also added to the list.

In connection with property, the circular reads as follows:

“Since it has not been possible to reach final
agreement with the various foreign governments in
connection with the handling of the property of Jews of
foreign nationality, necessary steps should be taken in
each case of evacuation of a Jew of foreign
nationality, to safeguard such assets temporarily. To
facilitate the administration of such property by our
authorities, suitable trustees are to be appointed,
insofar as this has not been done by the foreign
diplomatic missions and consulates.”

Other foreign nationals, who were not mentioned in circular
T/761, are divided into two categories: subjects of
belligerent countries and subjects of neutral countries.
The letter from the Accused’s office, signed by him, and
dated 5 July 1943, addressed to the Foreign Ministry
(T/779), shows the situation and the measures taken until

“Since there have been a number of extensions of the
dates set at the time – with the implied or explicit
consent of this office – for foreign governments in
regard to the return of their Jewish nationals to their
countries, no further consent is to be given for any
more extensions or concessions. At the present stage
of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question within the
Reich, there are now on Reich territory only Jews who
have entered into mixed marriages (Jewish-German) and a
number of Jews of foreign nationality. To the extent
that you have agreed to the evacuation of Jews of
foreign nationality, the evacuation has since been
completed, and it is to be presumed that in most cases
action for their repatriation was taken by the
countries concerned. In order that we may reach a
complete solution in this respect, a final date must be
set for the governments concerned to carry out the

There follows a list of the countries concerned, namely:
Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden,
Finland, Hungary, Romania and Turkey. The letter concludes
with a proposal to grant exit visas to nationals of these
countries only up to 31 July 19 July 1943, and to equate
their status with that of Jews of German nationality as from
3 August 1943.

The German Foreign Ministry deals with this question
according to its internal procedure and replies to the
Accused’s office. The result can be seen in the circular
dated 23 September 1943 (T/784), bearing the mark of the
Accused’s Section, signed by Mueller, and sent to all
offices affiliated to the RSHA in all territories under
German rule. The German Foreign Ministry also sends copies
of this circular on 12 October 1943 to its branches in the
occupied territories and to embassies in the countries
concerned (T/786). The gist of the circular is that all
Jews who are subjects of the countries mentioned are to be
evacuated within a few days. Men above the age of 14 are to
be sent to Buchenwald, and women and children up to the age
of 14 to Ravensbrueck.

97. Such is the pattern of evacuation from the Old Reich,
Austria and the Protectorate, and the only difference –
which is merely formal – between the implementation in these
various parts of the Reich is that the executive instruments
in the Old Reich were the various State Police authorities
(Stapostellen, Stapoleitstellen), whilst in Austria and the
Protectorate there were the Central Offices for Jewish
Emigration in Vienna and Prague (see T/737, p. 1). The
difference is not material, because all these authorities
are affiliated to Department IV of the RSHA and received
their instructions in regard to Jewish affairs from the
Accused’s Section.

98. Outside the Reich, the RSHA, and within it the Accused’s
Section, acted through the medium of “Advisers on Jewish
Affairs” attached to Commanders of the Security Police (BdS)
or to local diplomatic representatives, or within a similar
administrative framework, as explained by the Accused on
page 151 et seq. of his Statement T/37. In spite of the
fact that these Advisers were subordinate to the BdS or to
the local diplomatic representative, they received their
substantive orders from headquarters in Berlin, and
especially from the Accused’s Section, to which they were
directly subordinate. This is admitted by the Accused in
his Statement, at p. 412, when asked about the status of
these Advisers:

“Q. …They belonged to your Section IVB4?

“A. They belonged to IVB4…as did all the others who
handled Jewish affairs in the Secret State Police
authorities, the Gestapostellen, if one can express it
thus by way of comparison.

“Q. Is it correct, that these representatives received
directions for action in their territory from your
Section, which was headed by you, and were later to
report to you?

“A. Yes.”

The accuracy of these facts was confirmed by the Accused
when cross-examined by the Attorney General (Session 96,
Vol. IV, pp. xxxx13-15).

The administrative variations in the respective countries
were insignificant, as the Accused says in his Statement,
page 152:

“Of course, all this cannot be brought to a common
denominator; but – not in each country, but almost in
each country – a small variation could be found in the
administrative procedures.”

99. The technical implementation of the evacuations in the
various countries did not differ much from that in the
Reich. The differences between one country and another were
more connected with creating the preliminary conditions for
evacuation, and these depended on various factors, for
instance the extent of German domination over the country,
collaboration or the contrary, the opposition of the
government institutions, and the population of each country.
For instance, the help extended by the Dutch people to the
persecuted Jews was considerable, and yet the losses borne
by Dutch Jewry were exceedingly heavy because of the
complete domination by the Germans over that country. We do
not intend to go into these matters at length. Here, too,
we shall follow our usual plan and point out, in connection
with each country, only those matters which in our opinion
are required for the evaluation of the Accused’s

Last-Modified: 1999/05/27