Judgment 50, Eichmann Adolf

156. This is the place to add a few words about the
Accused’s personal contact with the Mufti, Hajj Amin al-

It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the
implementation of the Final Solution, viz., the
extermination of European Jewry, and there is no doubt that,
had Hitler succeeded in conquering Palestine, the Jewish
population of Palestine as well would have been subject to
total extermination, with the support of the Mufti.

Memoranda sent by the Mufti to the German Foreign Ministry,
Ribbentrop (T/1260, T/1261), and to the satellite
governments of Romania and Bulgaria (T/1263, T/1264), have
been submitted to us, containing the insistent demand that
all Jewish immigration into Palestine be prevented.

In the memorandum to the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, dated 6
May 1943 (T/1263, p. 3), it says:

“I take the liberty of drawing your attention to the
fact that it would be indeed appropriate and
advantageous if the Jews were to be prevented from
emigrating from your country, and if they were sent to
a place where they would be placed under strict
control, as for example Poland.”

It is unnecessary to make any comment upon the phrase
“strict control,” when the subject under reference is Polish
Jewry in the year 1943.

In his notes, exhibit T/89, dated 26 July 1946, Wisliceny
quotes the Accused as saying that the Mufti visited his
office in Berlin at the end of 1941 or the beginning of
1942. The Accused gave him an account of the Solution of
the Jewish Question in Europe, and the Mufti was duly
impressed. The Mufti told the Accused that Himmler had
agreed to his request that a member of the Accused’s Section
should come to Jerusalem to serve as personal adviser to him
(the Mufti) upon the latter’s return to Jerusalem after the
victory of the Axis Powers. The Accused asked Wisliceny if
he would like to take this task upon himself, and he,
Wisliceny, declined to consider the suggestion.

In his Statement, the Accused admitted that he had met the
Mufti, though not in his office, but on the occasion of a
more widely attended gathering, and continues (p. 564):

“But it is correct that those who accompanied the Grand
Mufti visited me, and certainly there was some
discussion then, though I cannot remember that I ever
had a longer conversation with these Iraqi majors
beyond general greetings and receiving them and handing
them over to the members of my staff.”

Shortly afterwards (pp. 568-569), he speaks of a visit paid
to his office by a nephew (or other close relative) of the

In the light of this partial admission by the Accused, we
accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this
conversation between the Mufti and the Accused. In our view
it is not important whether this conversation took place in
the Accused’s office or elsewhere.

On the other hand, we cannot determine decisive findings
with regard to the Accused on the basis of the notes
appearing in the Mufti’s diary which were submitted to us.

Discussions with Regard to the Descendants of Mixed

157. Nazi legislation defined in paragraph 5 of Regulation
No. 1 under the Citizenship Law (one of the Nuremberg Laws)
who was to be regarded as a Jew (T/68). The Nazi legislator
had no doubts that a person who had three Jewish
grandparents was to be regarded as a Jew, whereas a person
having only one Jewish grandparent was not regarded as a
Jew. Special instructions existed with regard to half-Jews,
but we do not propose to detail them here.

During the first period, evacuation orders were based upon
this legislation. They laid down that Jews were to be
evacuated, and they defined who was a Jew for this purpose
in accordance with paragraph 5 above (see, for example,
T/713, T/664, T/730, T/737).

The evacuation orders issued by the Accused’s Section also
deal with this subject. For example, in the instructions
for the evacuation of Jews to Terezin, dated 20 February
1943 (T/850), we see that various categories of descendants
of mixed marriages (in the language of the indictment before
us, children of mixed marriages) who were regarded as Jews,
were to be evacuated to Terezin and not to the East.

But, in the meantime, the question of how to deal with
borderline cases concerning children of mixed marriages did
not cease to occupy the experts on race theory and the Nazi

In exhibit T/526, dated 19 September 1941, a person named
Stiller, who worked in the German administration in Holland,
reports on a conversation with Loesener, the Referent for
Jewish Affairs in the German Ministry of the Interior.
According to Loesener, there are circles which recommend
making the existing regulations more stringent, and
especially that half-Jews should be regarded as Jews for all
purposes. The Accused also, it is there stated, adopts this
point of view zealously. Army circles opposed this
extention, because of the bad impression which such severity
was likely to make upon soldiers who were one quarter
Jewish, and whose parents would thus be regarded as Jews in
the full sense of the word. The matter went right up to
Hitler himself, and he rejected the proposal for widening
the scope of the law.

In a sworn affidavit, dated 24 February 1948 (T/693),
Loesener states that he tried to prevent the harsh treatment
of children of mixed marriages, and that Nazi Party and SS
circles were angry with him because of this. In this
connection he mentions the name of the Accused as that of
one of the most fanatical and vicious Jew-haters.

In the statements of Stiller and Loesener, we see adequate
proof of the Accused’s attitude on the question under

In the minutes of the Wannsee Conference (T/185), the debate
on the treatment of children of mixed marriages of the first
and second degree occupies considerable space, and extreme
views are expressed, including a proposal for sterilization;
but the discussion on this question was not concluded.
On 6 March 1942, a month and a half after the Wannsee
Conference, a meeting takes place in the Accused’s office,
attended by representatives of the various ministries and
offices. The entire the meeting was devoted to the question
of the treatment of children of mixed marriages. The list
of the participants does not include the name of the
Accused, but that of Bilfinger, as representing the RSHA.
The discussion was most detailed, and in particular the
question of sterilization was debated. At this meeting,
also, no final conclusion was reached.

On 27 October 1942, a further meeting took place in the
Accused’s Section on the question of the children of mixed
marriages, this time with his participation (T/190). Those
present agreed to the proposal for voluntary sterilization
of children of mixed marriages of the first degree, in
return for granting them permission to remain on Reich
territory. But here, again, the results of the meeting were
to be communicated to various offices, so that they could
decide upon their final attitude on the question, and we do
not know how the matter ended.

Thus, it has been shown that the Accused himself handled the
question of the children of mixed marriages, but on the
basis of the material before us, we are unable to find that
the discussions on this question ever brought about a change
in the racial legislation, as it existed until then, or in
the implementation of the plan for the sterilization of the
children of mixed marriages.

On 30 January 1942, a meeting took place in the Ministry for
Eastern Occupied Territories (T/299), attended also by Suhr,
one of the officials in the Accused’s Section. All the
participants assumed that the Nuremberg Laws did not apply
in the East, and the debate turned on the question as to how
the term “Jew” should be defined in the East. Heydrich also
intervened in this debate (T/301), but again it has not been
proved to us that matters went beyond discussion and
correspondence and ever reached any final conclusion.

Sterilization and the Prevention of Births

158. As we have seen, a suggestion had already been made at
the Wannsee Conference that the children of mixed marriages
be sterilized. But the Nazis’ interest in sterilization
went far beyond this. Rudolf Brandt, one of Himmler’s men,
testified to this in his affidavit dated 19 October 1946
“Himmler was especially interested in the development of a
cheap, quick method of sterilization which could be used
against enemies of the German Reich, such as Russians, Poles
and Jews. It was hoped thereby not only to defeat, but also
to destroy the enemy. Germany would be able to exploit the
working capacity of the sterilized persons, while averting
the danger that they might multiply.”

Brandt, in his declaration, describes some of the shameful
acts by which Nazi doctors desecrated the name of medical
science: At Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck, experimental
sterilizations were carried out on women. Many thousands of
women, and especially Jewesses and Gypsies, were sterilized.
According to Brandt’s statement, at Auschwitz men, too, were
sterilized for experimental purposes. Two of the victims of
these experiments have given evidence before us.

According to a letter (T/1379), dated 4 July 1942, sent to
the Accused’s Section for the attention of Guenther, a
telephone conversation took place between Fischer, one of
Himmler’s adjutants, and Guenther. Fischer attaches to his
letter photographs which apparently relate to experiments
which are to be carried out. Fischer also requests
Guenther’s close co-operation in this matter with the office
of Pohl, the chief of the Economic-Administrative Head
Office. In his Statement to the police (T/37, p. 2237 et
seq.), the Accused denies all knowledge of the matter and
expresses his astonishment at the fact that Guenther’s name
appears on the letter, which had been sent from Himmler’s
office. In his testimony before us, he surmised that
apparently this had been a special task allotted to Guenther
personally (Session 79, Vol. IV, p.xxxx8).

On 10 July 1942, a letter (T/1377) was sent to Professor
Klauberg (or Glauberg), whose name became infamous in
connection with sterilization experiments on Jewesses. The
subject of this letter is: The experimental sterilization of
one thousand Jewesses in Ravensbrueck. A copy of this letter
was sent to the RSHA for information. The words “SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther, IVB4, Jewish Department” appear
typed on this document, but above that, the words “SS
Gruppenfuehrer Mueller” were written by hand (see T/37

We have come to the conclusion that on this subject the
Accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. Mention
of Mueller’s name in exhibit T/1377 shows that it is not at
all impossible that this matter was handled at a higher
level. Because of this doubt, we do not find that the
Accused and his Section took part in the implementation of
the sterilization programme or in its preparation.

Last-Modified: 1999/05/27