Session 012-02, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: Is this the organization of the Accused’s

Witness Less: The organization of the Department for Jewish
Affairs and its extensions as we saw them according to the
documents. For example at RSHA Headquarters, the head of the
Security Police and the SD, Office IV and thereafter
Referat IVB4, which by 1 April 1944 had received a new name
and was converted into Department IVA4, and this Department
as well as the “Referat” dealt with various matters as are
indicated here:

I shall read them out in German:

Juden-Angelegenheiten; Regierungsangelegenheiten; Einziehung
volks- und staatsfeindlichen Vermoegens; Aberkennung der
deutschen Reichangehoerigkeit; and beginning from the year
1944 – the exact date is not known to us – Politisierende
Kirchen, and Eichmann was at the head of the Department.
Directions and instructions were given from here through the
BdS Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei and the S.D., and
Eichmann’s officials, people who were employed in this
Department, and there were also concentration camps, such as
the Drancy Concentration Camp in France or Malines in
Belgium, or Westerbork in Holland. Indirectly, he also had
an influence, as we saw, on these concentration camps, from
where people were sent to the East. As regards Germany
itself, Austria and the Protectorate, the channels led by
way of “Judenreferenten” who were in all the “Stapostellen”
in the various districts. In “Eingegliederten Ostgebieten”
(incorporated Eastern Areas) such as Warthegau, almost the
same situation prevailed, since they had been, so to speak,
returned to the Reich, and consequently they had the same
structure as in the Reich. They were exactly in the same

Presiding Judge: Which were the “Eingegliederte Ostgebiete”
apart from Warthegau?

Witness Less: In the North there was one in Zichenau, I
think in the environs of Zichenau.

Attorney General: Ciecanow, in Polish.

Presiding Judge: Were these areas that had been annexed to
the Nazi Reich?

Attorney General: Upper Silesia.

Witness Less: In the Generalgouvernement matters were
referred – orders and directives, instructions were sent by
means of the BdS which was situated in Cracow in the
Generalgouvernement and from there they went to the five
provinces in each of which the SS and a “Polizeifuehrer”
were situated.

Attorney General: One moment, please, before you continue.
You are talking of five provinces. Since when were there
five provinces?

Witness Less: I am unable to tell you this.

Q. The province of Galicia – when was it annexed? Do you not
know that?

A. No.

Q. Alright, let us go on; and we shall clarify this to the
Court later.

A. And in Russia, there it went via the BdS in Riga, the BdS
in Kiev and also through the Einsatzgruppe B and the
Einsatzgruppe D. Here perhaps it should be pointed out that
in fact there were Einsatzgruppen in the Riga district
before as well, but at the end of 1941 and in 1942, the
Chief of the Einsatzgruppe became the BdS on the spot. The
same thing happened in Kiev. There remained only
Einsatzgruppe B and D.

Presiding Judge: Which areas were these?

Witness Less: At the moment I don’t remember, but it appears
in document No. 5.

Q. Was all this in Russia, from North to South?

A. Yes. I should point out further that this chart does not
apply to a particular date, but this was since the period
when branches were established outside the boundaries of the
Reich. For example here [pointing to the chart] this line
leads to four places where there was the Judenberater
Wisliceny in the German Embassy in Pressburg in Slovakia,
the Judenberater Abromeit in the German Embassy in Agram
[Zagreb], in Croatia, the Judenberater Richter in Bucharest,
in the German Embassy, and Dannecker, at a certain stage, I
think it was in 1942 or 1943, I believe in 1942, was sent to
Sofia and was also attached to the Embassy there.

Q. From France?

A. From France. Dannecker appears several times – he also
appears in Italy, after Italy’s surrender. On the left-hand
side there are shown the operations of the Sonder-Einsatz-
Kommando which, in our opinion, were conducted by the
Department. The first was the Sonder-Einsatz-Kommando of
Hungary, headed by Eichmann himself, which operated in the
year 1944, there was a Sonder-Einsatz-Kommando in France
which was active in the year 1943-1944. To some extent they
also operated in Belgium. In Denmark, there was a Sonder-
Einsatz-Kommando, the head of which was Guenther, Eichmann’s
assistant – they operated there in 1943. Here [he points to
the chart] we were not sure if this was a Sonder-Einsatz-
Kommando and therefore we wrote the Einsatzkommando of
Brunner. Brunner was sent to Slovakia in 1944 in order to
complete the expulsion of the Jews from Slovakia. And here
he points to the chart is the Einsatzkommand of Burger which
was active in Athens in the year 1944. Then the Emigration
Centres of the Jews of Vienna, Prague and Berlin were
attached. In Prague the name was changed beginning in 1943,
when evidently there was no longer anyone to deport. It was
called the Zentralamt fuer Regelung der Judenfrage in
Boehmen und Maehren (Central Office for Regulation of the
Jewish Question in Bohemia and Moravia). There was also, in
our opinion, a direct connection with the Ghetto of
Theresienstadt and also with the Austauschlager Bergen-
Belsen (Exchange Camp Bergen-Belsen).

Presiding Judge: What is the meaning of “”Austauschlager

Witness Less: This was evidently a special camp where they
detained Jews and all kinds of well-known personalities for
all sorts of purposes.

Q. On the basis of what material did you prepare this?

A. On the basis of research which we, I and my colleagues,
conducted; we conducted the research in all these areas and
on the basis of the actual documents we discovered. And in
this way we reached the conclusion that this was the

Q. Does this match the Accused’s statement?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. To make this matter clear, this is not, in fact, a
document in the sense of the documents submitted so far.

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: But this is a sort of survey as contended
by the Prosecution which will have to be proved.
Attorney General: This will be the Prosecution’s contention.

Presiding Judge: This still has to be proved.

Attorney General: This we must prove.

Presiding Judge: This is merely to facilitate the
Prosecution’s presentation?

Attorney General: Yes, for the orientation of the Court. We
submit this in graphic form so that it may be easier.

Presiding Judge: It follows that we shall not mark this with
the number of a documentary exhibit, but merely with the
initials you have mentioned.

Attorney General: Very well, Your Honour.

[To witness] Before we pass to the next chart were you also
helped in preparing the material by the Accused’s own

Witness Less: Clearly I used it as well.

Q. What is the second chart you are holding?

A. This is a chart showing the development of the

Presiding Judge: Of the Department or of the entire office?

Witness Less: Of the department for Jewish Affairs. In
practice, according to the material which Bureau 06 had and
according to our investigation, there was a time before
1935, when it was in the SD Hauptamt. On 1 July 1935 a
Department for the Jews, JI6, was established. The Accused
joined this Department in 1935, according to his own words,
but in fact this Department began by dealing with
intelligence matters.

Attorney General: With collecting information.

Witness Less: Yes. The operational side was in the hands of
the Gestapo (Geheimes Staatspolizeiamt).

Attorney General: And was there also a Jewish Department?

Witness Less: There was also a Department IIB4. IIB
generally speaking, so I believe, dealt with Jewish affairs.
There they had Referenten (officials in charge). In every
Staatspolizeistelle (Headquarters of the State Police) in
the Reich and later in Austria and the Protectorate. On the
other hand, we notice that the SD had its own set-up until
the date of the unification. There, too, there were
Referenten in the “SD Unterabschnitte [subdivisions], and
this is how it developed, that it became Department II 112.
This was at the time of the Austrian surrender.

Presiding Judge: That is to say, this is a chart which
refers to various periods.

Witness Less: Definitely.

Attorney General: This shows the development of the Jewish
Department starting with the SD and the Gestapo, and later
on as the RSHA.

Witness Less: Until the unification which took effect on 27
September 1939. Then the “SD Hauptamt” and the Gestapo
became the RSHA.

Q. And what happened then to the Intelligence Department?

A. This in fact went over here he points to the chart –
firstly to Office II – the Gegnererforschung (investigation
of opponents) which, at a later stage [in 1941] changed to
“Weltanschauliche Forschung und Auswertung” (Investigation
and Evaluation of Ideologies).

Q. What happened to the operational Department IIB4?

A. The whole thing passed to office IV and this, in fact,
afterwards became the Gestapo.

Q. The Gestapo as they call it?

A. Yes, as they call it generally, the Gestapo.

Q. This was office IV – what was its function?

A. Fighting the enemy. Gegnerbekaempfung.

Q. And as part of it, Department IVB4.

A. It was created here [he points it out on the chart.] This
was, at certain stages until October 1939, this was 4
(IIRZ). This related to the Reichszentrale fuer Juedische
Auswanderung. Thereafter, in December 1939, there was a
Referat IVD4 which dealt with Raeumungsangelegenheiten
(Matters of Evacuation) the Reichszentrale fuer Juedische
Auswanderung. Then the Accused was appointed Head of this
Referat. Subsequently this was changed, about 1 March 1941.
Then it was the Referat IVB4 that dealt with Juden-
angelegenheiten (Matters concerning Jews and evacuation) –
between this date and 1 April 1943. Later on, they added
Einziehung von volks-und staatsfeindlichenm Vermoegen
(Sequestration of Property Inimical to the People and the
State) and so forth, and commencing on 1 April 1944, the
name was altered and it was called IVA4, with the same
functions but with the addition of the Churches.

Q. The Politisierenden Kirchen?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this chart also prepared on the basis of the same
material as with the other charts?

A. Definitely.

Q. In Bureau 06?

A. In Bureau 06.

[The chart is handed to the Presiding Judge: for marking.]

Presiding Judge: I have marked this chart, too, with

Attorney General: Just one more question. [to witness] Do
you have the Accused’s replies to questionnaires which were
referred to the Bureau and with which this Bureau was
required to deal?

Witness Less: Yes, 16 questionnaires. I wrote down the
questions which were referred to Bureau 06, and I asked the
Accused to reply to them in writing. But this was not
actually within the framework of the interrogation. These
were questions which were directed to the Bureau from all
kinds of sources, from people who wanted to know details
about the fate of someone or other.

Q. On matters of property as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And the Accused replied?

A. Yes, definitely.

Presiding Judge: Does all this concern the case before us?

Attorney General: Not everything. But there are parts that
relate to the trial. And I do not want to extract only
those, and hence I prefer to submit all the material even
though I shall not refer to all of it. But if I have 16
questionnaires, and I refer to one or two – it would be
better for me to submit them all. And I would like to
request the Court to accept the charts.

Presiding Judge: Sixteen, you say?

Witness Less: Yes, 16, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: Do you have a printed copy of this?

Witness Less: No.

Presiding Judge: If you want to use this, you will have to
make a printed copy, for it is rather difficult to read the

Attorney General: We shall ask the secretariat to release it
for the purpose of making printed copies.

Presiding Judge: Those parts to which you wish to refer?

Attorney General: Certainly.

Presiding Judge: These questionnaires have been marked T/54.
Is that all, Mr. Hausner?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour, that is all.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions to
put to this witness?

Dr. Servatius I have a number of questions. The Witness,
Sir, in addition to the recordings on tape, were
conversations held on aspects of the interrogation to be
recorded later on?

Witness Less: I don’t understand this question exactly.
There were various things that were said…

Presiding Judge: I think the question was clear. The
question was: were there preliminary talks between you
before the statements that were recorded in T/37?

Witness Less: There was the caution administered by Mr.

Presiding Judge: Before that, this is how I understand the

Witness Less: I am not aware of this, for I saw the Accused
for the first time on 29 May 1960.

Dr. Servatius I presume I did not express myself with
sufficient clarity. I intended to ask – did they prepare the
Accused, did they submit queries to him, was there gentle,
or not so gentle pressure, to testify or not to testify, and
was it only afterwards that they proceeded with the

Judge Halevi: The translation was not accurate. The
question was: were requests placed before him to testify or
not to testify on certain matters?

Witness Less: Before I began recording, I explained to the
Accused that I wanted to switch on the machine, and I told
him that, to the extent that he would tell the story, only
part of it interested us, his activities in the Third Reich,
beginning 1933 and up to the end of the War in May 1945, and
nothing else.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, are you referring in your
questions to matters that happened before the recordings, or
also to matters that occurred during the time of the

Dr. Servatius First of all I referred, of course, to the
period before the recordings began, but also to the period
after they began. But I have already understood from the
remarks of the witness that this was not so, that such
matters were not put, but that he was cautioned that
everything he would say could be used against him, and that
he should state anything that was of interest in relation to
the matters with which he has been charged.

Presiding Judge: I understood that, if there had been
anything prior to the recordings, the witness had no
knowledge thereof. Is that correct?

Witness Less: This is what I said. I merely want to repeat
what I said before the recording. If this is the intention
of the Defence, I explained that after he had expressed his
willingness to present his story, I told him to describe –
to the extent that he wanted to describe – only his part in
the Third Reich, and not anything which came after the
surrender of Germany in 1945.

Presiding Judge: This was not the question, I believe.

Witness Less: This is how I understood it.

Last-Modified: 1999/05/30