Session 013-04, Eichmann Adolf

The following document, which is written in the Accused’s
own handwriting, was submitted to him on pages 321-324 of
the statement, and it is his biography. With the Court’s
permission I shall read it – it is short. It’s Court number
is 2, our 18.

Judge Halevi: What is the date?

Attorney General: 19 July 1937.

“I was born on 19 March 1906, in Solingen (the Rhine
region), in Linz on the river Danube, where my father
served as head of the Tramway and Electric Company. I
went to primary school, to Secondary School (Natural
Science Trend) for four years, and for two years to the
High School for Electrical Engineering, Machine
Construction, and Building.

In the years 1925 to 1927 I worked as a sales official
of the Upper Austrian Electrical Construction Co. Ltd.
I left this post at my own request, owing to the fact
that the Vacuum Oil Company of Vienna Ltd. gave me the
agency for Upper Austria. Until June 1933, I worked for
this company in Upper Austria, in Salzburg and in the
Northern Tyrol. At that time I was dismissed because of
my affiliation to the NSDAP. The German Consul at Linz-
on-the-Danube, Dirk von Lengen, confirmed this fact to
me in writing, a copy of which is attached to my
personal file in the Head Office of the SD. After I had
belonged for five years to the Association of Fighters
on the Austro-German Front (at that time an anti-
Marxist fighting organization) I joined the NSDAP –
Austria on 1 April 1932 and received the membership
number 889,895. At that time I joined the SS with a
certificate number 45,326. Incidentally, on the visit
of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the Schutzstaffel (SS
Detachment) of Upper Austria, in 1932, I was sworn in
as a member of this organization.

On 1 August 1933, on the orders of the Gauleiter of the
NSDAP of Upper Austria, Gauleiter Bulak, I went to the
Lechfeld camp for military training. On 29 September
1933, I was sent to Passau to the Communications
Headquarters of the SS, and after its dissolution I

Presiding Judge: You may read this to the end, but in future
I would ask you to reduce the readings to the absolute
minimum. For example, this exhibit will be before us, and we
shall be able to read it.

Attorney General: Certainly your Honour, but I thought that
there was significance in something to which I shall
immediately refer.

Presiding Judge: Certainly, it may very well be that there
is this significance – in which case please point the place
out to us at the time of argument but you may conclude the
reading of this document.

Attorney General: Thank you.

“…on 29 January 1934, to the camp at Dachau, to the
Austrian SS. On October 1, 1934, I was sent for service
in the Head Office of the SD to the position where I am
performing my duty to this day.”

The next document is connected with the statement as number
3, our number 20. This is a reply to questions in the
personnel office of the SS on 25 November 1937. This is in
the same document, which is also number 4 of the statement,
our 19, but on another form, and consequently, seeing that
we have two forms, we are submitting them both.

Presiding Judge: We have meanwhile reached sub-number 6.
Number 6 was his written biography.

Mr. Bach That was number 7. We now have numbers 8 and 9.

Presiding Judge: What was number 6?

Mr. Bach 6 was the Report on Rajakowitsch.

Presiding Judge: And number 7?

Mr. Bach 7 was his biography. Now we have numbers 8 and 9,
these are those questionnaires to which Your Honour

Presiding Judge: That is in order, thank you.

Attorney General: The following document is number 1 of the
statement, our number 17, submitted on pages 316-317 of the
statement, and it consists of a SS-Stammrollenauszug
(extract from the personal registry) signed by the Accused.

Presiding Judge: That will be sub-number 10.

Attorney General: The next document is the Court’s number
239, our 5. This is an application to enable the Accused to
study the Hebrew language at the expense of the SD. This is
referred to on pages numbers 2464-2467. It mentions that a
year previously, Eichmann had requested permission to study
with a Rabbi, after he had taught himself during the course
of one year, the basics of the language, since he had not
been able to find an Aryan teacher, and now he requested the
means required to continue his studies, – 3 Reichsmarks
per hour.

Judge Halevi: In what year?

Attorney General: This was on 18 June 1937.

Presiding Judge: Secondary number 11.

Attorney General: The following document is connected to the
statement, its number is 36 – and ours No. 27. It contains
recommendations for a promotion in rank, and there is an
important recommendation of October 1941 which I feel
obliged to read out to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Please do so.

Attorney General: The Accused’s superior writes to the
Reichsfuehrer SS: “I hereby request you to promote SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann to – SS Untersturmfuehrer,
with effect from 9 November 1941. I recommend this promotion
on the basis of Eichmann’s especially good achievements,
where he particularly excelled in getting rid of the Jews of
Austria, as director of the Central Authority for Jewish
Emigration. Thanks to Eichmann’s work, it became possible to
ensure tremendous capital assets for the German Reich.
Eichmann’s work in the Protectorate was also outstanding –
he performed it with exemplary initiative and the requisite

“In addition to this, Eichmann was a model SS officer who
was outstanding in Austria for many years in his labours on
behalf of the National Socialist Youth, and who was
dismissed because of his political activity, from what was
his profession. Now Eichmann deals with all the questions of
the evacuation and the resettlement of inhabitants. Because
of the importance of the scope of this undertaking, I think
that Eichmann’s promotion is also desirable for the good of
the affairs of the service. At the same time I want, in
addition, to point out that the promotion has been
recommended of the present director of the General Authority
for Jewish Emigration in Prague, SS Hauuptsturmfuehrer Hans
Guenther to SS Sturmbannfuehrer, in terms of an order dated
1 July 1941, and that Eichmann, in comparison with him,
performs a higher function.”

Judge Halevi: Who wrote all this?

Attorney General: Brigadefuehrer Streckenbach, the one who
was later to give orders to the Einsatzgruppen in regard to
the extermination of Jews, and he writes to the SS
Reichsfuehrer Personal Amt.

Presiding Judge: This will be sub-number 12.

Attorney General: Number 236 of the Court, our No. 24, is a
document according to which the Accused was granted “The
Order of the Iron Cross” – 2nd Class. In the document
granting the decoration, he is described as SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, who was born in
Solingen, “Sonder-Einsatz-Kommando Eichmann.” This was on 22
September 1944. On 3 December 1944 Eichmann received the
“Cross for Outstanding Work in the War,” Class I with
swords. The remaining parts are notifications to the
appropriate offices in the SS concerning the decorations.
The document is referred to on pages 3388 to 3390 of the

Presiding Judge: This will be sub-number 13.

Attorney General: The following document is our number 1453,
dated 21.12.1944, containing the chart of the Accused’s
office, and where he appears as head of the department IVA4.

Presiding Judge: This will be sub-number 14.

Attorney General: I would draw the Court’s attention to the
photographs of the Accused in the years 1934/35/38, which
are contained in number 7 and which are mentioned in the
statement on pages 320 and 231; and to the picture which,
according to this statement, he signed in 1950/51. This
picture of him is to be found in file No. 122.

Presiding Judge: Which he signed?

Attorney General: He signed it and he acknowledged his

Dr. Servatius I would ask the Attorney General to indicate
the origin of these photographs.

Attorney General: The previous photographs were attached to
the personal file. This picture is of a later origin. I
cannot at the present indicate its origin. I shall look into
it and inform the Court. The Accused did not deny that this
was his picture nor that this was his signature. This is
contained in pages 1782-1784 of the statement. The Accused
said that he had signed this picture in the year 1950-51,
when he was in the Argentine, and he describes himself as SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer A.D. – that is to say “in
retirement.” This is how he still visualized himself in 1950-

Presiding Judge: You do not know how this picture…

Attorney General: At the present moment, I do not know. But
the Accused did not deny that this was his picture and that
this was his signature.

Presiding Judge: The photographs will be sub- number 15.

Dr Servatius The Accused does not deny that he is the
person seen in the photograph, and likewise does not deny
that this is his signature. But he believes that this is a
composite photograph, and consequently he wants to know the
source of the photograph.

Presiding Judge: May I see this photograph?

Attorney General: Certainly.

Presiding Judge: That is to say, he fears that the
handwriting may have been imposed on the photograph, and
that this is a photomontage?

Dr. Servatius I myself should have seen the picture, so
that I could have assessed it. I say that this is not an
original photograph, but a photocopy of the original, so
that it is possible that it was put together by means of a
photomontage, superimposed.

Attorney General: Before the Court decides, I should like to
refer the Court to what is said on pages 1678-1679 of the
Accused’s statement on the subject.

Witness Less shows him the picture and says:

Less Would you like to look at the picture before you?

Eichmann Yes.

L. When was this picture taken?

E. It was taken, I think, in Argentina.

L. In what year was it taken?

E. Yes, well, more or less, I can see that this was in
Tucuman, for this was a suit I had in Tucuman. I
believe it was in 1951 or in 1952. No, it could not
have been 1952. If so, 1951 or 1950.

L. Is this your handwriting:`Adolf Eichmann,
Obersturmbannfuehrer in retirement’?

E. Yes.

Dr. Servatius: May I point out that the Accused had
suspicions that the memoirs were also published by a so-
called friend in a distorted manner, and consequently he has
a justifiable fear that the photograph was published in such
a way as to give more weight to the memoirs as published.
Therefore I would want to know the origin of the picture.

Attorney General: I have no connection either with that
acquaintance of his or with the publication of the Accused’s
memoirs, and I am not responsible for the Accused’s friends
and what they publish. To the best of my knowledge, this is
the original.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps, before you say anything about the
origin of the picture, you would check the matter.

Attorney General: I shall check it.

Presiding Judge: Meanwhile I understand there is no
objection to the submission of this picture. The remarks of
Dr. Servatius have been noted in the record, and the
Attorney General is still going to check how the picture
came into his possession. Dr. Servatius, are you satisfied
with this for the time being?
Dr. Servatius Yes. I only want to point out one thing: The
Accused draws my attention to the fact, that, at the time of
his interrogation, he added that he was not accustomed to
sign photographs in the manner of a film star, and he is
unable to explain to himself what was the source of the

Judge Halevi: Where is this stated in the recording? Where
was this remark of the Accused’s made in the recording –
this addition?

Presiding Judge: Was this said to you now, or is it said in
the statement itself?

Dr. Servatius: It is said in the supplement to the extract
that was previously read out by the Attorney General.

Attorney General: What Defence Counsel says is correct. It
is to be found on page 1783:

Eichmann: I must add something else, which I remembered
yesterday. Moreover, I do not remember that I signed this
picture in the manner of film stars, but it is possible that
on the back of the picture I appended my name, because as
far as I remember it was likely to be a picture to be used
by the Personnel Department of the “Capri” Company.”

Attorney General: “Capri” was a German firm where the
Accused worked in Argentina.

Presiding Judge: That is to say he believes that this
signature was written on the back of the photograph and not
beneath the photograph. Mr. Hausner, is that the total
content of the file?

Attorney General: This is the first section of the file, and
in order not to confuse the one section with the other, I
would ask the Court [to admit] this batch of exhibits
separately, because now I will move on to exhibits of a
different character.

Presiding Judge: Is this also from the Accused’s personal

Attorney General: Yes, but of a different kind.

For the purpose of admitting some of these documents, I
shall be obliged to rely on section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law, and to request the Court to
permit me to depart from the rules of evidence, to submit a
number of affidavits and other statements in respect of
which there is an appropriate authentication, and whose
declarants I am unable to bring here. They are Wisliceny and
Hoess who were executed as War Criminals. Their remarks on
the Accused are exceedingly important, and relevant; they
were his accomplices, or amongst his accomplices in the
commission of the crimes.

Presiding Judge: Whose affidavits or declarations were they?

Attorney General: The first document is an affidavit of
Dieter Wisliceny which was made before an American officer
of the Prosecutor’s office at the Nuremberg Trials, Smith W.
Brookhart. I also have the affidavit of Smith W. Brookhart,
authenticated by the Embassy in Washington, that in fact he
was the man who took this statement under oath from Dieter

Presiding Judge: Was he an investigator appointed by the
Nuremberg Tribunal?

Attorney General: By the Prosecution office in Nuremberg.

Presiding Judge: Are these the declarations of Wisliceny and
of Hoess, or do you distinguish between the two?

Last-Modified: 1999/05/30