Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, I shall
submit our No. 1464. This is a report of the
Einsatzkommando. Its main contents: Activities of the
Einsatzgruppen of 11 July 1941. The Court will find there
in the report statements of the Einsatzgruppen and of the
Commandos. In the general report the Court will find that
5Einsatzgruppe A reports that in Kovno a total of 7,800
Jews had so far been liquidated, some of them in the
course of riots and others by being shot to death by
Lithuanian commandos. “All the bodies were removed.
Additional mass shootings are no longer possible (‘Weitere
Massenerschiessungen sind nicht mehr moeglich’), and I
accordingly summoned before me a Jewish Committee, and it
was explained to them that, so far, there had been no
reason for us to intervene in internal conflicts between
Lithuanians and Jews. The condition for this new
arrangement: The establishment of a Jewish Ghetto, the
marking of all the Jews with a yellow Shield of David
sized 8×10 cm., the housing of the women and children,
who, possibly, might be released by the Lithuanians under
our orders through a Committee for Jewish Aid in the
Ghetto.” It speaks of a transfer to the ghetto. “Jews, in
cases where special reasons existed, would be detained and
put to death by shooting. In this way there would be
executions of smaller numbers, of 50 to 100 persons. In
order to prevent a flow of Jews back to Kovno, it has been
agreed that the Police, for the purpose of maintaining
order, will throw a cordon around Kovno, and will not
allow any Jew to enter. Where necessary the Jews will be
shot. All Wehrmacht
authorities have received notice of the arrangement that
has been arrived at.”
Presiding Judge: This will be T/295.
Attorney General: The following document is No. 765. 765
is what is called the “Braune Mappe” (Brown File). This
is a proposal by the Reich Ministry for Eastern Occupied
Areas, which includes a collection of instructions
concerning the civil administration in the Eastern
Occupied Areas. Included in it are also instructions in
regard to the treatment of Jews. I shall come back to
this document presently, but meanwhile I shall submit two
Presiding Judge: T/296.
Attorney General: The next document is No. 349, in which
Heydrich notifies the Reich Ministry for Eastern Occupied
Areas that he does not, to his regret, agree with several
of the proposals.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/297. Is it
connected with the previous document?
Attorney General: Yes, it says here: “Braune Mappe fuer
die Ukraine” (Brown File for the Ukraine). He states that
he will work out other proposals on Jewish affairs, and
that these would be prepared by his expert (Sachbearbeiter
official in charge of the subject), with Sturmbannfuehrer
The Sachbearbeiter Eichmann worked out, by 29 January
1942, his counter-proposal to those of the “Brown File”
for the offices of Ostland and the Ukraine.
This is our document No. 1088.
Presiding Judge: T/298.
Attorney General: Accordingly they notify Rosenberg that
further to a letter dated 10 January, they were sending
him the text of the directives concerning the handling of
the Jewish Question “which I consider to be necessary.”
And now I would ask the Court to compare Rosenberg’s
proposals with those of Sachbearbeiter Eichmann on page 35
of the original “Brown File” (this is our No. 765 – it is
on the sheet we attached as page 3 or 4) in the general
chapter. The file itself is very large – it refers to
very many subjects – administrative, economic, political,
treatment of the local population and so forth; other such
files, having different colours according to the colour of
the cover, were submitted. We have selected the file
relating to the Jews which happens to be called the “Brown
File.” Thus Rosenberg proposes – I refer only to the
amendments – that all action relating to the Jewish
question in the Eastern Occupied Areas should be
implemented in the light of the assumption that after the
War the Jewish question would be generally solved in all
the areas of Europe.
I would ask you to place documents Nos. 765 and 1088 side
by side and to compare what changes Eichmann demanded in
the “Brown File.” Whereas Rosenberg says that the
solution to the Jewish question would be found after the
War, Eichmann states: “All operations in regard to the
Jewish question in
the occupied areas of the East must be carried out on the
assumption that the Jewish question must find its general
solution in all the areas of Europe.”
Presiding Judge: This letter bears the mark SIIA2?
Attorney General: Yes.
Presiding Judge: To whom is it sent?
Attorney General: The previous communication concerning
the “Brown File” was also sent – if I am not mistaken, for
I am not in possession of a copy – via the Ministry for
Presiding Judge: The Ministry for the Interior appears
here as well.
Attorney General: Yes, the action is being taken by
another authority. The dispatch of the amendments is
based upon the letter of 10 January. The Court should
kindly check the reference number for this document which
is the same reference, and the documents fit together.
Dr. Servatius: Mr. President of the Court, may I receive
the documents? I don’t have them before me.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, are you able to give copies
to Dr. Servatius?
Attorney General: I can only give him a copy of document
No. 1088. I have no further copies of the other
Judge Halevi: You may have this copy.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, is this the document you
Dr. Servatius: Yes. This is the document of Department
II, Bilfinger signs here and not Eichmann’s Department.
Presiding Judge: I have noticed this. How does the
Reichsfuehrer SS suddenly come to the Reich Ministry “des
Inneren” (of the Interior). This is not clear.
Judge Raveh: In document No. 1088 it says “Im Nachgang
zu Ziffer 10 meines Schreibens vom 10.1.42” (Following
item 10 of my letter of 10.1.42). In exhibit No. 349
there is no item 10.
Attorney General: There is. Below, before the words
“Judenangelegenheiten” (Jewish Affairs) and so on.
Judge Raveh: Is this a complete document or a part of a
Attorney General: It is a complete document. This is how
the letter went – Heydrich’s express letter
Presiding Judge: What is this figure 10 that appears at
Attorney General: This is paragraph 10.
Presiding Judge: Where are the other 9 paragraphs?
Attorney General: He adopts a position in regard to those
paragraphs on which he has comments and concerning which
he differs with Rosenberg.
Judge Raveh: This gives the impression of part of a
document, for he writes about a number of changes that he
proposes, but in fact only one amendment appears.
Attorney General: He mentions that he will bring to his
attention the amendments requested by him.
Presiding Judge: But even this does not give the answer,
for in the “Brown File” this is Chapter 9 and not Chapter
Dr. Servatius: Mr. President of the Court, even in the
previous correspondence to which they refer, they relate
to Department II and not to Eichmann’s Department.
Presiding Judge: I think this matter requires some further
Attorney General: I am not sure we shall be able to
provide a fuller explanation than the one which we are
giving now. What we do know is that Eichmann was the
expert on the Jewish question, and what is plain to us is
that Eichmann was appointed to be the one to offer his
comments. Further to the letter which promises these
instructions comes this letter with the instructions, and
it has the same reference number and the same reminder.
Presiding Judge: But the entire heading of the document
have we seen it before?
Attorney General: Yes, the Court will see documents such
as these in other matters as well.
Presiding Judge: But it was not part of the Ministry of
the Interior. Since when was Himmler part of the Ministry
of the Interior?
Attorney General: In a formal sense the Police, as it
were, were attached to the Ministry of the Interior. But,
of course, this was only a formal attachment.
Presiding Judge: I have noticed this heading for the first
time. Generally speaking, the heading “SS Reichsfuehrer”
Attorney General: Yes. There are some like these, and
there are others. We shall still submit many documents
such as these, bearing a similar heading. If I may be
permitted to continue with the comparison, in paragraph 2
Rosenberg proposes to put certain measures into effect as
partial preparatory operations. Eichmann remarks: “In the
Eastern Occupation Areas such steps must be taken that
will not affect the final solution of the Jewish question
and that will speed up the elimination of Jewry.” In
paragraph 3 Eichmann says: “Precisely in the Eastern
Occupation Areas we must aim at an immediate solution of
the Jewish question. It is desirable that the appropriate
operations should be carried out by the pertinent
authorities.” In paragraph 5, which is new, it says: “To
these Jews are to be added German Jews who are being sent
from the Reich to the Eastern Occupied Areas, and who, by
changing their normal place of residence to the occupied
areas, forfeit their German citizenship according to such
and such a paragraph.
Presiding Judge: Is this paragraph 5? In ours it is
called “Cultural Activities.”
Attorney General: I am sorry that I am proceeding without
my own document, and this makes it difficult for me.
Presiding Judge: We shall hand it back to you.
Attorney General: These are the instructions of Rosenberg.
This is the original “Brown File” – I apologize to the
Court. I was wrong. This item is not mentioned in
paragraph 5, but at the end of paragraph 2. “To those
Jews are now being added German Jews.” Has the Court
found the place?
Presiding Judge: Yes.
Attorney General: With us the items are marked by the
numbers of the comments and the changes, but this
numbering does not conform to the changes in the document.
There is another change which is important, for while
Rosenberg speaks of the separation from the rest of the
population, and of the fact that the principal and most
important objective ought to be a strict separation from
the rest of the population, Eichmann says on the same
point: “Separation from the rest of the population: As
long as measures for the elimination of the Jews have not
been taken, the Jews must be strictly separated from the
rest of the population.”
In connection with economic operations Eichmann says: “The
measure to eliminate the Jews must be adopted without
taking economic values into account,” in complete
contradiction to Rosenberg who says that Jews were not to
be harmed to the extent that this would harm the economy.
And while Rosenberg says, earlier on, that the elimination
of the Jews from public life must be achieved by suitable
means and in a gradual manner, Eichmann deletes this from
his draft. While Rosenberg says, in relation to cultural
activities, that “the Jews must be gradually removed from
the cultural life of the rest of the population,” Eichmann
states simply: “The participation of the Jews in the
cultural activities of the rest of the population is out
of the question.”
Dr Servatius Perhaps I may be permitted to stress, once
again, that Eichmann is not mentioned in these two
documents. The one came from Rosenberg, and the second is
signed by Bilfinger, so that Eichmann does not feature in
either of them.
Presiding Judge: But in document No. 349 (T/297), he
appears – on the second page.
Dr. Servatius: Yes, it is true that here he is mentioned.
But this letter, too, comes from a different Department.
Presiding Judge: But it is signed by Heydrich. At all
events, this matter requires further clarification. Dr.
Servatius submitted this afternoon additional requests for
taking of evidence abroad and also wrote that he would
submit further applications tomorrow.
Dr. Servatius: I presume that by tomorrow morning I shall
manage to submit the applications.
Presiding Judge: We shall consider these applications
tomorrow at twelve o’clock. And now we shall adjourn
until tomorrow morning, at 9 o’clock.