Session 029-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 29
19 Iyar 5721 (5 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the twenty-ninth Session of the
trial open.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission I shall,
first of all, submit a number of documents. This is
Prosecution document No. 1102 – a report of a meeting
which took place in the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I
offer a brief explanation concerning the last document,
which relates to the question of competence? In the first
place, document No. 765 – the Brown File. Heydrich
expresses this opinion on it in document No. 349 and
refers to the allocation of functions which have meanwhile
been approved. He appeals against this and in this
connection mentions the Referent Eichmann. However,
Eichmann’s functions in practice were administrative,
whereas the question here is of a legislative nature. For
this reason the matter was transferred to Department SIIA2
– as is recorded there in the heading – and it was passed
on to Bilfinger who retained it and dealt with it.

Presiding Judge: What was this Department SIIA2?

Dr. Servatius: As far as I know, it was a Department for
Legislation and Administration. The result of it was
document No. 1088.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, I would
prefer that these explanations should be given by evidence
under oath by someone who is familiar with them. I
respect Defence Counsel’s statement, but information to
the Court must be given either by means of a document or
by means of evidence, unless the matter is confined to an
explanation. As far as we are concerned, we maintain – and
I am saying in advance how we will view these documents
and how we intend to ask the Court to interpret them – the
Reichsfuehrer SS acts under various separate capacities
which he unites in his person. He is, at one and the same
time, the “Commissar for the Strengthening of German
Folkdom” and the “Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of German
Police,” in which capacity he also serves in the Ministry
of the Interior by virtue of his previous appointment,
prior to the War, and also the man in charge of the
Security Police and the SD. And the Court will notice,
from the reports which I shall presently submit, that
despite the fact that Himmler was at the head of the three
offices, the three were represented by separate
representative officials, whenever matters belonged to
different administrative channels. Here, since Hitler
appointed Himmler, according to the “Fuehrer-Erlass”
(Fehrer’s Decree) dated 17 June 1941, which I have already
submitted – namely Prosecution document No. 1091 which was
Hitler’s appointment of Himmler to serve as
“Reichsfuehrer SS of the German Police,” that is to say,
by virtue of the previous appointment in the Ministry of
the Interior, all of Himmler’s activities in this field,
consequent upon the appointment of 17 June 1941, are
included under this heading, and there is strict
compliance with it, with the correct channelling of
activities. For this reason it always goes by the name of
“The Reichsfuehrer SS Chief of the German Police in the
Ministry of the Interior.” The “Brown File,” as I
understand it, (for I do not have any supporting document)
belonged to the Reichsfuehrer-SS in this capacity, in his
capacity as “Reichsfuehrer SS Chief of the German Police.”
And it is to this that Heydrich responds on 10 January,
1942, on a letterhead bearing the same heading and the
name of the official in charge, Eichmann. By virtue of
this appointment, the appropriate alterations were made on
the paper, to read “The Reichsfuehrer SS Chief of the
German Police in the Ministry of the Interior.” With
regard to what is mentioned here concerning Bilfinger, we
maintain that he was only the person who sent the copy to
Wetzel, for in exactly the same way as there were a number
of officials in the Ministry who were in charge of Jewish
affairs, there was a similar position in the Ministry for
the Eastern Occupied Territories, and there was such a
person in charge, whose name was Dr. Wetzel. Bilfinger
passes a copy on to him, with the request to receive this
document for his attention. This is what we shall
maintain, and if the Accused should have another
explanation, we shall be ready to listen to him.

Presiding Judge: If that is the case, this will ultimately
be a question of proof.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I do not
attach much importance to this argument but I should like
merely to explain the documents so as to save effort.

Presiding Judge: But I say that the Court will be able to
come to a final conclusion for itself on this point, only
after taking all the evidence and hearing the summing-up
of the parties.

Dr. Servatius: I agree to that.

Attorney General: Prosecution document No. 1102 is a
Minute of the consultation that took place in the Reich
Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories on 30
January 1942. The participants were troubled by the
question who was a Jew, so as to know to whom to apply the
restrictive decrees. Hence, it also says in the heading:
“Entwurf einer Verordnung ueber die Bestimmung des
Begriffs ‘Jude’ in den besetzten Ostgebieten” (Draft
Regulation for Determining the Term ‘Jew’ in the Eastern
Occupied Territories).

2I would ask the Court to glance at the list of those
present. At the end: Present is SS Sturmbannfuehrer
Neifeind. Whom does he represent? Reichsfuehrer SS and
Commander of the German Police. Present is Suhr, a member
of Eichmann’s Department with whom we are already
acquainted. Eichmann said of him: “He is my man.” He
represents the Reichsfuehrung SS, Chief of the Security
Police and the SD. There is present Schubert,
representing the Reichskommissar fuer die Festigung
deutschen Volkstums, (Reich Commissar for the
Strengthening of German Folkdom) a Himmler man. In other
words, despite the fact that Himmler controls the three
offices, since they are separate, and each one has its own
functions, three separate representatives are present.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/299.

Attorney General: In this document there is a discussion
on the problem of issuing an overall order which would
include the regulations concerning the Jews in regard to
border cases. The debate centres on who is to determine
the border cases. There are various suggestions, and in
the end they adopt Suhr’s proposal that, in doubtful
cases, the decision should be taken by the
Generalkommisar, viz. the Commander of the Security Police
and the SD, or a representative empowered by him.

Presiding Judge: Where is that?

Attorney General: It appears in the Minute on page 4, at
the top. After that there come the definitions as to who
is a Jew, in the case of offspring of mixed marriages.

First of all: “A Jew is a person who acknowledges, by
declaration, that he belongs to the Jewish faith or to the
Jewish community, or acknowledges his Jewishness, or a
person whose adherence to Judaism is evidenced by other
circumstances”. “Sturmbannfuehrer Suhr requested that the
question of mixed marriages should also be dealt with in
the executory decree.” It was resolved to continue
further with the consideration of the order.

On 27 April 1942, the office of the Ministry for the
Eastern Occupied Territories issues a draft of the
regulations; that is Prosecution document No. 1103.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/300.

Attorney General: In paragraph 2(3) of this document it is
proposed that, in cases of doubt, the Generalkommissar
will decide, and his decision will be binding and final,
Heydrich comments on this in his letter of 17 May 1942.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/301.

Attorney General: I would ask you to take note of the
heading of this letter. Again it reads “Reichsfuehrer SS
and Chief of the German Police of the Ministry of the
Interior,” and again it is Department SIIA, but the
signature is that of Heydrich.

He says, in regard to that proposal for a definition of a
Jew, that he does not agree. At the end of the first
paragraph he says: “I ask you to amend the order, and I
demand that, in doubtful cases as to who is a Jew, the
Generalkommissar, the Commander of the Security Police and
the SD should decide.” ” And if you do not accept my point
of view,” he says at the end, “I shall not agree to the
publication of your order. (“Bitte ich meine Zustimmung
als versagt anzusehen.”

In other words, Heydrich says: “I, or the representatives
of the BdS (Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei – Senior
Commander of the Security Police) who represents the Head
Security Office, should determine who is a Jew in the
Eastern Zones.

Presiding Judge: Heydrich signs here “in Vertretung ” (on
behalf) – that is to say, not as the Head?

Attorney General: It is clear that he signs in the name of
Himmler. Here he is acting on behalf of Himmler, who in
turn operates on the strength of Hitler’s appointment in
July 1941. And, Your Honour, if we remember that all this
happened about the time of Wannsee where it was decided,
with the participation of these representatives of the
Ministries, that the Head Office for Reich Security was
the only agency authorized to deal with the solution of
the Jewish question, without consideration of geographical
boundaries – and this I already submitted to the Court a
week ago – and furthermore, if we bear in mind that
Heydrich appointed Eichmann to be the person to handle
these affairs, and Eichmann acknowledges the fact, in the
statement which I read out to you, that he is the
appointed representative of Heydrich, it is clear why he
deals with these questions, and the circle is closed from
all directions.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/301.

Attorney General: The next document is our No. 138. This
is a report sent to Eichmann on the evacuation of Jews
from the Reich to Riga. This has already been submitted
to the Court as T/37(38). The Court should kindly look at
the report sent to Eichmann from Duesseldorf. A copy of
the document goes to the ehlshaber der Sipo und des SD
(Senior Commander of the Security Police and the SD)
Einsatzgruppe A – in Riga, and the subject is the dispatch
of 1,007 Jews from Duesseldorf to Riga. The report is a
thorough one. We have, as an annex, particulars of these
1,007 Jews according to age – how many between the ages of
1-6, how many from 614, how many from 14-18 and so on. We
have a report according to the sexes. We have a breakdown
according to profession. And the official in charge of
the transport, evidently taking action on the spot, made a
proper register, using four vertical lines and one
diagonal line – these represent five people who have been
loaded (“verladen”); so many men, so many women, so many
children. This is followed by a breakdown according to
professions: traders, skilled workers, labourers,
professional men, agriculturalists and so on. All the
1,007 are described here in detail, how they were sent
from Duesseldorf to Riga.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/302 – this “consignment
note,” if one may call it such.

Attorney General: The Court should kindly peruse the
following document which is also linked to the evacuation
to Riga – our document No. 138 which was submitted as
Exhibit T/37(38).

Judge Raveh: In T/302, what is the significance of the
letters after the name “Eichmann” – o.V.i.A. Do you know
what it is?

Attorney General: Where Eichmann is not present, this
stands for the person deputising for him: “oder Vertreter
im Amt.”

Presiding Judge: This will be T/303.

Attorney General: This is an account by the accompanying
officer who describes that transport from Duesseldorf to
Riga – the circumstances of loading from the platform at 4
o’clock, the difficulties consequent upon the fact that
families were separated and the necessity which arose for
reuniting the families en route. I shall not weary the
Court by reading the details. At the end, in paragraph 2,
on his stay in Riga, the reporting official says: “In Riga
there were approximately 360,000 inhabitants, amongst them
there were 35,000 Jews. The Jews were the ones who
dominated the commercial life, as they did everywhere.
Their businesses were closed and appropriated immediately
after the entry of the German army. The Jews were housed
in a closed ghetto, surrounded by a barbed wire fence,
near the Dvina river. At present there ought to be in
this ghetto, only about 2,500 Jewish men who were being
exploited as labour forces. The remainder of the Jews
were turned over to some other essential occupation or
were shot by the Latvians.”

Now I would ask the Court to admit our document No. 1363.
This is one of the reports of the Einsatzgruppe, in which
Stahlecker reports on Lithuania and Latvia.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/304.*

{*Published in the Blue Series, vol. XXXVII, pp. 670-711.}

Attorney General: In Lithuania, Stahlecker writes, on page
21 of the report – that is on our page 2: “We succeeded at
the outset with the aid of the partisans. To our great
surprise, it was not so easy to organize an anti-Jewish
pogrom on a large scale. Klimatis, the leader of the
partisan group, who was employed first of all for this
purpose, managed to organize a pogrom with the
participation of a small Vorkommando (Advance Unit).**

{**According to document T/304: “…on instructions given
to him by the Vorkommando.”.

Presiding Judge: Kauen – that is surely Kovno?

Attorney General: Yes.

And afterwards it says there: In the course of the pogrom
during the night between 25 and 26 June, about 1,500 Jews
were eliminated by the Lithuanian partisans (“beseitigt”).
Many Jewish synagogues were set on fire; on the following
nights another 2,300 were rendered harmless (“unschaedlich

Judge Halevi: That is a stronger term than “rendered

Attorney General: I merely used this translation

Judge Halevi: Earlier on, perhaps, it should also have
been pointed out that this Klimatis, who was the foremost
collaborator here, succeeded in organizing a pogrom
without it being known outside that the initiative came
from the Germans.

Attorney General: I shall come to the German initiative
right away. At the end of the paragraph Stahlecker says
that, after the partisans had to be disarmed, the internal
purging operations ceased in any case. It was much more
difficult, he says, to organize purging operations and
pogroms in Latvia. It is true that synagogues were
burned, and that about 400 Jews were killed, but since the
population was soon quietened down, further pogroms could
not be organized. “As far as possible, it was documented,
both in Kovno and in Riga, by means of films and
photographs, that the first spontaneous executions of Jews
and communists were carried out by Lithuanians and

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that the first executions
were carried out spontaneously by the Lithuanians and the

Attorney General: Yes.

“In Estonia, owing to the small number of Jews, we were
unable to organize pogroms.”

Later on, in the paragraph “Bekaempfung des Judentums,”
(the Fight against Jewry): “Right from the beginning it
was to be anticipated that the Jewish Question in the East
would not be solved solely by means of pogroms.”

And then Stahlecker gives an account of the executions, of
the especially severe and thorough measures – “besondere
scharfe und umfassende Massnahmen” – which he adopted in
Lithuania, and of the fact that the number of Jews who
were exterminated in Lithuania totalled 71,105.

At the end of the report there is a detailed account
relating to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, about
executions, as if he was talking of packages of sardines
or salt herring – so many Jews, so many Communists, and
the total. Please observe: In Lithuania 80,311 Jews, 860
Communists – together 81,171. In Latvia 30,025 Jews,
1,843 Communists – together 31,868. Only in Estonia did
the Nazis succeed in executing more Communists than Jews.
In all, this report includes the murder of 118,430 Jews
and 3,387 Communists. To this he adds the Jews murdered
in Lithuania and Latvia in the pogroms – 5,500, the Jews
who were executed in the old Russian zone – 2,000, and
Communists and partisans – 48. He arrives at a total

Judge Halevi: What was the “old Russian zone”?

Attorney General: “Altrussland.” They did not regard
Lithuania and Latvia as part of the Soviet Union.

Presiding Judge: At that time they were not, actually.

Attorney General: They were annexed a short while before
Hitler’s invasion following a referendum which took place
in those countries, and joined as Soviet Republics. On 21
June, from a theoretical point of view, they were Soviet
Zones and not occupied zones.

Presiding Judge: This was also the case in eastern

Attorney General: This was true also of that part of
Poland which had been occupied by the Soviets. There,
too, a plebiscite took place; the areas were annexed to
Soviet Russia and they became one of the republics of the
Soviet Union.

Thereafter he refers to the execution of 5,502 Jews and
Communists in Tilsit, and we reach a total of over 135,000
persons executed. Please observe when this happened: it
was up to 15 October 1941. This is the blood harvest of
the first period of the occupation, and this is a general
report on organizational activities, on operations against
spies, on the state of the German army, on the general
problems of the area; and included in it, as an integral part – and this
you will notice in every report of the Einsatzgruppen
there is reference to the crops, the weather, to
agriculture, and then they talk about the complete
systematic murder of the Jews.

Last-Modified: 1999/10/10