Session 031-03, Eichmann Adolf

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 713. It
is a request by Knochen.

Your Honours, at this point I should like to make a certain
comment: This is one of those documents which we actually
obtained in the original, one of the original documents
which we received from the Centre de Documentation in Paris.
At the time we gave an undertaking to that body to return
the documents as soon as possible and not to change their
outward form. The document just submitted to you is a
photocopy of that original, authenticated as a true
photograph by an officer from Bureau 06. May I perhaps ask
the Court to look at the original, to compare it with the
photograph to satisfy itself that this is a true photograph
and, if possible, to return the original to us.

Presiding Judge: Who has the original document at this

State Attorney Bach: I have it in my hand at this moment. I
shall of course gladly submit it to the Court. But, as was
actually the procedure in very many such cases in Nuremberg,
the originals were returned to the Prosecution and the
photocopies left in the files of the Court.

Presiding Judge: We can do more than this. We shall rely on
your word, unless a question of authentication of the
document should arise and then we shall ask you for it. And
it will remain with you until the end of the trial.

State Attorney Bach: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: I assume there is no objection to that.

Dr. Servatius: I should just like to see the original
document. In the Nuremberg procedure there was a special
rule permitting this. I would not object, I would only like
to see the original.

State Attorney Bach: I shall gladly put all the original
documents at the disposal of Counsel for the Defence.

Presiding Judge: We have come to T/396, that is your No.

State Attorney Bach: Knochen here informs IVB4 that some
Jews have arrived at the French-Spanish border in possession
of passports, but have no entry visas. Knochen has given
instruction to intern them and asks that in future such
occurrences be avoided. Our document No. 714 contains
Eichmann’s reply. He tells Paris by telegram:

“In reply to the previous telegram I wish to be
informed from which places in the Reich the arrested
Jews originate or where they were staying last, in
order to enable me to inform the competent Stapo
command posts and order suitable treatment or the
return of those Jews.” Signed Eichmann SS

Presiding Judge: T/397.

State Attorney Bach: What I said about the preceding
document holds good for the present one also and I assume
that the decision of the Court will also be the same.

Presiding Judge: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, our No. 312, is a
letter from the German Military Commander in France to the
Representative of the Chief of the Security Police and the
SD in Paris. He asks to what extent the arrested Jews may be
allowed to communicate with the outside world in France
through the intermediary of the French Red Cross. There is
more in this letter but I refer to paragraph (c), which is
in reply to the question raised.

Presiding Judge: T/398.

State Attorney Bach: Dannecker’s reply is contained in our
document No. 313 and says:

“In my opinion the French Red Cross must not be given
any reply since it does not seem proper to allow Jews
about to be deported, or their relatives relief of any

Presiding Judge: T/399.

State Attorney Bach: And he adds:

“I think that burdening the office of the Commander of
Greater Paris with a matter such as that mentioned
above is out of place.”

The next document is a report by Dannecker, our No. 316. It
was also published in the Nuremberg Trials in IMG, Volume
38, page 740. We attach special importance to this report,
mainly because of two passages in it. The first one: Various
decrees of the OKW,* {*Oberkommando der Wehrmacht – High
Command of the Armed Forces.} OKH** {**Oberkommando des
Heeres – High Command of the Army.} and the Military
Commander in France have confirmed the competence of the
Paris Office, i.e. Dannecker’s unit, for the fight against
anti-German tendencies from among the Jews. The second:
Viewed on the European scale, the Chief of the Security
Police and the SD is in practice the Commissioner for Jews
in Europe. ( Juden-Kommissar fuer Europa), as this function
was entrusted to him by the Reichsmarschall on 31 July 1941.

Judge Halevi: That is Heydrich?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: T/400.

State Attorney Bach: I should further like to draw
attention to what is said on page 3. In paragraph (d) it

“Up to now three large-scale actions against the Jews
have been started. Each time our unit was responsible
both for the selection of the Jews to be arrested and
for all the preparatory work and the technical

I do not want to go into details. He describes in detail the
activities of his unit in connection with the “Anti-Jewish
Institute” and with a “Compulsory Jewish Association.” At
the end he speaks about what is called the “Tuesday
Meeting.” Every Tuesday he meets with the Commander of the
Army – Administration Department, Police Department and
Economic Department – with the German Embassy and with
Action Staff West of Reichsleiter Rosenberg. He tells about
the Tuesday Coordinating Meeting and concludes with these
words: “Die anerkannte Fuehrung kommt dadurch zum Ausdruck,
dass die Besprechung bei der hiesigen Dienststelle
stattfindet.” (The recognized leadership finds expression in
the fact that the meeting takes place in our office).
Signed: Dannecker, SS Obersturmfuehrer.

From Dannecker we now pass to cables and letters from the
Accused himself which are directly concerned with the
deportation of the Jews to Auschwitz.

Our next document is No. 694. It is a telegram to the Paris

“Subject: Deportation of Jews. 1,000 Jews will be taken
over immediately after the meeting on the transport
schedule taking place at this moment and taken to a
reception camp in the Reich area. More detailed
particulars were discussed in the presence of the
specialist for Jewish questions in Paris, SS
Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, on 4 March 1942, here in
Berlin. Jews of mixed marriages living in the Reich
area are exempt from evacuation provisionally
(underlined). Suitable arrangement (underlined) is to
be expected. On this also Haupsturmfuehrer Dannecker
receives more detailed instructions on the occasion of
his presence in Berlin. Signed: Eichmann SS

Presiding Judge: This will be T/401.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is No. 177. It
was already submitted to you together with the statement of
the Accused and was at that time numbered T/37(60). It is
actually composed of several letters and I shall draw
attention to the important ones among them. The first one is
Eichmann’s letter to Rademacher at the Foreign Ministry.
Subject: Evacuation of 1,000 Jews from France.

Presiding Judge: This is not the first letter here. The
first one is signed by Rademacher.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps the order is somewhat
different. We have it arranged another way. May I ask you to
find Eichmann’s letter to Rademacher of 9 March 1942. That
is the first letter. It says:

“It is intended to deport to the Auschwitz (Upper
Silesia) concentration camp 1,000 Jews who were
arrested in Paris on 12 December 1941 in the course of
retribution measures for attempts on members of the
German Wehrmacht. The Jews are all French nationals or
stateless. The transport of these 1,000 Jews who are at
present concentrated in a camp at Compiegne, is to take
place on 23 March 1942 by special train. I should be
grateful for information that there are no objections
at your end concerning the implementation of this

Here it is a matter of 1,000 Jews. Two days later, on 11
March, the following letter was sent to the Foreign
Ministry, attention Herr Legationsrat Rademacher.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, do not quote too much, always
remember this.

State Attorney Bach: Only one sentence:

“Further to our urgent letter of 9 March 1942, notice
is given that, apart from the evacuation of 1,000 Jews
from Comiegne planned for 23 March 1942, another 5,000
Jews who have made themselves conspicuous to the State
Police, are to be deported to the Auschwitz (Upper
Silesia) concentration camp. May I ask you to agree to
this also. Signed: Eichmann.”

There now follow various letters from the Embassy in Paris
and from the Foreign Ministry, all of which say: “We have no
objection, there is no impediment from our side, we agree to
that operation.” It will be recalled that the document was
shown to the Accused and his reaction to it starts on page
1181 of his statement. I want to call particular attention
to a passage on pages 1187-1188, a short passage. On being
shown the letters he says: “If this was so, it was only
because of the effort of the Military Commander. If not,
then the measure was initiated by the Army commander, this
called for punishment measures by the Senior Police and SS
Commander.” He passed this on, through service channels, it
came automatically to the Head Office for Reich Security and
from the Head Office for Reich Security to me. Since it
concerned Jews it was passed on to the Foreign Ministry:
“Here, what do you say to this, this is within your

Less asks him: “The punishment of hostages, or the arrest of
hostages, and here, according to these letters the subject
is hostages, isn’t it. This was also a matter for Bureau 4
of Department IV at the Gestapo, wasn’t it?”

Eichmann: “This, I think…Yes, yes, yes.”

Less: “No?”

Eichmann: “Yes, yes.”

Judge Halevi: Was Bureau 4 concerned with hostages in
general or only with Jewish hostages?

State Attorney Bach: Bureau 4 dealt with hostages in
general. IVB4 – with Jewish affairs. We shall see later, on
the basis of a document which I shall submit shortly, that
his whole description – that this was done at the initiative
of the army, as it were – does not accord with reality, that
even the army refused in this case to take part in the
deportation operation. But this will appear from several
further documents. Has the Court given a new number to the

Presiding Judge: No, You have presented this as one
document. This is also how you have numbered it. Is that

State Attorney Bach: In T/37…

Presiding Judge: Yes, this whole batch will be exhibit

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 54 and it
was also numbered T/37(54). Dannecker mentions here in a
note that in the consultations which took place in Berlin on
4 March 1942 “I pointed to the urgency of immediate
deportation of the Jews kept at Compiegne. SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann promised to take over these
Jews already in March. As agreed on the following RSHA-IVB4
will be informed by telegram most urgently who will defray
the transport costs to Auschwitz concentration camp which is
to serve as an interim stay and whether there is a
possibility to provide escort for the train.”

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/403.

Judge Halevi: What is “interim stay” (Zwischenaufenthalt)?

State Attorney Bach: The reference is to Auschwitz
concentration camp. “Zwischenaufenthalt vorgesehen KZ

Judge Halevi: What, after that?

State Attorney Bach: This is at that stage, this was on 10
March 1942. According to the account of Wisliceny who was
invited to that meeting, there Eichmann told them exactly
what went on in Auschwitz. At this stage Eichmann did not
tell the whole truth about what was being done to the Jews
in the East, even to these specialist officers.

Presiding Judge: I understand what you say to mean that the
person who wrote the report did not understand that this was
an interim stage before extermination. Is that what you said
just now?

State Attorney Bach: I would not say with absolute
certainty what Dannecker knew and what he did not know.
There are several possibilities here. It could be that, at
that meeting, they received instruction that this was what
they were to tell those outside. It could be that he really
believed it. I only mention this as a possibility. At any
rate there is the evidence by Wisliceny who says that until
August 1942 “we really didn’t know.” On 28 August 1942 there
was the further meeting, details of which we shall shortly
submit to the Court and there he says: “Then we insisted and
then Eichmann told us exactly why the action was necessary.”

Presiding Judge: Dannecker had a lower rank?

State Attorney Bach: Dannecker was Hauptsturmfuehrer. This
was a lower rank than Eichmann’s. I do not remember what
Wisliceny’s was. I think he was Hauptsturmfuehrer then.

Judge Halevi: It all depends on Wisliceny’s version being
reliable. If not – we have here a camouflage terminology.

State Attorney Bach: The same will also apply to certain
arguments of the Foreign Ministry people. There was a
certain terminology used towards the outside. Who exactly
was deceived and who were among the deceived group – this is
something hard to say. At any rate I think we shall not meet
with this difficulty where the Accused is concerned.

The next document is our Document No. 113. Here he says this
– he speaks about the same meeting of 4 March:

“I described very briefly the difficulties with the way we
are involved in France. In this connection I also described
the need to propose to the French Government something
really positive for once, such as the expulsion of several
thousand Jews.

“Obersturmfuehrer Eichmann rejected a proposal by the
Brussels Jewish Section Officer, who spoke immediately
after me and laid down the following:

“Subject to the final decision of the Chief of the
Security Police and the SD, preliminary negotiations
may already be started with the French Government
authorities concerning the deportation to the East of
about 5,000 Jews. For the time being these Jews must
not be above the age of 55. Jews holding French
nationality must be deprived of it before expulsion or,
at the latest, on the day of deportation. The
liquidation of their property must also be settled.

“The expulsion of considerable masses of Jews from
Slovakia is imminent. According to a rate calculated on
the basis of the relation of the number of Jews to the
total Jewish property, the Slovak Government pays 500
Reichsmark for every Jew taken off its hands and
defrays the transport costs in addition. Since a
similar procedure is envisaged for the Jews to be taken
over from the French State, a prior calculation of the
Jewish property in both zones must be made here, too.”

We stress this point in particular in order to show how
methodical was the procedure in the various parts of Europe.
The Court will see this constantly, the connection between
the action in France compared with that in Holland with
regard to transports, to the method of procedure, and to the
way of overcoming certain difficulties. The method is
conspicuous in all the documents.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/404.

Judge Halevi: Are these the same 5,000 Jews who were
mentioned in the documents as additional to the one
thousand? There were 1,000 and then there were another

State Attorney Bach: It seems that those 5,000 already
mentioned are the ones who are referred to. This is also
fairly clear from the date, but here it was already decided
to go ahead with the action, actually without receipt of an
answer from the Foreign Ministry, since these letters were
sent about that time.

The next document is our No. 457. Knochen writes to
Brussels, to the corresponding office in Brussels, to
Sturmbannfuehrer Ehlers who headed the Brussels office at
that time. The letter was again drafted by Dannecker: “As
already discussed in Berlin, it seems desirable to carry out
the designating of the Jews simultaneously in the occupied
zones in Holland, Belgium and France. As date for the
consultation, in which the specialist on Jews of the
Amsterdam Branch Office will also take part, I fixed
Saturday, 14 March 1942.” That is to say – coordination
between the Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris Offices as a
result of the meeting in Berlin.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/405.

The marking R.F. on the top, is it “Republique Francaise” or

State Attorney Bach: It is Reichsfuehrer-SS.

Last-Modified: 1999/05/31