Session 031-04, Eichmann Adolf

After Brussels, Dannecker also writes to Amsterdam,
attention Sturmbannfuehrer Lages, who was then commander of
the Security Police in Amsterdam. Our number here is 1259.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/406.

State Attorney Bach: Dannecker tell Lages about a
conversation he had with Asche in Paris (Asche was also one
of those in Belgium) and I draw attention to paragraph (d)
which says: “It does not seem necessary to give a special
reason for the designating to outsiders. To the German
Services the measure has to be explained as a necessary step
towards the general solution of the Jewish Question.”

Presiding Judge: Who signed this?

State Attorney Bach: This is signed by…the signature here
is not very clear but it is clear that the drafting was
again Dannecker’s.

The next document is a telegram from Eichmann to the
commanders of the Sipo (Security Police) and the SD in
Belgium and France. Our number is 690. He mentions a
consultation on 6 March 1942 with Hauptsturmfuehrer
Dannecker and speaks again of the prospect that, in addition
to the 1,000 Jews in Compiegne another 5,000 Jews may be
deported. I especially draw your attention to the date of
that meeting. The Court will see that there was a meeting
with Dannecker on 6 March 1942 – and we shall submit further
evidence concerning its contents. You will remember, Your
Honours, that a week or more ago the Attorney General
submitted several documents on a meeting at which there was
a discussion on the sterilization of Jews, after Wannsee.
There were two such meetings – the first one on 6 March 1942
and the other in October of that year. Both meetings took
place in the office of the Accused and the Attorney General
stated that, while in the minutes of the meeting of 27
October the name of the Accused appears together with the
names of several staff members of his unit as participants,
his name does not appear at the meeting of 6 March 1942. A
possible explanation for this fact is to be found in the
present document which shows that on the same day, 6 March
1942 there was a meeting with the members of his staff, as a
matter of fact with his officers from the Stapostellen
(Gestapo Units) in Germany, but also with Dannecker, and it
is quite possible that in view of his having to take part in
this meeting, he could not go to the other one or could not
get there on time.

Presiding Judge: I understand the desire to explain this at
the present stage but it seems to me that the place for such
explanations is at the end. This is of course more boring,
if one may put it this way, for the moment, but it cannot be

State Attorney Bach: I wanted to make things easier for the

Presiding Judge: In any case you will repeat this at the
end, of this I am almost certain. Am I right?

State Attorney Bach: Possibly.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/407.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 587. I shall
only summarize the contents of the letter: Dannecker writes
to the Commander of the Army in France and asks him to act
in accordance with the decision of the Head Office for Reich
Security in the matter of the deportation of the Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/408.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 55, which
was already submitted to the Court together with the Police
Statement and was numbered T/37(22). Here we have a
correspondence between the Commander of the Army in France
and the Accused, and Eichmann decides that 34 Yugoslavs,
among others, may be deported to Auschwitz, but notice has
to be given separately about their arrival.

Presiding Judge: Jews holding Yugoslav nationality in the

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. It is a question of
Jews holding Yugoslav nationality in the past.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/409.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1210. It
is a report by Dannecker on a conversation he had with Novak
of the RSHA-IVB4:

“On 20 March 1942 SS Obersturmfuehrer Novak of the RSHA-
IVB4 ‘phoned and announced that the Reich Ministry of
Transport has already fixed the timetable for the
deportation train as follows: Departure from Paris on
28 March 1942; time of arrival in Auschwitz 5 a.m. on
30 March.”

Presiding Judge: This will be T/410.

State Attorney Bach: And here is the letter to which I
referred already earlier. Our No. 1211, drafted by
Dannecker, signed by Knochen. To IVB4. The subject is the
deportation of the same first 1,000 Jews from Compiegne and
it says: “The Commander of the Army has now definitely
informed us that he cannot detail any security forces for
the transport. Since nothing further can be done here in the
matter of guard personnel I request you to get in touch with
the OKH, since the order for the arrest and deportation of
these Jews was also obtained from them through the Fuehrer’s

Presiding Judge: What is OKH?

State Attorney Bach: OKH, these are the initials of
Oberkommando des Heeres and OKW are the initials of
Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.

Judge Halevi: What is the difference between Wehrmacht and

State Attorney Bach: Wehrmacht includes all the armed
forces, Heer is the Army proper.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/411.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our 1213.
Dannecker signed it himself. He describes the instructions
he has given to the Head of the Department for Jewish
Affairs at the French Police and says:

“Director Schweblin of the anti-Jewish Police was
entrusted by me with the task of separating on
27.3.1942 those Jews in Drancy who are going to be
deported and to search them very thoroughly. They must
not take any metal objects with them, except spoons.”

Presiding Judge: What is “antijuedische Polizei”? Is this a
French unit?

State Attorney Bach: This is a French unit. In one of the
earlier reports, which I did not read in its entirety, he
describes how he established that unit and how that unit
employed his own office. It was a unit of the French Police
which had to carry out certain tasks in connection with the
arrest and the deportation of Jews, under his supervision
and command.

“I gave order that every Jew should be allowed to take
with him only one suitcase or knapsack.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/412.

State Attorney Bach: In Document No. 444 Dannecker proposes
to engage the help of the German authorities in order to
bring pressure to bear on the French, so that they should
consent to the designating of the Jews.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/413.

State Attorney Bach: In the next document, No. 1358,
Dannecker informs the office of the Accused that the same
method of designating the Jews as is in use in Holland will
be introduced. “Jews who have reached the age of six are
forbidden to appear without the Jewish star.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/414.

State Attorney Bach: The following telegram is numbered
1360. It is signed by Regierungsrat Suhr from Section IVB4
and was sent to the Paris office:

“The arrangement whereby only Jews of foreign
nationality, whose home countries have already
introduced designation are subject to obligatory
designation, also corresponds to the regulations within
the Reich. In any case the Protectorate areas of
Bohemia and Moravia have to be included for the purpose
of designation. In case we should succeed, through the
intermediary of the Foreign Ministry, to impose the
designation also on Jews of other nationalities within
the Reich, I shall immediately send further

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/415.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, No. 1214, a
telegram from Guenther to Paris. It contains minutely
detailed instructions for the deportation of the Jews from
Compiegne to Auschwitz. The number to be put in each railway
carriage, those who are to be put on and in what way.
Furthermore, only Jews who can work are to be included,
mainly men, not more than five per cent women, no children.
This was the situation still at that date.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/416.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1394.
Dannecker reports on the second transport of Jews from
France, of 1,000 Jews and he addresses his report to IVB4,
to the Inspector of Concentration Camps, Oranienburg and to
the Commander of Concentration Camp Auschwitz, in this

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/417.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 56, which
also received the Number T/37(23). Here I shall not go into
details. We have here an exchange of correspondence between
the Accused and the Paris Office in connection with a
meeting which is to take place in Berlin, again a
coordination meeting with the subordinates in Belgium,
Holland and France. At the end he summons the meeting for 11
June 1942 and informs Dannecker that he has also invite
Asche and Zoepf. Asche is his man in Belgium, Zoepf,the
Section Officer with the BdS in Holland.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/418. There are
two documents here.

State Attorney Bach: I think, even three, a note from
Dannecker and a telegram in reply from Eichmann.

The next document, our No. 585, is a report on that meeting
of 11 June 1942, the meeting which, to a certain extent, led
to a turning point in the policy of deportations from the

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/419.

State Attorney Bach: The subject of our document No. 873 is
the same meeting in IVB4 and it says:

“For military reasons the deportation of the Jews from
Germany to the Eastern areas of operations can no
longer take place during the summer. The Reichsfuehrer-
SS has therefore ordered the transfer of large numbers
of Jews from the South East (Romania) or from the
Occupied Western areas to the Auschwitz concentration
camp for labour. As a basic condition the Jews (of both
sexes) must be between the ages of 16 and 40. Ten per
cent of the Jews who are not able to work may be sent
along with them.”

This was actually the first time such an order was given,
that it was also permissible to deport Jews who were unfit
to work.

“It was agreed that 15,000 from Holland, 10,000 from
Belgium and a total of 100,000 Jews from France
including the unoccupied zone would be deported. In
accordance with a proposal by the undersigned it was
decided that, beside the age limit, the range of
persons to be deported should include only those Jews
who are obliged to wear the Jewish star (Judenstern) if
they do not cohabit in mixed marriages.”

At the end it says that Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann has
ordered the participating chiefs to report again in Berlin
on 2 July 1942.

Judge Halevi: And the expenses are to be covered by France.

State Attorney Bach: This is also a very important point.

“The agreement of the French Government has to be obtained
to issue a law according to which all Jews living outside
the borders of the French State or emigrating later will
lose their French citizenship and right of domicile. The
costs of transport as well as the poll tax (about 700
Reichsmark per Jew) must be borne by the French State. The
same applies to equipment for the Jews and food for two
weeks starting from the day of deportation.”

Dannecker now gives instructions for the technical
implementation of the deportation. And here at any rate he
is certainly a party to the camouflage because he says: “In
order to avoid any collision with operation ‘French Workers
for Germany` mention will only be made of ‘resettlement of

In paragraph 2 he says: “I intend to clear, first of all,
all the Jews from the provincial area.”
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/420.

State Attorney Bach: There is no longer any doubt here that
Dannecker is speaking about himself. He signs the letter and
he announces that he intends to do so and so.

The next document is our No. 57 – T/37(24). A letter from
Dannecker to IVB4 and a telegram in reply from
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. Dannecker refers to a
conversation with Novak and asks whether, in spite of
technical difficulties which he mentioned in an earlier
letter, it is possible to deport the 3,000 Jews who are
ready to move. Eichmann answers in the affirmative.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/421.

State Attorney Bach: Document No. 82 – T/37(62), to

“It is envisaged that, to begin with, starting in the middle
of July or the beginning of August this year, about 40,000
Jews from the occupied French zone, 40,000 Jews from the
Netherlands and 10,000 Jews from Belgium are to be deported
for work in the Auschwitz camp in daily special trains
containing 1,000 persons each. The range of people included
comprises, for the present, Jews who are able to work, in so
far as they do not cohabit in mixed marriages and are not
nationals of the British Empire, the USA, Mexico and the
Middle and South American enemy states, or of the neutral
and allied states [allied to Germany]. I request that note
be taken of the above and assume that there is no objection
to these measures on the part of the Foreign Ministry
either.” Signed on instruction – Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/422.

State Attorney Bach: The Court will note that there is no
hint here of the ten per cent mentioned in the letter to the

Judge Halevi: Is that less serious?

State Attorney Bach: The instruction was that ten per cent
unfit persons could be included, but in the letter to the
Foreign Ministry this was not mentioned. And we shall see
this time after time, in most countries, that there is one
letter to the officials of the SS and a different letter,
which does not reveal the whole truth, even vis-a-vis the
German Foreign Ministry.

The next document is our No. 1525, a report on a meeting
between Dannecker and Leguay, the representative of the
police in the occupied area. Leguay says that he has to
speak to Laval about the deportation of the Jews and
Dannecker points out that there is nothing to discuss. This
is a German order and it has to be carried out, even if the
French Government does not issue a parallel order. Even if
the French Government has not, or not yet, issued such an
order, it has to be carried out because it is a German

Judge Halevi: In the occupied French zone there was the
French Laval Government?

State Attorney Bach: This was a matter of a certain action
to be carried out by the French police, which was
nevertheless subordinate to the French Government. And then
Dannecker said: “This concerns the occupied zone and
therefore this is a German order; if your government has not
ordered you to do this, we tell you to do it and you have to
follow through.”

Judge Halevi: But we are talking of the Vichy Government
headed by Laval?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Judge Halevi: But I do not understand the status of the
area. The area is the occupied zone which is not under the
Vichy government at all. Did the question of the police
receiving any orders at all from the Vichy Government not

State Attorney Bach: Apparently to a certain extent it did.
It seems that this was one of the conditions of the
armistice agreement, that the Vichy Government had control
over the French police in the whole of France.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/423.

Judge Raveh: This is not signed by Dannecker?

Presiding Judge: It says here: i.V.(per pro).

State Attorney Bach: On top it says: Dannecker and Roe. It
was in fact written by Roethke.

Presiding Judge: At the top it does not say: Dannecker.

State Attorney Bach: No. This report was written by
Roethke, who arrived there exactly at the same time as
Dannecker. And he writes about Dannecker’s actions. On the
left side there is Dannecker’s signature showing that he
approves of the contents. Mr. Roethke will still appear in
quite a number of documents and we shall submit evidence on
the activities and conduct of every one of these gentlemen.

The next document is our No. 58. Here Eichmann cancels the
meeting called for 2 July 1942 and announces that he will
come to Paris on instructions from Mueller in order to
discuss the final details. By the way, this is T/37(25).

Presiding Judge: This will be T/424.

Last-Modified: 1999/05/31