Session 034-08, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: “and in consideration” – does that mean
“without consideration”?

State Attorney Bach: It says here: “…ohne Ruecksicht auf
den angebotenen Devisenbetrag im Hinblick auf seine
berufliche Stellung abgelehnt. Im Auftrage – gezeichnet:
Eichmann.” That is to say, regardless of the sum, which
exceeds by 50,000 Franc the required amount, the application
was refused, considering his professional standing, and this
we know already from Guenther’s letter, because he is an
intellectual, i.e. a former professor.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/535.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1501.
This is a report found in the Gestapo offices in Holland,
and it includes an interim report on the development of the
Jewish Question in Holland until the end of 1942. The
entire problem is described here, the 140,000 Jews who were
there to begin with, the sympathy on the part of the
inhabitants, that there were difficulties, that even the NSB
was cleaned of Jews only after the invasion.

Judge Halevi: Who submitted this report?

State Attorney Bach: We do not know exactly. It was in the
Gestapo files. On the top it says: Miss Slottke. We do not
know whether she wrote the report; her name appeared on the
top. We obtained this report from Professor Sers from the
Oorlog Institute who confirmed that this is a report found
in the files of the Netherlands Gestapo. This is an
institute for the documentation of war criminals. In effect
a special governmental institute for research on war
criminals. There are various statistics in it. It speaks
of the removal of the Jews from economic, public and
cultural life; of the limitations on the freedom of
movement; then of the concentration of the Jews; of the
deportation of the Jews. All this is recorded by the
Germans in the usual dry style, things about the reality of
which we heard from the witness. Here we see who initiated,
planned and implemented this.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/536.

State Attorney Bach: Now our No. 619, which was here
numbered T/37(197). It is a note by Zoepf, who says: “In
accordance with a reply from Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann,
a solution is available in the Netherlands, too, for those
Jews who cannot quite be equated with the rest of the
Auschwitz Jews,” this is what he calls them, “because of age
or merits, but who must not just remain here. For, we can
at any time send a train from Westerbork to the propaganda
camp Theresienstadt.” And here we find Miss Slottke again;
it says at the bottom: “Miss Slottke, with request for
suitable treatment and preparation of these ‘incidents’ and
information to Westerbork.”

Presiding Judge: What does “Zwischenfaelle” (incidents) mean
here? The intention is not incidents here but “intermediate

State Attorney Bach: To send them to Auschwitz is
impossible, they have privileges here, so they are sent
there. The point here is simply that Zoepf not only knows
that Theresienstadt is a Propagandalager, but that he also
dares put this in black on white in a document. This again
confirms the opinion that Eichmann revealed to his
specialist representatives during a certain meeting – the
report on which we shall submit later – that Theresienstadt
was a camp for propaganda abroad.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/537.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, I now beg to submit a
report on the interrogation of Wilhelm Harster, Commander of
the Security Police and the SD in the Netherlands, who was
examined after the War by Dutch interrogators about his
activities in the Netherlands. We actually wish to submit
this statement by Harster for two reasons only: First of
all, he describes the incident of “Apeldoorn Bos.”
Presiding Judge: Is he still alive?

State Attorney Bach: He was condemned by a Dutch Court. I
believe he received a twelve years’ prison sentence.

Presiding Judge: Is it evidence before the Court?

State Attorney Bach: No, Your Honour. This is an
interrogation which was submitted to the Court. It is a pre-
trial interrogation by the Municipality of Amsterdam. This
interrogation was made for the purpose of submission to the
Court, and it was in fact submitted. And here he describes
the incident of “Apeldoorn Bos.”

Presiding Judge: When was he sentenced, do you know?

State Attorney Bach: It was after the War, I think in 1947
or 1948. At any rate, he has since been set free. He may
be in Germany, but I have no certain information about this.
At all events, it is obvious that this is not a person whom
we could, or would wish to, bring here as a witness. The
purpose of this piece of evidence is limited, but it is
important to us in the context of this chapter.

Harster quotes a report about the Jewish mental hospital
which he received from Aus der Fuenten. He relates that the
first initiative came apparently from Holland, where the
need arose to use this building as a military hospital for
the Waffen-SS. So Aus der Fuenten submitted a report about
this place. It was brought to Rauter’s attention, and then
it reached Harster. Harster then contacted Eichmann, and
Eichmann gave the order to vacate the institution completely
and also made a special train available for the purpose.

Presiding Judge: What was Harster’s position?

State Attorney Bach: Harster was Commander of the Security
Police and the SD in Holland. Zoepf was Eichmann’s
specialist for Jewish Questions attached to him. And he
does indeed relate what was the role of Zoepf in this
matter, and what was Eichmann’s part.

Presiding Judge: This means he is not someone who receives
orders from Eichmann?

State Attorney Bach: This is a question which we may
discuss in the summing-up. Eichmann could not say: “I, as
your superior in rank, give you an order.” But an order
from Eichmann in Jewish matters was in fact binding for him,
because Eichmann dealt with Jewish matters on the strength
of his position, and because certain authorities spoke
through Eichmann, and in practice instructions from Eichmann
were instructions, although not given in the form of a
regular order in the army or police.

Judge Halevi: He was the Dutch Knochen?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, he was the Dutch Knochen, the
opposite number of Knochen. And just as Knochen accepted
what Dannecker said on Jewish matters, although he held a
lower rank, so it was here.
This document was shown to the Accused when he made his
statement, and he did not deny that it was his job to
provide these trains.

Presiding Judge: Are you saying that Eichmann also “gave the
order to vacate?”

State Attorney Bach: This is what Harster says. Harster
testifies about another conversation here, he describes a
conversation between Eichmann and Seyss-Inquart in which
Eichmann gave certain details to Seyss-Inquart about the
fate of the Jews who are sent to Arbeitseinsatz (work
assignment). This is again important, in view of the
statement by von Thadden which we have submitted. Here we
have someone in Holland who says similar things about the
Accused, about camouflage and deceit, even vis-a-vis German
authorities. Therefore, Your Honours, from this point of
view, i.e. that the Accused has already reacted…
Presiding Judge: But not to all of it. He has not denied
that he provided a train for this operation.
State Attorney Bach: Yes, this he has not denied.

Presiding Judge: What else?

Judge Halevi: Did he read the whole document?

State Attorney Bach: The whole document was shown to him,
but he reacted only to part of it.

Judge Halevi: Usually we saw that in his interrogation he
was asked whether he had any remarks.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour, he was asked: “Have
you any remarks concerning this?” He did react on the
subject of the mental patients and also on what usually
happened to these people. But he said that he did not
remember the exact details, what happened with this
particular train. Therefore I should like to ask, on the
basis of your earlier decisions, that you accept this

Dr. Servatius: As I hear, the witness Harster is still

Presiding Judge: We do not know, at any rate, that he is

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the document except
as regards one point, which the Court itself has already
stressed. The Accused admitted already in the interrogation
that he may have had something to do with the transport.
But here it is claimed that he also initiated the seizure
and the deportation. It is hardly to be assumed that mental
patients were assigned to work, and it is not to be assumed
that Seyss-Inquart seriously talked about this with
Eichmann. I should like to insist that the witness be heard
on this point.

State Attorney Bach: It seems to me that there is a
misunderstanding here. We are talking about two different
things. The conversation between Seyss-Inquart and Eichmann
did not refer to these persons. It says here that there was
a question as to what happened to the Jews coming to Germany
for work assignment. However, Your Honours, I am ready to
forgo this part of Harster’s testimony. In any case, I have
no corroborating additional testimony for this conversation,
and in any case I could not, in my summary before the Court,
ask for a finding on the basis of such evidence. I am
therefore ready to do without this passage in the
conversation between Seyss-Inquart and Eichmann, I am ready
to renounce this point.

As for the first part, I should at any rate insist on the
passage in which it says that contact was made with Eichmann
and that he knew who were the people to be evacuated, and
that he provided the train for the deportation of these
people to the East. This is actually the point I am
interested in.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, does this change your point
of view?

Dr. Servatius: In my opinion one further sentence has to be
deleted, the sentence which says that Eichmann was the one
who gave the order to vacate the institution completely.

State Attorney Bach: I see no material difference here;
whether he says that he sent a train in order to transfer
the people to the East, or whether he says that he had the
people arrested and put on the train makes no difference at

Judge Halevi: Is this the time to reach conclusions about
the weight of this testimony? We are now discussing whether
to submit it or not.

State Attorney Bach: If I have understood Counsel for the
Defense correctly he says that, if I agree to the Court not
taking this sentence into consideration, he will not object
to the submission of the document and will not ask for the
witness to be examined. I am ready to agree to this. I am
ready to it being stated that Eichmann was contacted on this
matter and that he sent this train for this purpose, to take
these mental patients and convey them to their destination.
This is actually the point.

Presiding Judge: Is this what you wish to prove by the

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Judge Raveh: That is to say we have a question of
initiative here: The question whether, with the help of this
document, you wish to prove an initiative by the Accused, or
whether you do not wish to prove an initiative by the

State Attorney Bach: I understand, Your Honour. I said
already at the outset that the initiative came first from
Holland. Authorities there said there was need for a
military hospital for the personnel of the Waffen-SS. I
said so before. Of course, I do not know exactly what
happened, but since it is not possible to base proof on
Harster’s evidence alone, I am prepared to forgo this part
and to assume, for the benefit of the Accused, that what he
did here was the result of the telephone conversation with
Harster, in other words, that he sent the train so that
these mental patients would be deported.

Presiding Judge: You are ready to assume, that the
initiative came from Holland?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, the initiative to vacate this
place for the purpose mentioned.

Presiding Judge: I hope that is the end of these exchanges.

Dr. Servatius: I agree with this view.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 19

We allow the submission of the document as proof on the
basis of Mr. Bach’s statement. The document is marked

State Attorney Bach: Just one more document on the same
subject, No. 1382. This is the deposition of a Dutch
railway man named Klaas Bloothoofd who was on that train; he
was supposed to guard it – he was a Dutch railway official –
and he testified in Holland about that train and described
how these people were loaded into it. This is evidence
given to complete the picture. As for the introduction
about the Germans who were there – I attach no importance to
that for the moment.

“At approximately 10 o’clock in the evening of that
day, I noticed that people who had been brought in
lorries were loaded into the carriages of this train.
I heard then that these were mental patients from the
Jewish institution ‘Het Apeldoorn Bos.’ They were
brought in two lorries…The first three goods
carriages were filled with men and women who behaved
quietly. About forty persons were put into one
carriage, men and women being separated. But this
latter (the separating) did not last long because the
loading was done so fast, and men and women were moved
into the same carriage together. I noticed that many
men and women, especially the old, were brought in the
nightclothes in which they had been taken from their
beds. I also noticed that dangerous patients in
straightjackets, at any rate the upper part of their
bodies tied and therefore unable to move their arms,
were put into the same carriage where there were quiet
patients. Some of the patients, among them one girl,
were completely naked.”

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour the Presiding Judge, I should
just like to remark that I received this document in Dutch
only. I have read it as best I could, but I should like to
reserve the right to express reservations if I should later
find anything.

State Attorney Bach: I am sorry. Whenever there is
evidence in a foreign language, we provide the Defense with
a German translation. In this case we forgot to do so.

Presiding Judge: For the time being this is submitted,
subject to what Dr. Servatius may wish to say. T/539.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 623.
Here we have instructions for the transport to
Theresienstadt; who is to be sent to Theresienstadt. It
refers to a telephone conversation between SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther from the Head Office for Reich
Security and the (female) police official Slottke from the
BdS in The Haag. The subject is which persons have special
privileges and are to be sent to Theresienstadt. And there
is an addition: When a person is sent to Theresienstadt, he
may take along children up to the age of 14. Children over
14 are regarded as being on their own and are sent to the
East. Even those Jews who have special privileges, as it
were – if they have a child above the age of 14, that child
is on its own and will be sent to the East alone. This is
also marked T/37(199).

Presiding Judge: T/540.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 621. A
letter from the Accused to the BdS, attention Zoepf. This
was always the channel, and here is just one sentence: “With
reference to the a/m telephone conversation, I enclose one
copy of the Guidelines laid down for the Change of Residence
of Jews from the Reich Area to Theresienstadt – with the
request that note be taken.” The expression used here is
“Wohnsitzverlegung” (change of residence). The Accused was
questioned about this document, which was given the number
T/37(171). The interrogator asked him: “What does this
mean, why do you call this Wohnsitzverlegung?” And he
answered: “This is what we always called it when
Theresienstadt was meant.” And then the interrogator said
to him (I shall first say it in German): “Less Damit die
Pille leichter zu schlucken sei?” (In order that it might be
easier to swallow the pill?) “Eichmann So gewissermassen,
um’s mal ehrlich zu sagen, ja.” (In a certain sense, to
tell the truth, yes.)

Judge Halevi: On what page of the statement does this

State Attorney Bach: On page 2133.

Presiding Judge: T/541.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 624.
Here the Court will again notice “Slottke” on the left.
Zoepf writes again to the Head Office for Reich Security, to
IVB4, concerning a train from Holland to Theresienstadt; he
coordinates the transport of Jews to Theresienstadt with
Eichmann and bases himself “on SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann’s proposal at the time…”

This document was also shown to the Accused and was given
No. T/37(202).

I have now reached a certain point. I might perhaps stop

Presiding Judge: Yes.

We shall adjourn now. The next Session is at 3.30 p.m.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/01