Session 039-04, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: On what page?

Attorney General: I only have here a note of the page of our
stencil, but it must be in the very last pages of the
questions of Dr. Markel: “Did you want to issue an order for
the arrest on behalf of the SS Court against Eichmann?”

If I may be permitted to give the Court a transcript of this
evidence which is in our possession, perhaps it would be
easier to find the place.

Presiding Judge: This has so far not been submitted to us.

Attorney General: No. We still have only a part of the
documents we intend to submit.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Merkel – was he one of the defence
counsels there?

Attorney General: Yes, I think that he was the defence
counsel for the Gestapo.

Did Schellenberg have any connections at all with the

Witness Musmanno: Yes, he did.

Q. How was that?

A. About a month or so before the beginning of the Russian
campaign, Heydrich instructed Schellenberg, who was his
deputy, to enter into negotiations with the army for the
purpose of establishing cooperation between the army and the
Einsatzgruppen organization which was about to be formed.

Q. Did the contact between Schellenberg and the German army
ultimately crystallize to some extent?

A. Yes. Schellenberg then entered into negotiations with
General Wagner, who was the Quartermaster General of the
army; and Schellenberg, being an attorney, actually drew up
a document in the nature of an agreement between the RSHA
and the army under the command of General Brauchitsch of the
Russian campaign as to what this Einsatzgruppen organization
was to do.

This agreement then was signed by Heydrich and General
Wagner, of course under the direction of Brauchitsch, and it
provided briefly that the Einsatzgruppen organization was to
protect the rear forces of the army in the conquered
territory in the East.

Q. Was this, according to Schellenberg, the actual function
of the Einsatzgruppen?

A. It was not. This agreement was a false facade, because
the Einsatzgruppen organization was not a combat outfit.
Hardly any one of the officers had any military training.
The Einsatzgruppen organization, in point of fact, was a
slaughter-house on wheels.

Q. Who staffed the Einsatzgruppen, Judge?

A. The Einsatzgruppen were staffed, of course, by Himmler.
That is, he made the appointments very largely on the
recommendation of Eichmann. Stahlecker, who was a friend of
Eichmann, was appointed as commander of Einsatzgruppe A;
Nebe went to Einsatzgruppe D.

Presiding Judge: Did you mention Eichmann’s name here?

Attorney General: Yes. He said: “Himmler did it on the
recommendation of Eichmann.” That was the reply.

Presiding Judge: I did not grasp that.

Attorney General: And therefore Stahlecker, his friend, and
Ohlendorf, who was connected…

Dr. Servatius Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, it seems to
me that now the witness is giving evidence about matters
which are included in his own judgment, which are contained
in this volume, and I presume that giving of such evidence
is contrary to the Court’s decision.

Attorney General: With the Court’s permisssion, I am
definitely within the limits of the decision. Eichmann’s
name was not mentioned in the judgment at all, and rightly
so, for he was not an accused there and there was no reason
to refer to him.

Presiding Judge: Are you sure that Eichmann’s name is not
mentioned in the entire judgment?

Judge Halevi: The question is whether he was mentioned in
this context.

Attorney General: Justice Musmanno – was Eichmann’s name
mentioned in this context?

Presiding Judge: First of all, did you, in your judgment,
mention the name of Eichmann at all?

Witness Musmanno: The name of Eichmann was mentioned
several times in the Einsatzgruppen Trial.

Attorney General: Yes, but I am asking about your judgment.

Witness Musmanno: I did not actually refer to Eichmann, by
name, in the written judgment.

Presiding Judge: But what you are now about to relate, that
you took from the evidence heard in the Einsatzgruppen case.
Is that correct? Or was it from other sources?

Witness Musmanno: This particular detail came from
Schellenberg who was in the RSHA.

Judge Halevi: This was after you completed the
Einsatzgruppen case?

Witness Musmanno: That is correct, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 30

We permit the evidence on the matters which the witness
heard from Schellenberg.

Attorney General: Was Schellenberg familiar with the
organizing of the Einsatzgruppen?

Witness Musmanno: He was, because he not only conducted
these negotiations with General Wagner, to which I referred,
but he was present in Berlin when Heydrich and Streckenbach,
who was chief of the personnel of the RSHA, gave directions
and instruction to the Einsatzgruppen personnel as to what
they were to do in the East, and Schellenberg saw Eichmann
at these conferences.

Q. That is what he told you?

A. That is what he told me.

Q. Did Schellenberg have any further connection with the

A. Yes, during the Russian campaign many hundreds of
thousands of Russians were captured as prisoners of war.
Schellenberg, as the head of the German Foreign Secret
Service, initiated a project which was entitled “Operation

Q. The purpose of which was to get Russian prisoners to spy
on their fellow Russians?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, in this operation, headed by Schellenberg, did he
have any contact with Eichmann?

A. This operation was partially successful, but some of the
Russian prisoners of war who became spies for the German
forces were themselves executed by the Germans. And the
executions were conducted by the Einsatzgruppen, and several
of the Russian prisoners were done to death under the
direction of Brigadier General Naumann, who was the chief of
Einsatzgruppe B. In this Operation Zeppelin, Amt VI, headed
by Schellenberg, worked hand in glove with Amt IV, the
Gestapo, and because of that association, aside from the
usual routine office camaraderie between individuals in the
same organization, Schellenberg came into contact with
Eichmann, who of course was heading IVB in the Gestapo.

Q. Now I take it, that the contact was in relation to Jewish

A. That is true and also generally in cooperation between
departments on all matters which could be germane to the
individual departments and cooperatively.

Q. Now, but with regard to Jewish affairs, what was the
principal purpose of these Einsatzgruppen?

Presiding Judge: We are still talking about Schellenberg’s
words, I take it?

Witness Musmanno: That is true, Justice. There may be here
and there some reference to date and information which came
to my attention from other sources. For instance, Justice,
in the Ministries Case there was quite a discussion about
this Operation Zeppelin.

Presiding Judge: I would be grateful to you if you would
specify whenever you refer to the remarks of Schellenberg

Witness Musmanno: [to Attorney General] You asked me a
question there about the purpose.

Attorney General: Yes, about the purpose of the
Einsatzgruppen, the principal purpose with regard to Jews?

Witness Musmanno: The main and principal objective of the
Einsatzgruppen was to kill Jews and rob them of their

Q. Now, still within the general directive of the Court,
what, if anything can you say about Eichmann’s connection
with the Einsatzgruppen?

A. The Einsatzgruppen was strictly a project of the RSHA,
and Schellenberg said that Eichmann as chief of that part of
the RSHA which dealt with Jews, supervised and directed the
activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the extermination of
Jews. In the field, of course, the Einsatzgruppen units were
under the tactical command of the military units to which
they were attached. From time to time Eichmann visited the
Einsatzgruppen in the field and attended executions.

Q. Now Justice Musmanno, I won`t ask you any questions
connected with the information you derived as the President
of the Court which tried the Einsatzgruppen, because this is
the directive of the Court.

Presiding Judge: That is not altogether accurate. We said
that we would not admit it, unless you proved to us
beforehand that you could not obtain such evidence in a more
direct way.

Attorney General: Precisely. And now I come to a
continuation of my question which proceeds in this
direction. I would request the Court to permit me three
questions which are not contained in the material before us.
We attempted to obtain it after we learned from Judge
Musmanno since his arrival here, about the existence of this
material and which, to my regret, we have not obtained. I am
afraid that in the time available to us, while Judge
Musmanno remains in Israel, we shall not succeed in
procuring it. It does not concern the Accused directly, it
relates to two other persons, but it gives a picture of the
activities of the Einsatzgruppen which, I believe, completes
the matter.

Presiding Judge: Who are these two other persons?

Attorney General: One of them is Ernst Biberstein, who was a
clergyman at one time and who left his position in order to
join the activities of the Nazi party and who subsequently
reached the Einsatzgruppen.

Presiding Judge: Was he one of the accused at the trial?

Attorney General: Yes. And I should like to ask the witness
about the reply Biberstein gave Judge Musmanno when he was
asked whether he tried to provide any spiritual comfort to
people before they were executed – for Biberstein maintained
that, in his heart, he still remained a clergyman.

Judge Halevi: But this is included in the judgment of the
Einsatzgruppen. Is it not possible to agree here that part
of the judgment should serve as adequate proof?

Attorney General: If Defence Counsel is agreeable that I
could submit the entire judgment concerning the background
to the operations – then there would be no difficulty at

Presiding Judge: At any rate, these are matters which appear
in the judgment.

Attorney General: Yes. Except for those facts to which the
first part of the Court’s decision applies, the facts which
refer to abstention from obeying orders. I shall still come
to this.

Presiding Judge: Was, this, also in the evidence at the

Attorney General: It was in the evidence.

Judge Halevi: But you referred to three questions?

Attorney General: The questions relating to Blobel,
Ohlendorf and Biberstein which appear in the judgment.

Judge Halevi: And you merely want to prove that these three
accused in the Einsatzgruppen Case gave their specific
replies to specific questions which were put to them there,
and that the replies are mentioned in the judgment, and all
that is required is that Dr. Servatius should agree that
these are the questions and the answers?

Attorney General: Not only that. There is also, for example,
the background to the evidence of Blobel about the operation
to obliterate traces. This is most vital to us, since we
will argue that this obviously indicates, more than anything
else, the pangs of conscience which these people experienced
about leaving traces of the exterminations. And we shall
adduce evidence of the link between Blobel and Eichmann.
However, here we are talking of what Blobel said.

Presiding Judge: Is that mentioned in the judgment? You may
ask the witness.

Attorney General: Judge Musmanno, perhaps you could
enlighten me: Are there references in the judgment to the
campaign of covering up the tracks carried out by Blobel? I
do not remember exactly – I think this was so.

Witness Musmanno: My impression is that I do make some
reference to it. I am not entirely certain.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I have
here Volume 4 of the Green Series. There, on page 211 and
the following pages, there appears a detailed reprint of
Blobel’s affidavit dealing with the whole chapter of facts
on which it is requested to hear the witness. The witness,
Justice Musmanno, himself apparently did not attach
sufficient importance to the matter and, therefore, did not
mention Eichmann in the judgment. Consequently I presume
that Blobel’s affidavit constitutes better and preferable

Presiding Judge: At first glance it does not seem that this
affidavit of Blobel deals with this special operation of
eliminating traces. It deals with the actual executions. All
this appears from the first glance.
Dr. Servatius I, too, in my hurry, could not find the
details precisely. But, at any rate, in point no. 3 the
facts relate to Einsatzgruppe C.

Presiding Judge: Yes, that is right.

Judge Halevi: But on page 479 of this volume there is a
further mention of Blobel in relation to the operation of
covering up the tracks and it says – evidently this was
Blobel’s second affidavit – it says there that this task was
imposed upon him by Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, and he talks
about it. Accordingly I do not know whether this is the same
affidavit or an additional one.

Dr. Servatius Yes. It seems to me that these are the
grounds of the judgment. It is true that Mueller was the one
who gave instructions to these groups, but these matters
were not within the competence of Eichmann’s office.

Judge Halevi: My question is simply this: Does Defence
Counsel accept the affidavit mentioned in the judgment of
the Einsatzgruppen and the testimonies of Blobel, Ohlendorf
and Biberstein as evidence in this trial? In that case, it
would not be necessary to question the witness about it now.

Dr. Servatius I agree that all the affidavits which are
included in this transcript here, in this volume, should be
admissible as evidence in this Court.

Presiding Judge: Everything that is contained in the fourth
volume of the Green Series? I referred not only to the
judgment, but also the affidavit quoted in this volume. I
should like this to be clear.

Dr. Servatius: Yes. To the extent that these affidavits
have been published here, in this volume – I agree that they
should be admitted as evidence. Of course it will still be a
matter of discretion as to what value should be ascribed to
them. But I agree that they should be submitted in evidence.

Presiding Judge: That solves the problem.

Last-Modified: 1999/05/28