Session 072-04, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: I shall gladly do so, Your Honour. We
made far greater efforts than this in connection with the
present trial. I am simply expressing my opinion regarding
the attempt to determine the number on the basis of these
data. The numbers submitted by the two young men – with all
due respect to their courage, their heroism, and their
fulfilment of the national mission which they imposed upon
themselves – these numbers cannot serve, so I contend, as a
guide to the Court. They did not have any opportunity of
determining – apart from a very slight assumption – from
hearsay, how many people were exterminated at Auschwitz.
And if we hear from Rudolf Hoess more or less how many
people were killed at Auschwitz, that is far more
authoritative, in my opinion. If we hear what Eichmann said
– albeit not directly from his words, but through Rudolf
Hoess – this, in my opinion, is much more authoritative and
much closer to the correct figure than the one mentioned by
these two young men who were not in a position to calculate
it, except upon the basis of rumours circulating in the

Despite all this, I am perfectly prepared to make the
attempt to secure and present to the Court an additional
affidavit which will explain the differences between the
numbers appearing in the body of the report and those
appearing in the table.

Presiding Judge: In order to close this matter in the
meantime: The report of Dr. Karmil will not be submitted,
for the present. If Dr. Servatius wishes to submit it, he
can do so at the defence stage. If he will suggest
submitting a portion of it – we shall consider the matter.

The Attorney General was requested by my colleague, Judge
Halevi, to obtain an additional affidavit. If you make a
request to submit such an affidavit, the entire Court will
consider whether or not to admit such an affidavit. This
always applies, obviously, to any request by each one of us.

And, with regard to this last document, we shall now have to
decide whether to admit it or not.

We shall not, at this stage, admit this last report, which
is based upon the report of the two young Slovakians, since
the Court is aware that you have available more direct
evidence than the accounts of these two young men.

Decision No. 74

We have decided not to admit this document, since the
Prosecution has available more direct testimony, namely in
the American report.

Attorney General: Now that this document has not been
admitted, I shall, of course, find out whether it is
possible to comply with the request of His Honour, Judge
Halevi, and if I should succeed, I shall raise the question
anew before the Court.

Judge Halevi: This may also, perhaps, dispose of Dr.
Servatius’ objections. If that will be submitted, it is
perhaps likely to remove his objections.

Presiding Judge: You have one further possibility – to sit
down together and to attempt, both of you together, to
examine what is stated there, how it came about. That also
happens sometimes.

Attorney General: We shall also try that. But there is no
difficulty in asking for an affidavit from London.

The next document is our No. 731. This is an order of the
Head Office for Reich Security concerning women prisoners in
the concentration camps – a concentration camp for prisoners
of the female sex. The order is given that, from now on,
all the women are to be transferred to Auschwitz and are no
longer to be directed to Ravensbrueck. And, at the end:
“All demands regarding transfers, releases, demands for
reports on behaviour, etc. about prisoners who were
imprisoned in Auschwitz shall no longer be sent to the
commandant of the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck, but to
the commandant of the concentration camp at Auschwitz.”

I would ask you to note that the order goes to all the
Sections of Department IV, not of the Economic-
Administrative Main Office that has nothing to do with it;
it does not issue the order, it is not addressed to it, but
is directed specifically to the local headquarters of the
state police, to the commandants of the Security Police and
the SD, and to all the Sections of Department IV, for they
are the ones concerned with transfers, releases, and so on.

Presiding Judge: Does it come from IVC2?

Attorney General: Yes, that office issued the order.

Presiding Judge: Who was that?

Attorney General: “Schutzhaeftlinge” (prisoners in
protective custody).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1359.

Attorney General: Our document No. 1591 is a letter from the
Accused’s Section, which then was then designated IVD4. It
appears that the Foreign Ministry approached the Accused’s
Section concerning two Christian men, bearers of Spanish
nationality, who wanted to adopt a Jewish girl, and the
Spanish consulate in Berlin intervened on this matter.
Guenther, the Accused’s deputy, says that it is clear the
adoption is nothing but a fraudulent trick (“ein juedisches
Schwindelmanoever”), in order to allow this Jewess to be
saved and to leave for abroad. Accordingly, the application
is rejected, and he merely advises that the girl is in the
family camp (Familien-Lager) in Birkenau, near Auschwitz.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1360.

Attorney General: Our document No. 1036 is a notification
which the Foreign Ministry or, more correctly, the Press
Department of the Foreign Ministry sent to Eichmann on 27
June 1944, in which it reports that the Czech Government
broadcast from Radio London on the subject of the murder of
three thousand Czech Jews in Birkenau, and the Czech
Government issues a warning that it will act with the full
severity of the law against all persons having any
connection with this blood-bath. Von Thadden forwards this
item to Eichmann for his information, and asks him to pass
on material for the purpose of a propaganda rebuttal of this
contention. Eichmann was the one who had to supply the
Foreign Ministry with replies to broadcasts such as these.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/1361.

Attorney General: With this, we have come to the end of
documents of this kind. And now, I should like to ask the
Court to admit a document which is an interrogation by the
German prosecution of a man by the name of Georg Michelson.

Presiding Judge: West German?

Attorney General: West German. Georg Michelson is now in
prison in Hamburg, and he was accused of offences in
connection with the deportation of Jews from the Lublin and
Warsaw zones. His interrrogation here is authenticated by
one of the State Attorneys of West Germany, Mr. Dietrich
Zweig, who now lives in Jerusalem – he questioned the man.

Presiding Judge: Where is Michelson?

Attorney General: Michelson is under arrest in Hamburg, and
his interrogator has made an affidavit that this was the
interrogation. I ask the Court to use its authority under
Section 15, for the following reasons:

The evidence has probative value, since Michelson handled
deportations; he dealt with Jewish affairs in the zone of
the Generalgouvernement. He was a Hauptsturmfuehrer of the
SS; he describes in great detail, the operations in the
Warsaw Ghetto, the Warsaw Ghetto revolt, the visit of
Eichmann to Warsaw in July-August 1942, in connection with
the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto, about the fact that
Eichmann was present at the time of the transport of the
Jews from Warsaw.

If the Court will recollect the Accused’s contention that he
had no connection with the fate of the Jews in the
Generalgouvernement, as he maintains in his statement that
this was Frank’s domain with which he had no connection,
then this evidence is of great value. From the point of
view of its content, it has probative value; from the point
of view of its credibility – there is no reason to question
it, since the matter cannot be of any assistance to
Michelson if when describing his connection with all those
who dealt with Jewish questions, he also mentions Eichmann’s

Presiding Judge: When was Michelson’s statement made?

Attorney General: On 21 January 1961, in Hamburg.

Judge Raveh: Was it made under oath?

Attorney General: He was interrogated in a police

Judge Raveh: But not under oath?

Attorney General: Not under oath; on oath, we have the
confirmation by Mr. Zweig that the statement was made as a
police statement – a record of an interrogation in the
office of the Prosecutor General in the Court of the “Land”.

Presiding Judge: When did this come into your possession?

Attorney General: This reached us on 5 June 1961.

Dr. Servatius: I object to the submission of this document,
according to the general principle of submitting the best
evidence. After all, the witness is available, and it is
possible to question him. Indeed, the Prosecutor General
says that he questioned him. With all due respect to the
Prosecution and its argument that the German prosecution
provides one of the best defences for the Accused, sometimes
there are people who take a different view. For example,
there is a general principle that defence counsel must be
present at the interrogation of the accused. This principle
is not recognized by the current German law. The Accused
was questioned by a member of the Prosecution without
Defence Counsel being present. Hence, in my opinion, we
have to examine this witness and to put questions to him
particularly on this point.

Presiding Judge: We shall give our decision on this matter
after the recess.

Attorney General: Does the Court wish to see this document
before taking a decision?

Presiding Judge: You have more or less given us its content.

Attorney General: I did so very briefly. It contains many
details about the relationship of the person examined with
various Nazis who were active in Jewish affairs in Poland,
and these names keep coming up repeatedly in our documents.

Presiding Judge: I think this time there is no need for
that. You have indicated along general lines what it
contains, and that is sufficient for us.

Attorney General: I pass on to another chapter, known as the
“Collection of Skeletons at Strasbourg.” The SS set up a
foundation whose name was “Ahnenerbe” (Ancestral Heritage).
We have here a report on the establishment of the
foundation. With the Court’s permission, I shall submit the
other copies after the recess. This is our document No.
791. This is just by way of introduction.

Presiding Judge: Who drew up the report?

Attorney General: This is a copy of the deed establishing
the “Ahnenerbe.” It was NO in the Doctors’ Trial, in the
Brandt case.

Judge Halevi: Is it a German document?

Attorney General: Yes. This is merely by way of
introduction. I want to show what it was. The function of
the institution was to examine the area of operation, the
spirit, the acts and the traditions of the Indo-German
group. I shall substitute for the Court a clean page for
the one on which there are notation marks, immediately after
the recess.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1362.

Attorney General: As the Court will notice, Sievers was in
charge of the institution. On 9 February 1942, Sievers
wrote to SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt, who was the chief
doctor of the SS, that “within the framework of the
investigations of the Foundation for Research into the
Ancestral Heritage, it would be desirable to obtain skulls
of Jewish Bolshevist Commissars.” That is our document No.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, merely in
order to avoid confusion, the “Ancestral Heritage” was a
foundation which was headed by Himmler. It was his personal
hobby to conduct all kinds of researches. Furthermore,
there has been reference here to Dr. Brandt, who was
mentioned in the Doctors’ Trial. There were two men with
the name of Dr. Brandt – one was Victor Brandt, an official
of the Reichskanzlei (Reich Chancellery), and the other,
Professor Karl Brandt, who does not appear in this context.

Attorney General: I thank you for your explanation.
Attached to the letter is a minute dealing with the
collection of skulls. It says there that collections of
skulls of all races and peoples already exist. But there
are only a few skulls of Jews available to science.

“We have a chance to acquire actual scientific
knowledge through the acquisition of the skulls of
Jewish Bolshevist Commissars, who embody the type of
repulsive, but characteristic, sub-humans.”

There is reference to the manner of operation by which the
head must be severed from the body, immersed in preserving
liquid, and sent to its destination in well-closed metal
containers, which would have to be specially prepared for
this purpose.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1363. By whom is
this document signed?

Attorney General: Sievers, the Geschaeftsfuehrer (director)
of the Ahnenerbe – according to the previous document. We
do not know how this matter of the skulls continued, but we
hear again from Dr. Sievers at the end of 1942, when he
writes to Dr. Brandt on 2 November 1942, and asks him for
one hundred and fifty skeletons of Jews from the Auschwitz
concentration camp. He says it will be necessary for the
Head Office for Reich Security – I emphasize this – to
receive the confirmation of the Reichsfuehrer-SS to
effectuate the matter, and he adds: “I attach a draft letter
to the RSHA.” The draft letter which Sievers suggests that
Dr. Brandt should send is addressed to Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/1364. Does No. 46 consist
of two documents?

Attorney General: No. 46 consists of all this
correspondence. Therefore, I was obliged to split it up
into sections. I would request that our number be
disregarded, since I was unable to submit all of it

Presiding Judge: I request an extra copy of T/1364, the
letter, together with the draft.

Attorney General: And, indeed, Brandt took action and on 6
November 1942, sent Eichmann a letter worded as Sievers
suggested to him.

Presiding Judge: Here, too, I request an extra copy.

Attorney General: The Court will pardon me for certain
written notes on this copy. In our files, we have only four
copies ready, not five.

Presiding Judge: You have just given us three.

Attorney General: Now I have given you four.

Presiding Judge: On that we can agree. There ought to be
one more there. You gave me, as an additional copy of
T/1364, a part of this document. Please give me now one
further copy of the letter dated 2 November 1942.

Attorney General: Pardon me once again for the written

Presiding Judge: It ought to be there.

Attorney General: Does the Court now have everything?

Presiding Judge: The letter dated 6 November 1942, will be
marked T/1365. Now everything is in order.

Attorney General: The next document is No. 46. Perhaps it
would really be as well, as my colleague points out to me,
to inform the Court that Brandt writes to Eichmann that the
Reichsfuehrer had issued an order to give the director of
the Institute of Anatomy at Strasbourg, SS –
Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, who was also the
director of the Research Institute of Applied Military
Science in the office of the Ahnenerbe, everything he
required for his researches. “On behalf of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS, I hereby request you to make possible the
establishment of the planned collection of skeletons. With
regard to the details, SS-Obersturmfuehrer Sievers will get
in touch with you.”

Presiding Judge: A further copy of the Hebrew translation,

Attorney General: Very well.

Presiding Judge: There is only the Hebrew copy here. What
is happening? Is it because it was all included in one

Attorney General: Does the Court need the document of 1

Presiding Judge: No. This, here, is a translation of the
documents which you have so far submitted.

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: We need this as well.

Attorney General: That is there. Here is the translation.

Presiding Judge: If you please.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08