Session 074-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: I shall inform you of my attitude on this by
noon tomorrow.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court, in the course of
receiving Prosecution documents admitted documents from the
Aussenstelle (Field Office) Wuerzburg File which were
submitted through the affidavit of Mr. Wahler. Several
months ago we ordered authenticated copies of the file of
the Duesseldorf Gestapo Leitstelle (Office in Charge); this
was the complete file of the correspondence of a Gestapo
Leitstelle during wartime, which we knew still existed.

Through the International Tracing Service, we managed,
although somewhat late, to secure these documents; many of
the documents in these files repeat what is already known to
the Court from the Wuerzburg documents and I do not intend
submitting them again in this way. There is a small number
of documents touching on the Accused and his Section, which
are to be found in this file, since the Accused was
obviously in touch with the Gestapo Leitstelle and not with
the Aussenstelle of the Leitstelle.

I propose to submit to the Court these four volumes; I have
made photographs especially of those documents to which I
want to draw the Court’s attention. I propose doing so
because, in this way, and only in this way, I shall be able
to give the Court a picture of the correspondence and office
activity in some place where there was a Gestapo Leitstelle
in Germany. I thought that this would be of considerable
value for seeing matters in their general setting. This
relates to the years 1942 and 1943 only, and the documents
relate exclusively to that zone in Germany over which that
Leitstelle had command. That is to say I shall not again go
over the dozens of letters. I have expecially extracted
three sets of those documents to which I wish to draw the
Court’s attention and which are not to be found in the files
of the Aussenstelle Wuerzburg.

Presiding Judge: How many documents are there – have you
counted them?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Approximately two hundred.

Presiding Judge: Two hundred that have been selected?

State Attorney Bar-Or: No, of those we selected eleven
documents – all the rest do not seem to us to require
special attention, or they repeat the same Richtlinien
(guidelines) which I have already been able to prove in
another way. We shall refer the Court to eleven documents
only from this file. But, as I have said, I thought it
would be right to produce the entire file to the Court,
since a perusal of it, nevertheless, gives a picture of the
activity of such a Leitstelle which is different from the
one I could have given by means of a document here and
there, to which I could have had access through Mr. Wahler.

Presiding Judge: So that later on we could refer to
documents other than the eleven, or not? What is your

State Attorney Bar-Or: Of this Duesseldorf File, I am going
to rely for the Prosecution’s case only on those eleven
documents which I have had photocopied especially.
Generally, I do not need to rely on other documents since
they appear anyhow amongst those I have already submitted.
To the extent that we are dealing with repeated
instructions, these appear in the Nuremberg and Duesseldorf

Presiding Judge: In that case, why do we need all the files
– why not confine ourselves to these eleven documents?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honours, as far as I am
concerned, I would be prepared to be satisfied with that; I
only thought that I would be serving the Court, if I
provided it with the complete files, since here matters are
quite fragmentary. What I am submitting is not something

Presiding Judge: That means that you want to do this only in
order that these eleven documents may be understood – is
that what you wanted to say?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I think that anyone reading this
material will also, in fact, understand what happened at
Wuerzburg. Wuerzburg is not a file that bears a relationship
to the Accused. Had I been able to obtain the Gestapo
Leitstelle Nuremberg File, I would then have been able to
dispense with this file.

Presiding Judge: You cannot have it both ways. If you want
the entire file, we shall consider it.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I propose submitting the whole file.

Presiding Judge: What is the difference between the file and
the eleven documents you suggested submitting?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The main difference between it and
the documents I have submitted will emerge from those eleven
documents which I have extracted from these files. In these
files I want to submit there are matters with which the
Court is familiar from the Wuerzburg File from their
contents, not from the addressee. Hence I request that file
42 and 43 of the Leistelle Duesseldorf be admitted, and
after these files will have been admitted, I shall ask for
the Court’s attention to a small number of documents.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you say about these

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I have
seen these documents this afternoon for the first time, and
I deeply regretted not having seen them earlier. What is
contained here does, indeed, have only cumulative value –
all this appears already in the Wuerzburg File, but as
Defence Counsel I regard it as important that not only
excerpts should be submitted, but the complete files. They
show us how they all co-operate. The Accused finds himself
in good company – the chief Finance President, the Social
Welfare, the “Red Cross.”

22People mock at Eichmann’s theory of the small cogwheel,
whereas here we see the other cogwheels. The Accused tells
me it is a disaster that all the files have been destroyed.
Where are the others? Here we only see the Accused’s
activity and, consequently, if the material is submitted, I
want to ask that it should be submitted in its entirety, or
else it should be rejected.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 80

We decide to allow the submission of the entire Duesseldorf

State Attorney Bar-Or: These are the four files, arranged
as Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; the numbers appear on the tags
attached to them.

Presiding Judge: Have you not made a complete copy of them?

State Attorney Bar-Or: No, only a small number, which I
shall submit, one by one.

Dr. Servatius: Since I do not have a copy, may I also
receive the files themselves from the Court?

Presiding Judge: Yes. Mr. Bodenheimer, please attend to
that. I have marked these files T/1395, T/1396, T/1397 and

State Attorney Bar-Or: The first document which I want to
discuss is No. 1663 – which is on page 128 in these files.
The Court will notice that each page is marked at the top.
This document is No. 128. These documents that I am dealing
with now, have, of course, also been given to the Defence
Counsel. It is the Accused’s letter, dated 6 June 1943, to
which he attaches his directives, this time also signed by
him, in connection with the deportation of the Jews from the
Reich territory to Izbica in the Lublin district. Its
importance is proved when we compare this document with
T/737, Prosecution document No. 1279, which I submitted from
the Wuerzburg File – there we see unsigned orders which were
sent from Nuremberg to Wuerzburg in March 1942, whereas here
we have the directives which came from the Accused himself
in June 1942.

Presiding Judge: How can one locate it in this file here?

State Attorney Bar-Or: According to the number, Your Honour
– 128. The date and the number ought to make that clear.

Presiding Judge: The numbers are outlined in red.

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is right, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/1399.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In order to save the Court’s time, I
shall now submit photocopies of further documents from these
files, in three copies, and shall dwell briefly on each of
those. The first is on page 51 – this is a memorandum from
Duesseldorf dated 18 April 1942.

Presiding Judge: Do you not have an extra copy of these two

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am sorry, I do not have another
copy. On the first page, in paragraph 2 of the memorandum,
the writer refers to a telephone conversation with Franz
Novak, of the Head Office for Reich Security concerning
delay in including Jews in deportations only if it can be
proved that they were really essential workers in ammunition
factories. Pages 57, 58 and 59, which come next, beginning
from 21 April 1942, deal – all three of them – with an
investigation, conducted between Duesseldorf and the Head
Office for Reich Security, into letters of protest sent by
Aryan spouses because their children, from a mixed marriage,
had been included in deportations. The correspondence shows
that the matter was dealt with in the Accused’s office, by a
man called SS Obersturmfuehrer Hasmann of the Jewish Section
of the RSHA.

Pages 62 and 63 constitute a cable, signed by the Accused,
dated 22 April 1942 in which there is a complaint that it
had come to the notice of the Accused that in various zones
of a Gestapo Leitstelle that in these transports in Spring
1942, the staff of the branches of the Reichsvereinigung had
also been included. The Accused maintains that this is not
to be done, because, by deporting these Jews, the expulsions
to be carried out in the future, will not be able to be
implemented conveniently. Accordingly, he gives
instructions that these Jews working as functionaries, must
be kept behind and only included in the last transport.

Page 69 is a notice – which seems to me to be typical – of
the Gestapo Leitstelle Duesseldorf dated 22 April 1942
concerning the running of a transport in the direction of
Izbica, in accordance with the paragraph on “Meldewesen”
(the manner of reporting) according to these directives,
namely: (a) to Eichmann, (b) to the Commander of the
Security Police and the SD in Cracow, (c) to the Higher SS
and Police Leader in the Lublin district. This is the
implementation of a directive the Court is already familiar
with from documents that have been submitted.

Pages 76, 77, and 78 constitute a detailed report of the
Gestapo Leitstelle in Duesseldorf, dated 29 April 1942 on
the above-mentioned deportation to Izbica. It refers to a
special account, “W”. But what is mentioned is the
confiscation of 2,593 marks and some pfennigs to the special
account “W”. It is not of a donation to the account, but
confiscation. It includes also a notification about
suicides before the deportation.

Then there is a cable signed by the Accused, dated 6 June
1942, in which he gives orders to several Gestapo
Leitstellen – including Duesseldorf – about organizing a
further deportation to the district of Lublin, and he gives
orders that in the four hundred and fifty from the district
of Koblenz mental patients in a hospital in Bendorf were to
be included.

On page 149, the Court will find an order of 20 July 1942,
which was given by the Gestapo Leitstelle Duesseldorf to its
field offices – the Aussenstelle. The order relates to an
instruction received from the RSHA regarding the deportation
of the families of concentration camp prisoners, which was
contrary to what had previously been stated on this subject.
This was that the family of anyone in a concentration camp
should immediately be included in the next transport.

On page 150 there is an order of the Gestapo Leitstelle,
also based on the directives of the RSHA, that the words
“deportation to the East” were not to be mentioned, nor any
destination of the deportation at all. From now on, the
report must state that the person “has moved to an unknown
address” or “has emigrated,” because there are complaints
that enterprises in which Jews were employed were beginning
to send inquiries in writing as to there whereabouts of
these Jews.

Pages 242, 243 and 244 consist of a cable signed by Dr.
Kaltenbrunner, bearing the mark of the Accused’s Section,
IVB4, which is addressed to all Gestapo centres. This cable
conveys an order by the Reichsfuehrer-SS that all Jews of
the Greater Reich are to be deported to the East and to
Theresienstadt, and that this deportation should be
completed by 30 June 1943.

And, finally, on page 244, there appears at the end of a
cable – right at the end – an addendum addressed to the
Gestapo Leitstelle of Katowice and Litzmannstadt only. It
states that the question of the transportation of Jews from
the Litzmannstadt Ghetto and also those employed in the
“Schmelt” organization will be discussed by the Accused on
his visit there.

Presiding Judge: I have marked the set of these documents

State Attorney Bar-Or: There remain two more documents.
The first document is our No. 1654. This is what is called
an “Einsatzbefehl”, that is to say, an order to report which
is issued by the Staatspolizeistelle in Hamburg on 7
February 1945, to Mrs. Hertha Sara Thiel bearing the mark
IVB4. There were apparently persons who were transferred to
IVB4 instead of IIB and the lady was ordered to report on
Wednesday, 14 February 1945 at a place which had formerly
been a school, a Jewish religious school (Talmud Torah) in
Grindelhof. She is given instructions as to what she should
do with her children.

It is clear from the last paragraph that this refers to the
last of the spouses of mixed marriages for it states
especially that children under the age of sixteen must be
left behind and that a representative is to be appointed for
them in conjunction with the local branch of the

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1401.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And in conclusion I should like to
submit to the Court a photostat of what was called a “Guide”
issued on behalf of the Hauptamt SS Gericht (Main Office SS
Court) attached to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the Chief of the
German Police for the use of the SS and the police. The
guide sets out the jurisdiction and the regulations
regarding that jurisdiction, as they were in force on 1 July

In addition, I shall submit to the Court a photocopy of
certain pages of this brochure which we we intend to refer
to in our summing-up. These pages contain only those
extracts, those paragraphs from this guide which one learns
about the application of the military penal code, and also
the civilian criminal law, to SS personnel, both those
serving in regular SS units and those serving in police
units – either local or central.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/1402. The individual pages
will be marked T/1402a.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, the files
of the police headquarters of Duesseldorf, which were
submitted here in four volumes, are not all-inclusive files.
The documents submitted here already constitute a selection,
and it would be important, obviously, to see all the
material. Thus, for example, there is reference to the
deportation of a woman who is of unsound mind. How could
Eichmann have known, in Berlin, about the existence of a
woman in Bendorf who was of unsound mind? There must have
been those who suggested such a deportation, there were
those who were taking care of such matters, there were those
who were setting the wheels in motion; there are also
documents here which point to the fact that the Ministry of
the Interior was involved and interested in the matter. In
order to obtain a total picture, it would have been
desirable to see the whole file.

I also wish to refer, here, to the internal SS police
jurisdiction. While I have received a resume, I have not
received the complete document. And here, too, it would
have been desirable to peruse the complete document. Here,
for example, on page 20, I should like to draw attention to
a most significant sentence. It says, here, that the
discipline of members of the SS and the police was above
conscience and religion. The obligation to discipline took
precedence over the obligation to one’s conscience and the
obligation to religion.

On pages 42 and 43 it says, specifically, that any person
who tries to avoid carrying out his duties, for any excuse
whatsoever, is in breach of discipline and in breach of
faith – and is to be punished by death. The reference here
is to men who pretend to be sick and seek to avoid carrying
out their duties. Your Honours, these documents must be
examined seriously.

Presiding Judge: We shall also place at your disposal, this
full, complete document, T/1402, so that you may examine it.

What about the Duesseldorf Files – is this all that you

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: And where did you receive it from?

State Attorney Bar-Or: From Arolsen, the headquarters of
the I.T.S. (the International Tracing Service), an
institution of the International Red Cross. These files
were passed on to them to enable them to trace people. The
Court will find, therein, a list of the names of the Jews of
Duesseldorf, Essen and of the entire area. They were
transferred, immediately after the War to the headquarters
of the Red Cross in Arolsen, which dealt with them. It
provided the authentication, and this authentication was
ultimately also confirmed by the authorities of the State of
Israel. Therefore, the Court will find two confirmations on
each single document.

Presiding Judge: That is to say, these envelopes…

State Attorney Bar-Or: Were arranged in Arolsen – we did
not arrange that. The Court has received the documents
exactly as they were issued at Arolsen.

Presiding Judge: But apparently a selection from the files
was made there.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour will find at the top of
each of the four files, a small mark. It even says there
that despite the fact that the order of the documents was
not always logical and chronological, it was left in the way
they were found.

Presiding Judge: These marks, in a red frame – who made

State Attorney Bar-Or: They were there.

Presiding Judge: Was that not done at Arolsen?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It may only be that the surrounding
red frame was made at Arolsen, but the mark was there.

Presiding Judge: If that is the case, Dr. Servatius, it
seems that these are complete files, since the numbers are

Dr. Servatius: I am not able to form an opinion on that; I
tried to make a hurried examination, but I have not been
able to reach a final conclusion.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour, the files are complete.
With regard to those mental patients who were to be
included, apparently there was information, but it could not
appear in the Duesseldorf File. I am referring to a cable
that was sent to a large number of Gestapo Leitstellen in
the West, amongst others also to Koblenz. If I had the file
of the Gestapo Leitstelle Koblenz, I would have been able to
check what happened to that Pflegeanstalt (nursing home).
Duesseldorf received this item as a copy, which was sent to
other places as well.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, you will be able to peruse
these files and raise whatever you wish to raise afterwards.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you.

Judge Halevi: I have a question to the Attorney General.
Since you are still going to submit some minor items at the
next session, I merely want to check one point. In the book
of the late Rabbi Weissmandel Min ha-Mezzar (“From the
Depths”), which was mentioned here by a number of witnesses
in connection with the negotiations with Wisliceny, also
referred to by witnesses, there is some evidence of the late
Shlomo Gross of Bratislava, which, according to this
account, constituted the beginning of the contact, not only
with Wisliceny, but also with the Accused, Eichmann, whose
name is specifically mentioned. This was to the effect that
the Jews of Bratislava, through Wisliceny, came into contact
with him [the Accused], to negotiate with him, and that was
still before the Wansee Conference, and something is also
mentioned there about the Mufti.

Since many matters have been mentioned here which we have
touched on, beginning on page 12 of the book, if the
Attorney General will find this evidence is prima facie,
admissible and relevant, and if Defence Counsel does not
object to its being submitted – something which is most
likely, since it does not, on the surface, prejudice the
Accused, but might even be to his advantage, I cannot decide
that, it is up to him to decide – then I would suggest that
you consider submitting, by consent, one document of the
evidence of Gross or the late Rabbi Weissmandel, as it
appears on page 12, if it is worth-while to take it into
consideration. In view of the advanced stage of the trial,
I would suggest that you do this only if there is consent,
only in the event of there being no dispute over the
question; I think that, then, there would be nothing to
prevent the Court from admitting it.

Attorney General: There is no doubt that we shall give every
consideration, Your Honour, to what has been said. We now
await the Court’s directives as to what should follow; we
have to arrange the Sassen Document, in the light of the
Court’s decision. I should like to consider it, before we
submit the material. Since there was, at one stage, a
decision to have a break in the sessions, I would ask the
Court to inform us when they will be resumed.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, has the Prosecution’s case
been concluded?

Attorney General: The Prosecution’s case has been concluded,
subject to this reservation that we wish to use the coming
days in order to check whether we have not forgotten
anything. I presume there are not many documents which we
have overlooked. We shall not look for new material now,
and we have, in fact, already “closed the door” to the
introduction of new material. But it is possible that
amongst the hundreds of documents which we have not
submitted, we may, on due consideration, nevertheless wish
to ask the Court to admit a few, and we accordingly ask for
permission to do so when the Court resumes its session.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you say about this

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I ask you
not to accede to this request. For it is quite clear that
the door must be either closed or open. If I proceed to
prepare my material and subsequently additional documents
are produced, then obviously that is going to disturb the
course of my preparations. Accordingly, I ask you to reject

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, we are now going to have a
recess in order to enable Dr. Servatius to digest the
material which has been submitted so far; obviously it has
to be taken into account that, after the recess, you will
not re-open the case with all kinds of new chapters. Thus,
if there is going to be some sort of combing through, we do
not want to close the door to you absolutely – this combing
ought to be made with a very fine comb. Please take that
into account.

Attorney General: Yes, we shall do that.

Judge Raveh: Perhaps in the course of two days, you would
be able at least to show Dr. Servatius the documents you
wish to submit to the Court and then he would know what you
will present.

Attorney General: Yes, we shall do that.

Presiding Judge: Now the recess that we have been talking
about will commence. The question is only when we will
renew our sessions, since a change has meanwhile come about:
we sat today contrary to what we had anticipated. We are
ready to hear you, Dr. Servatius, on this matter.

Dr. Servatius: I would request the Court not to regard
today’s Session as being at my expense, and to allow me a
full week for my preparations.

Presiding Judge: The next Session will be held on Tuesday,
20 June 1961 at 8.30 a.m. We shall begin at 8.30 in the
morning and then terminate the Session at 1.30 – and we
shall do likewise throughout that week, and after that we
shall see what the further order of sessions will be.

Attorney General: I understand that we shall have an
opportunity of submitting those excerpts from the Sassen
Document which were not submitted so far.

Presiding Judge: That we expect anyhow. It would be
desirable if, as far as possible, you would co-ordinate the
selection of these extracts between you, so that
subsequently there should be no argument as to what relates
to the comments of the Accused and what does not, as far as
you can manage to do so between yourselves, and where you
cannot succeed – we shall of course have to go into this
matter ourselves.

With that we conclude today’s Session – the next Session
will be held on Tuesday, 20 June 1961, at 8.30 in the

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08