Session 075-06, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: That is a proposal for promotion of the year
1941. It says here:”Huge properties for the German Reich
could be secured through Eichmann’s work.”

Do you wish to explain whether that is correct?

Accused: That is not correct. Streckenbach, the personnel
chief of the Head Office for Reich Security, was mistaken
here. Entirely different central authorities issued the
ordinances regarding property seizure, as for example, the
Reichsprotektor for Bohemia and Moravia or the Reich
Commissioner for the Re-unification of Austria with the
German Reich; or for the Eastern Territories, the General
Trustee Department East; or for the Reich territories the
Reich Finance Minister or his Oberfinanzpraesident (Senior
Finance Administrator). The legal documentation must confirm
these facts; one must merely look into the matter. Now the
group of persons affected, was the same as that dealt with
by those service units in the Head Office for Reich Security
which Streckenbach mentioned, including myself. And of
course, as is usual in regard to central authorities, it is
quite clear that in dealing with this complex, naturally, in
part, the Head Office for Reich Security was also

Dr. Servatius It is stated further on in the proposal, that
you performed your duties with the requisite severity. How
do you explain this observation?

Accused: “Personal severity” or “requisite severity,” were
then catchwords which one had to refer to in proposals for
promotion. May I refer to document No. 783 – Prosecution No.
733 – there on page 2, under point 4, one finds pre-printed
“Willpower and personal severity.” That had to be affirmed;
if not, the proposed promotions ended up in the wastebasket.
And it made no difference whether personal severity existed
or not; it was affirmed in all requests for promotion. In
the case in question, regarding a proposed promotion of a
subordinate of mine at the time, I had to fill in the word
“exists” under the prescribed heading, or as Streckenbach
has done here in document No. 27 – he did not adhere to the
prescribed formulation but used his own version; it may
perhaps also have been copied from some such prescribed
formulation. That I do not know.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, I request the Defence always
to cite the number as given by the Court, i.e., always to
refer to the Court’s numbers for the items of evidence. The
Accused has just mentioned a document. What was it? Oh, that
was Court number 217…

Dr. Servatius: Exhibit T/37(217). In document No. 27, there
is also, in the penultimate pages, a proposal for promotion
by Mr. Six who has been interrogated as a witness. I merely
mention that here he recommended the promotion “especially,”
and on the next sheet he also gives a guarantee, since here
the defendant assumes officer rank for the first time.

I now come to exhibit T/55(3), also called T/37(106), the
document No. 28. There, on the first sheet, it says:
“Eichmann lost his position in July 1933 in Austria, because
of membership in the NSDAP.”

Is this statement correct?

Accused: It is not correct. At that time I was a sales
official for the Austrian Vacuum Oil Company, and this
Austro-North American firm had to reduce its staff as a
consequence of economic stagnation. At that time I was the
only unmarried sales official, and thereupon it was inferred
that someone had to suffer, and that it was preferable for a
bachelor to assume the burden. Accordingly, I complied and
when in connection therewith I left the home of my parents
in order to betake myself to the territory of the Reich, the
German consul in Linz at that time gave me an
acknowledgment, a kind of courtesy acknowledgment, wherein
he attested for me that I was discharged without any doubt
because of membership in the NSDAP. Yet I have no proof for
this. I merely have the proof with which the management of
the Austrian Vacuum Oil Company provided me.

Dr. Servatius: On pages 3 and 4 of the same document is an
additional personnel report; it bears no date. There it is
recognized that you have abilities in independent
administration, and are an acknowledged specialist. It is
signed by the SD Leader of theSS Oberabschnitt (Main
District) Danube.

What were those abilities which received special recognition

Accused: Yes, that’s right. These are the abilities I
acquired in the meantime, in the field of emigration
arrangements, which is in itself very complicated. At that
time I knew all the regulations of the countries of
immigration, all the sums of monies to be declared, all of
the passport technicalities and other difficulties. Thus at
that time, I could very well be considered a specialist in
this field. But that was in my opinion a specialist quality
which was mutually beneficial, since at that time two thirds
of the Jews domiciled in Austria could be brought to

Dr. Servatius: The next document is exhibit T/37(301),
document No. 1182. It is shown here that Eichmann was a
candidate for a Department for “the Orthodox.” This is of
interest since, as can be seen, that position is very
insignificant, and of interest because witness Six states
that the Accused occupied a special position already at that
time. I shall return again to this during the interrogation
concerning Six’s testimony.

The next document is exhibit T/107, document No. 1451. This
is an activities report of 17 February 1937. On page 1 it
shows that a position of head of a department was vacant,
but that the Accused did not get this position.

Were your merits not sufficiently known for you to be
assigned to the department? Or why did you not get this

Accused: Obviously my knowledge and abilities at that time
were not considered ample enough for me to be empowered or
entrusted with the running of a department.

Dr. Servatius Who became head of the department and who
succeeded him?

Accused: A non-commissioned officer at that time, named
Schroeder served temporarily as head of the department; he
was followed by Wisliceny who was succeeded in turn by

Dr. Servatius: I come to exhibit T/37(239), that is
document No. 5. This deals with Eichmann’s efforts to learn
Hebrew from a rabbi.

Why was this subsidy for this instruction denied to you?

Accused: My desire at that time was a thing which was
ridiculed on the one hand, and distrusted on the other,
because it was something entirely unusual that a member of
the SS suddenly decides that he wants to learn Hebrew. I
myself would also never have hit upon the idea, had I not
continually seen in the newspaper files copies of the Haint
newspaper which at that time was published in Riga. And so I
concluded one day that it was not at all that difficult to
read this newspaper. And thus it came about that I bought an
instruction book for self-study by Samuel Kaleko. And when
that proved insufficient I made a request to learn Hebrew
from a rabbi. Permission for this was certainly refused at
first because of the concern of my superiors. It would
certainly have been simpler, had I not written in this
request that the cost of the instruction was 3 Marks an
hour. On the contrary, it would have been best had I
proposed that a rabbi be arrested so that he could give me
instruction from the prison. But I had not thought of this;
at that time I enquired what the general hourly payment was
for such lessons, and found out that it was 3 Marks, and on
this basis I made my request to my superiors.

Dr. Servatius: Was concern not also expressed that you
might be influenced by the rabbi?

Accused: Yes, that is what I meant, when I said that there
was concern that in this matter I might have too much to do
with a Jewish rabbi, since I can imagine that because of the
studies, because of being together as a consequence of
studying, there also could have been conversations which
could have gone beyond merely learning the Hebrew language.

Dr. Servatius: I come to exhibit T/121, document No. 1168.
This is a service trip report to the Reich Party Congress in

You say that you had met with the representatives of the
World Service (Weltdienst) and described these people as
dubious types. Will you explain how you reached this

Accused: My job at that time was purely to gather
information. Thus I received the order to go to Nuremberg in
order to eavesdrop, make connections, in short, to fulfil
the duties of a member of an intelligence service. With the
World Service people it was a matter of the Stuermer people
abroad. And I would like formally to mark as documentation
for the accuracy of my testimony this observation by me,
that I rejected the Stuermer methods from the very
beginning. This is why I reported on the speech of the then
Gauleiter Streicher with these dry, curt words on page 2,
the last paragraph. Had I looked upon the matter
differently, I would also in this case, as was usual in the
jargon of the time, have somehow observed with some kind of
fulsome praise, that he had made a magnificent speech, or a
speech of great import. But I reported it in a purely matter-
of-fact and dry manner.

Dr. Servatius: The next document is T/37(296), document No.
1167. It is a schedule for the coming year, for the coming
year 1938. There the Accused receives “Section II 1123 –

Will the witness explain his attitude to the question of

Accused: Yes, Sir. The forcing and promoting of emigration
was at that time ordered by my superiors. Zionism in various
lands was promoting emigration to Palestine. My superiors
placed no limitations on any country, that is to say, no
prohibitions on any countries were laid down. Therefore, I
had to promote Zionism and, to be sure, as demanded, in a
forced manner.

So it was that at that time I came to read the Judenstaat by
Adolf Boehm – I believe was the name of the author – and I
gradually immersed myself in the tasks of the Zionist
associations of various countries. I became familiar with
their auxiliary organizations, and I think that no Zionist
functionary of those days could complain that I would have
hindered him in his work; indeed, he would have had to
confirm that I was doing everything to facilitate and
promote his work.

Dr. Servatius: Exhibit T/124(502) is the report concerning
Eichmann’s trip to Palestine with Oberscharfuehrer Hagen.

Was the report drafted by you?

Accused: No, it was drafted by Hagen who was my superior at
that time. Moreover, the witness Dr. Six, who was
interrogated a few days ago, explained – and at that time he
was our common superior – observed on this report that he
saw from the heading and the other facts, that Hagen had
drafted the report.

Dr. Servatius: On page 31 of this document there is a very
negative and very deprecatory attitude to the situation in

Will the witness explain whether that is a contribution made
by him in this matter.

Accused: No, I have already said that I did not draft this
report. I contributed no part of its text. By way of
comparison may I also refer to document No. 1510;
unfortunately I do not have the Court exhibit number.

Dr. Servatius: No. 1510, that is T/115, document No. 505;
that is a report from Kennedy, the one from London.

Accused: No, that is 1510, a minute by Hagen.

Presiding Judge: Yes, we have that here; it is T/108.

Dr. Servatius: There is an error here, Your Honour; I
wished to refer to exhibit T/110 on account of this strange
tone of the poor manner of speech.

Presiding Judge: What is the Prosecution’s number?

Dr. Servatius: It must be T/115. There one finds
expressions which surpass this jargon by far. I shall come
to this document shortly.

Presiding Judge: Are those the words of the British
representative? Did you cite the name Kennedy? Did you mean
the words of the British ambassador?

Dr. Servatius: That is an error; he repeats Ribbentrop’s
words. The latter says there that he is sabotaging the
emigration of the Jews in the matter of capital, which was
initiated by the English.

Presiding Judge: Counsel for the Defence, will you be coming
back to this document? Are you going to refer to it again?
Then we shall discuss it later.

Dr. Servatius: Then I come to exhibit T/111, document No.
1508. That is a short directive from Hagen to Eichmann. It
deals with the idea of the Madagascar Plan promoted by the
Defendant. The document is important on account of the
handwritten notes on the succeeding three pages. That is a
minute in the form of points. The first point is called
“Waiting for the result of the census.” Point 2 in the
Accused’s handwriting, says: “In no less than ten years,
there will be only approximately 60,000 Jews in Germany, if
the same tendency continues.”

What is to be understood here by the word “tendency”?

Accused: That is the tendency expressed in Prosecution
document No. 462, exhibit T/110, which happens to be a note
by the State Secretary of the Foreign Ministry according to
which everything facilitating emigration was rejected by the
Foreign Ministry, and a negative attitude was taken towards
every transfer, capital transfer of Jews wishing to
emigrate. There was the opposite tendency represented by the
SS Head Office of that time. Under the general regulations
issued by the countries of immigration, it was most
difficult to effectuate the pressure for emigration, as
decreed from above.

Dr. Servatius: Further, in remark 3 it says: “When those
without means will have migrated, it will be the turn of the
capitalists, who can slowly be deprived of their capital
through economic means with the help of State Police

Will you explain what that means?

Accused: Yes, it is a reference to the basic attitude of
the Foreign Ministry in the above-mentioned exhibit T/110.
There was a desire for emigration – but only of those
without means…but those without means were not accepted,
and at that time the Foreign Ministry had not yet declared
itself ready for compromise.

Dr. Servatius: On the last page of the notes we read: “It
can be solved further, if no restrictions are placed on the
SD Head Office.” The examples given are ” education of the
youth” and “monthly discussions.”

Will you explain what that means?

Accused: The Jewish organizations at that time were mostly
instructed to accept contributions from abroad for the
financing of their emigration plans, because, as a result of
their exclusion from the life of the German people, the
internal income of these Jews had now become very
insignificant. According to the German foreign exchange
regulations of that time, I believe I can remember that the
amount of foreign exchange coming into the country through
donations – which had to be offered to the Reichsbank, even
subject to taxes or deductions, and the efforts – in any
case my efforts – were directed at that time not only to not
limiting or reducing the amounts of foreign exchange coming
in through gifts, but moreover, towards permitting payment
with an added premium, as this was later evident from the
regulations in the Ostmark – in Austria. And only if the
Jewish organizations were in possession of these financial
means, could they put into operation, for example, re-
training courses of all kinds, which were useful as
preparation for emigration (since various countries required
proof of a profession). The extensive apparatus of officials
and functionaries could then be paid, the social
institutions could be funded, and much more. In any case,
everything was directed, purely organizationally, towards
emigration, but the various authorities with their own
interests put bureaucratic obstacles in the way.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08