Session 076-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/95, document No. 921.
The document contains the regulations with regard to the
status of the Inspector of the Security Police and the SD.
It is dated 23 September 1939. It can, at the same time,
serve as evidence with respect to the status of the Senior
Officer of the Security Police. In this regard, we have no
ordinance or regulation. The document is not before us

Presiding Judge: Does this document contain anything about
the Senior Officer of the Security Police (BdS) or not, and
if so, where?

Dr. Servatius: It contains nothing on this matter, but it
can be deduced from the following: It is only a register of
names. In the territory of the Reich, these Leaders are
called Inspectors, and in the Occupied Territories, they
have the power of command and are called Senior Commanders.
Otherwise, they have, in practice, the same duties. These
inspectors are the Reichsfuehrer’s personal representatives.
The same applies to the Senior Commanders.

Presiding Judge: Where does it say that?

Dr. Servatius: Page 4, item 5. This reads: “The Inspectors
are not an intermediate authority in matters on substance
between the various offices.” Then, in the next sentence,
it says: “They are the personal representatives of an
internal and external basis of the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service.”

I have a question in this connection: Could the Senior
Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Hungary
intervene directly in the notorious “foot march” of the
Jewish population of Budapest?

Presiding Judge: That is Geschke, is it not?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, this is Geschke.

Accused: Yes, he actually had the authority to do so.
However, for this he needed the orders of the Higher SS and
Police Leader and the approval of the Reich Plenipotentiary.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I should now like to submit an
organizational diagram. The diagram was drawn by the
Accused and then copied, and I shall now submit it to the

Witness, is this the diagram you sketched, drawn according
to your draft?

Accused: Yes, and I have signed as to its accuracy.

Presiding Judge: When a document is to be submitted, you can
look at it first. That will be marked N/3. Have you given
the Prosecution a copy of the document?

Dr. Servatius: Yes.

Witness, would you briefly explain what this diagram shows?
Perhaps I shall give a brief explanation, and you will
interrupt me if I say something incorrect.

Accused: Yes.

Dr. Servatius: This shows the set-up of the Head Office for
Reich Security in three different areas: (a) Reich
territory, (b) occupied territories, and (c) a separate
section – the Generalgouvernement.

Accused: May I interrupt? Not the Head Office for Reich
Security, but the officials of the German police who issued

Dr. Servatius: The diagram uses various colours. Witness,
perhaps you could explain the meaning of the colours green,
red and blue here.

Accused: For the territory of the Reich, the best colours
for Heydrich would be green and blue, because green is for
the SD (Security Service), and blue is the Secret State
Police (Gestapo). For the occupied territories, we have to
do with blue only, because the Senior Commander of the
Security Police and the SD combines, in one single
authority, the two bodies of the Security Service and the
Gestapo. Red is the Higher SS and Police Leader, and, in
the Generalgouvernement, we also do not have any SD
functions, because the SD functions are included under the
Senior Commanders, and the red-coloured rectangles stand for
the Higher SS and Police Leader and the four SS and Police
Leaders immediately subordinate to him.

Dr. Servatius: On the diagram in the bottom right-hand
corner, there are comments on the arrows shown in the
diagram: one stands for an order, while the other means
mutual consultation and limited power for giving orders.
The diagram may be referred to later, as required, in order
to clarify questions.

Presiding Judge: What is the meaning of the words
“organization O” at the bottom of the right-hand column?

Dr. Servatius: This was simply a note for making order in
the Defence documents.

I come now to exhibit T/841, original number 889. This is a
communication from the Senior Commander of the Security
Police and the SD in Prague, dated 20 May 1942, and the
first sentence shows that the Central Office for Emigration
of Jews there is subordinate to the Senior Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service. That is the first
sentence. I now proceed to exhibit T/174.

Presiding Judge: I assume that the Accused is listening to
the comments of the Counsel for the Defence, so, if he
wishes to say something, he will do so.

Accused: (Nods.)

Judge Halevi: So that means that his silence is to be taken
as a confirmation of the assertions of Counsel for the
Defence, and as part of the testimony of the Accused?

Accused: Yes.

Presiding Judge: If the Attorney General will have
objections on the ground that the questions are becoming too
leading, we shall have to see what is to be done. He is
sitting here and is listening.

Dr. Servatius: I have no choice other than to lead the
Accused, because otherwise the proceedings will become

Presiding Judge: Yes, of course.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/174, document No.
172: the Madagascar Plan. I would like to discuss just page
7, item “d.” This reads: “Along the lines of the Central
Office for Emigration of Jews, a special Resettlement
Authority is to be set up, with its headquarters in
Pressburg, and subordinate to the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service.”

Accused: If I might draw attention to item “e,” the
arrangement in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,
according to which central control is in the hands of the
Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Central
Office for Emigration of Jews in Prague, which is
immediately subordinate to him.

Dr. Servatius: Which page is that?

Accused: Page 7.

Presiding Judge: The reference is to “c,” the print is not
clear. The heading says: “Protectorate of Bohemia and

Dr. Servatius: Yes, that is so.

The next exhibit is T/833, document No. 1236. This is a
form for a Notice of Assignment, which apparently refers to
Theresienstadt. The letterhead says: “The Senior Commander
of the Security Police and the Security Service, Central
Office for Solution to the Jewish Question in Bohemia and
Moravia,” that is to say, here, too, the independent
Commander to whom Theresienstadt, etc., are subordinate.
I now submit a photocopied page from Adler’s book on
Theresienstadt, submitted only because of the stamps which
appear at the top, that is to say, the office of the Senior
Commander of the Security Police; it is somewhat difficult
to make it out, but it appears again in the text. I do not
believe that this has to be shown to the Accused; I
understand this to be a correct copy from the book.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked N/4.

Dr. Servatius: I proceed now to exhibit T/159, document No.
874. This is an affidavit by Huppenkothen, dated 17 July
1946, apparently from Nuremberg. At the top of page 4,
there is a significant passage, where Huppenkothen says that
it was Mueller’s habit to give direct assignments for work
on specific matters. Further down, in the last paragraph
but one, it says: “Since Mueller, moreover, frequently
assigned for work on specific cases Sections which were
professionally not competent, or individuals without the
knowledge of the responsible specialist officer, this
assertion is also correct to a limited degree only. The
only person who was informed as to everything going on was
Mueller himself.” It is my impression that Huppenkothen,
who was his deputy, is trying somehow to shift the
responsibility away from himself. I should now like to
refer to page 7 – no, that is an error; there are other
documents to which I shall refer, but I do not wish to
mention them now.

Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, are you simply referring to
Huppenkothen’s statement, or do you wish to obtain
confirmation from the Accused with regard to the points made
by Huppenkothen, that is to say, that Mueller did not follow
the usual procedure, but acted in accordance with all you
have read out from Huppenkothen’s affidavit? Are you
putting this to the Accused in the form of a question, or
are you simply referring the Court to Huppenkothen’s

Dr. Servatius: No, I was about to ask him this question,
together with another question.

Witness, you have heard what I have read out from
Huppenkothen’s statement. Huppenkothen also says that you
worked directly with Mueller, so that you had something of a
special position. Do you wish to explain what you have to
say about this?

Accused: I did not in any way have a special position: I
was summoned to my office chief just like any other Section
Head, and he would give me his instructions; of course, he
also summoned other members of the staff of my Section to
him directly, as was his wont in the case of other Sections
as well.

Dr. Servatius: In these proceedings, have you been able to
find out any reference to special assignments?

Accused: Yes, I have.

Dr. Servatius: Would you please specify them?

Accused: That can only refer to special assignments about
which I could read in the documents when Guenther, my
permanent deputy, was assigned duties which professionally
did not fall within the sphere of the Section.

Presiding Judge: Do you mean to say that Mueller assigned
these duties to Guenther?

Accused: I do not know whether he made the assignment
directly. I did not hear anything to this effect. In my
interrogation, I also said that I did not know anything
about this, and there were certain things which I found hard
to believe, and I maintained that if something like this had
occurred, I would definitely have had to know about it. But
the documents which were then shown to me here prove to me
that I must believe these documents, because I cannot
question the accuracy of the documents.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to document 40, which has no T
number as yet. I shall submit it to the Court but am unable
to submit any certification. I can only rely on the fact
that it is a document from Bureau 06.

Presiding Judge: I mark this N/5.

Dr. Servatius: This is part of an interrogation of a
certain Hoffmann, subsequently Police Attache, in one of the
Nuremberg trials. Here he states that Eichmann had his
office in a special house and worked very independently – I
am submitting it because, at the end, the witness himself
says that he does not really know, and that he is unable to
give any precise details about Eichmann’s position.

Presiding Judge: So far, I have not been able to see this.
He speaks about Eichmann’s representatives – “I am unable,
on the basis of my own knowledge, to give any information as
to the precise position of these representatives of

Attorney General: I have no objection to the submission of
this document, but I believe that Counsel for the Defence
needs a decision under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law – I have no objection to the
Court allowing the submission of this document, pursuant to
this section.

Presiding Judge: The Attorney General is quite right to
remind us. What do we know about this Hoffmann? Is he
alive or dead, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: I do not know where he lives, nor if he is
still alive – I only have this document.
Presiding Judge

Decision No. 85

We admit the statement by Hoffman as evidence. There is no
objection raised by the Attorney General. As has been
stated, the document is designated N/5.

Dr. Servatius: I have no further comments to make on the
document and turn now to T/731, original number 466. This
is a basic arrangement between Himmler and Ribbentrop, dated
8 August 1941, in order to clarify the delineation of
authority between their various offices abroad, that is to
say, the German Foreign Ministry and the offices of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS. I would refer the Court to the top of
page 3 of the document, item 4. It says there that all
personnel of the Reichsfuehrer-SS serving abroad are
subordinate to the Police Attaches.

Presiding Judge: The Attaches with the missions of the
German Foreign Ministry – so I understand it. Is that

Dr. Servatius: Yes, that is what it means: with the
missions, not only with the embassies.

Witness, were there advisers on Jewish affairs at these
missions abroad who were able to act independently?

Accused: No.

Dr. Servatius: For example, what was the official position
of Wisliceny? Or of Richter, Dannecker and the others?

Accused: They could obtain professional instructions, but
they then had to obtain the approval of their immediate
superior, the Police Attache, and the Police Attache was
subordinate to the mission head.
Dr. Servatius: I would refer the Court to item one of this
document – where it says that all representatives of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS stationed abroad had to obtain the prior
agreement of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the
case of special assignments.

On page 2, under item 3, it says that the Police Attache is
responsible to the mission head for the offices of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS. And in item 4, it has already been stated
that all personnel of the offices are subordinate to the
Police Attaches.

The next exhibit is T/101, document No. 543. This is a
minute from the German Foreign Ministry about co-operation
with SS offices abroad. On page 2, there are service
instructions for Police Attaches. On the next page,
paragraph 4, it says:

“Notwithstanding their relationship with the
Reichsfuehrer and Chief of Police, with reference to
their activities abroad, the Police Attaches are under
the control of the mission head.” And in paragraph 5,
at the bottom of the same page, it says that all
reports pass through him. The same point is made in
paragraph 6, at the top of the next page. Perhaps I
could just quote from the end of paragraph 5:
“Furthermore, the directives issued by the
Reichsfuehrer-SS apply to the Police Attaches as
regards their fields of professional competence.
Instructions from the offices of the Reichsfuehrer-SS
are sent to them via the German Foreign Ministry and
through the intermediary of the mission head, who thus
assumes political responsibility for the expediency in
foreign policy terms of these instructions.”

The next exhibit is related to the former one. This is
T/105, original number 542. It is a list of Police
Attaches, dated 16 October 1943. On page 1, relating to
Bulgaria, Dannecker appears as one of the staff, subordinate
to the Attache Hoffmann, whom we have come across before.
On page 2, Italy, Kappler is listed as Police Attache. He
is the witness who is now to be examined in Italy. On page
3, Croatia, Helm is shown as the Police Attache. He is in
charge of Abromeit, in Sarajevo, on the next page.

Presiding Judge: It is a minor detail, but I cannot see
that, according to this list, he is subordinate to Helm.

Dr. Servatius: Under the section on Croatia.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08