Dr. Servatius: In this area, there is a Police Attache
called Helm with the mission, and all those working in
Croatia are, therefore, subordinate to him, including
Abromeit, who is stationed in Sarajevo.
On page 5, for Romania, as Representative for Jewish
Questions, a certain Richter is listed, and it says that the
position of Police Attache is not currently filled. If I am
not mistaken, Richter had direct dealings with the mission
head, but I am not quite sure now. On page 6, Slovakia, the
Police Attache is Goltz, and as a member of his staff
The second part of this document contains comments by the
German Foreign Ministry. It says there that the Advisers on
Jewish Questions have received authorization for their
secondment by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs
himself. This is at the end of the second or third
paragraph. On the last page of the document it says that
the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs wishes to be
consulted in detail, even with regard to less important
cases, and there is a reference here to Richter in
I have a question to the Witness. Were you, nevertheless,
able to pursue your own policy in matters of personnel,
contrary to the wishes of the German Foreign Ministry?
Accused: If I were asked about any matter, I was able to
make appropriate proposals, but if they did not suit the
officials of the German Foreign Ministry, they would take no
notice of them. In practice, however, these matters were
almost always settled directly between the office chief and
the Undersecretary of State, as shown by the official
Judge Halevi: I have a question for Dr. Servatius relating
to the previous exhibit, T/101. Perhaps you could tell us
whether you happen to know the position and assignment of
Dr. Kaltenbrunner at that time: The document starts with the
names of Dr. Kaltenbrunner, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller,
Oberfuehrer Schellenberg – at that time, what was Dr.
Kaltenbrunner’s position and assignment?
Dr. Servatius: I have to see the date. August 1941 – at
that point Heydrich was still alive. Perhaps the Accused
Accused: At that point, Kaltenbrunner was not yet Chief of
the Security Police. However, together with Schellenberg,
Kaltenbrunner had organized the entire Intelligence Service
of the Head Office for Reich Security as a counterweight to
the Canaris Counter-Intelligence Office, so that the central
focus of this discussion was the possibility of setting up
the intelligence service using the missions, and that is why
Kaltenbrunner was asked to take part as an expert, as well
Judge Halevi: What was Kaltenbrunner’s position then?
Kaltenbrunner’s permanent position at that time?
Accused: As far as I am aware, he was the Higher SS and
Police Leader for Vienna, and his intelligence connections
extended throughout the entire southeast.
Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius, I have another question about
the previous exhibit, T/731. The last exhibit but one, the
agreement between Ribbentrop and Himmler.
Dr. Servatius: Yes, I have the document before me.
Judge Raveh: You referred us to the first paragraph, with
reference to the agreement between Himmler and the German
Minister for Foreign Affairs. My understanding – and I
should like to check whether my understanding is correct –
is that, once a Sonderauftrag (special assignment) was
given, the person receiving this was unable to ask any
questions, as it was assumed that the agreement of the
German Foreign Ministry had already been obtained. Is my
Dr. Servatius: That cannot be deduced from the document
itself. However, I would assume that this…
Judge Raveh: One moment, please – the reason why I am
assuming this is because it says “on this the prior
agreement of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be
obtained by the Reichsfuehrer-SS” – and I should like to
know whether my interpretation of this is correct.
Dr. Servatius: To say that agreement is to be obtained, is
an odd expression. Normally, agreements are not obtained.
Presiding Judge: So that the person receiving this special
assignment would thus have freedom of action?
Judge Raveh: Yes.
Dr. Servatius: I understand the question. This cannot be
deduced from the document itself. In the light of the
circumstances now known, one would tend to say that there
was a certain degree of general authority to act; but what
the text actually says is that agreement must first be
obtained. In my opinion, this document is more of a truce,
in which each party is maintaining the right – in somewhat
diplomatic language – to assert its power to give his
consent or not.
Presiding Judge: Please continue, Dr. Servatius.
Judge Halevi: I have been looking again at the
Kaltenbrunner matter. Perhaps there is an error here,
because two documents have been combined. There is no point
checking on this now, but perhaps the Prosecution and the
Defence could, after the session, look at Prosecution
document 543, our exhibit T/101. It is possible that this
document consists of two documents which were pasted
together in the German Foreign Ministry, whereas it is only
the second document which actually dates from August 1941,
so that the first sheet of the document might well have been
written when Kaltenbrunner was already Chief of the Head
Office for Reich Security. Perhaps that would clarify the
matter, but it is not urgent – perhaps it is not important
Dr. Servatius: I shall react to this later.
I now come to exhibit T/763, original number 931. This is a
communication from the German Foreign Ministry, dated 5
March 1943, to Eichmann’s office. In my view, this shows
that prior authorization by the German Foreign Ministry was
required for arresting Jews, foreign Jews. In the second
sentence, it says: “The German Foreign Ministry has not yet
authorized your office to apply general anti-Jewish measures
to nationals – Hungarian nationals – present in the German
Witness, what was the purpose of this communication, which
contains a complaint? Would you care to react?
Accused: The document shows clearly that subordinate
offices – obviously in their urge to evacuate Jews – had
arrested Jews of Hungarian nationality.
Dr. Servatius: Were your offices not then informed as to
Accused: Of course they were informed, but occasionally
local police offices, on the urging of the local holders of
power, undertook measures which did not comply with the
Reich’s regulations. At that point, the Head Office for
Reich Security had to act.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/196, document No.
93. This is an extensive minute from the German Foreign
Ministry, by Luther, dated 21 August 1942. I refer to page
17, item 11. This reads:
“At the wish of the governments concerned, Advisers on
Jewish Affairs have been allocated to the Pressburg,
Agram and Bucharest legations. At the request of the
German Foreign Ministry, they have been made available
by the Head Office for Reich Security. Their
assignment is of limited duration.” Then, in the last
paragraph, with reference to Richter, it says: “At the
urgent request of the Bucharest legation, despite the
opposition of the Head Office for Reich Security,
Richter has again been assigned to the legation, with
the express intention to leave him there until the
practical Final Solution in Romania is achieved.”
Witness, are you familiar with this occurrence – these
circumstances described here?
Accused: Yes, I am.
Dr. Servatius: I now submit a document which as yet has no
T number – a Prosecution document from Bureau 06, No. 495.
I have copies, photocopies, here, and would request a
decision that this document can be formally admitted.
Presiding Judge: Could you briefly describe the document?
Dr. Servatius: It is a communication from Ambassador
Killinger in Pressburg, dated 6 August 1940, and it is about
the Adviser on Jewish Affairs.
Presiding Judge: In the case of official correspondence of
this nature, a special decision is not necessary, Dr.
Servatius. We have accepted such official correspondence
from the Prosecution, without any special decision; so we
accept this in evidence, and I mark it exhibit N/6.
Dr. Servatius: This is a telegram from Ambassador von
Killinger to Ambassador Luther – only for Ambassador Luther
and for the Reich Minister, i.e., the Reich Minister for
Foreign Affairs. A young jurist, who is to fill the post of
Adviser, has reported to Ambassador von Killinger. The
envoy enlightened him as to his position, and he is
apparently very disappointed at the scanty powers he is to
have. Perhaps I can quote from the letter: “Apparently, he
was taken aback by what I told him, and, apparently,
believed that he would be organizing the Slovak police with
a larger staff. I rejected this approach. He is simply
subordinate to me as adviser, without any staff and
authority, and will act according to my instructions.”
The next exhibit is T/1029, document No. 178. This is a
document from Bucharest, by Ambassador Killinger, dated 28
August 1942, also on the position of the Adviser on Jewish
Affairs. The communication relates to a difference of
opinion about the dispatch to Berlin of a State Secretary by
the name of Lecca, and, in connection with this dispute, it
says here, under item 3: “It goes without saying that the
Adviser on Jewish Affairs carried out the preliminary work
on my orders.”
On the next page, a note verbale on this quarrel is
reproduced. What is of greater interest is what appears on
the last page, a comment which says: “I am sufficiently
familiar with the methods of the gentlemen of the SS.”
However, he is not justified in his complaints, because this
Lecca was not received by the German Foreign Ministry, and
he has really attacked the wrong person – this can be seen
on the last page of the document, where the envoy is given a
negative reply, and then, at the end, there is a handwritten
note saying, “Mr. von Killinger does not want to understand
I proceed now to exhibit T/1102, document No. 1526 – a
summons to Wisliceny to a consultation of officials in
charge of Jewish affairs. It is marked as coming from the
Legation Secretary, i.e., the German Foreign Ministry, and
not from Department IV. This is why the document is being
I come now to exhibit T/112, Bureau 06 No. 1452. This is a
communication from the Hannover Gestapo to an
Oberbuergermeister (Lord Mayor). The document indicates the
activities of the Police Leader in charge, SS Gruppenfuehrer
Jeckeln, with regard to confiscation of Jewish assets. It
reads: “In accordance with the instructions of Higher Police
Leader SS Gruppenfuehrer Jeckeln, all banking and credit
establishments are to be instructed to freeze immediately
Jewish assets, and to close securities accounts.” The
German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront) then appears and
hands out the posts of trustees for confiscated businesses.
At the bottom of the document, a note appears: “Discussed
with Ministerial Director (I cannot make out the name) – no
further action.” I have a question to the Accused: Was it
your Department’s role to supervise such measures, or did
you give orders for this?
Accused: No – the document is dated 1938, when I was
neither in Berlin nor in Hannover, but in Vienna; and,
secondly, neither the Higher SS and Police Leaders nor the
District Governors were under my control.
Dr. Servatius: I now turn to exhibit T/114, document No.
76. This is part of the minutes of the consultation on the
Jewish Question, following Kristallnacht. I am referring to
pages 19-21. There is a reference here to the Central
Office for Emigration of Jews, and the point is made that
very considerable emigration has been achieved by legal
means. This refers to the Accused’s activities – this is
when he began to arouse attention, and later he came to
I have a question to the Accused: This organization which
you set up in Vienna – what effect did that have on your
Accused: In the autumn of 1939, I was ordered to Berlin,
and was instructed to establish the same apparatus as that
operating in Vienna and Prague.
Dr. Servatius: At that time, were you given a deadline by
which it was to be expected that all Jews would have
Accused: The deadlines were set according to the common
sense or otherwise of the person asking, and, before the
War, the assumption was that, given the way things were
then, the problem for Germany would be solved within eight
to ten years.
Dr. Servatius: On page 21 of the document, there is
reference to the marking of the Jews. At that time, did you
receive instructions, or yourself initiate steps, with
regard to such marking?
Accused: At that time, there was simply a proposal for
marking at a conference with Goering, but, as time went by,
various central bodies started urging it, and I think it was
in 1941 that marking was approved and ordered by Hitler, at
the insistence of the Reich Minister for Public
Enlightenment and Propaganda, Goebbels. The documents
which will corroborate my Statement will be presented
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/116, document No.
1368. This is a communication from Himmler to the Reich
Minister for Foreign Affairs about the setting up of a Reich
Central Office for Emigration of Jews.
Attorney General: The signature is that of Heydrich, not
Presiding Judge: The signature is somewhat obscured by the
Dr. Servatius: On my copy, there is no signature; I
therefore assumed it was Himmler.
The document is dated 30 January 1939. It sets up the Reich
Central Office, under the control of Heydrich. The head of
the office is SS Standartenfuehrer Mueller. Members of the
committee include representatives of the Foreign Ministry
of the Reichs Finance Ministry, the Reich Economics
Ministry, and the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Witness,
in actual fact, were you not the head of this Reich Central
Accused: No, I was not the head of this Reich Central
Office. However, I should like to add that, before exhibit
1368, which is now being discussed, dated 30 January 1939,
there is another important document: No. 460, dated 24
January 1939, which is Goering’s appointment of Heydrich as
head of this Reich Central Office. The communication is
addressed to the Reich Minister of the Interior. Two names
appear as members of this Reich Central Office: that of
Ambassador Eisenlohr and that of Ministerialdirektor
Wohlthat as representative for the negotiations of the
Rublee Plan. The document currently under discussion, that
is 1368, does not appoint Mueller as head of this Reich
Central Office, but simply as manager of the Reich Central
Office. And it is quite correct that the representatives of
all the central bodies took part there. The reason was that
legal measures were to be created, and then there should
somehow be access to the assets of the Jews.
In conclusion, I should like to point out, with reference to
both these documents, that, at the time in question, that is
to say, the beginning of 1939, I was not even in Berlin.
The date of my transfer is shown by the next exhibit.
Dr. Servatius: I shall omit exhibit T/645 and come now to
exhibit T/798. The only reference I wish to make to this
document concerns item 5 on page 2. This is a report dated
19 December 1939, by Dr. Loewenherz, drawn up for Eichmann’s
Department, and it reads: “In this connection, SS
Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann stated that he had taken over the
control of the Reich Central Office for Emigration of Jews,
and had resolved to arrange for the Emigration Offices in
Berlin, Vienna and Prague to work separately.” This shows,
therefore, that he did not come to Berlin until December.
Presiding Judge: Yes, but it says here that since then he
has been the head of this Central Office.
I now address the Accused. Is it correct that, from
December 1939 onwards, you were head of the Central Office
for the entire Reich? I would ask the Accused to stand when
addressed by the Court.
Accused: I beg your pardon.