Session 076-05, Eichmann Adolf

Accused: A few days ago he testified:

“My duties were to organize the transport arrangements
by rail, in order to carry out the evacuation from the
Warthe District of those Poles who had been removed
from their farms by the District Officers, in order to
accommodate ethnic Germans. I have no information as
to any further details available to the District
Officers. It was the District Officers themselves who
gave me their requirements for means of transport.
Another duty of mine was to negotiate with offices of
the Generalgouvernement about the points of destination
of the trains. When evacuation led to problems and
intolerable occurrences, as a result of the lack of
order, a special organization was set up with the
Inspectors of the Security Police and the Security
Service in Posen, the Central Office for Migration. It
had various branches. I became the head of the
Litzmannstadt office in the spring of 1940.”

And then, the last sentence:

“From the spring of 1940 on, I sent my requirements for
trains to IVB4 in the Head Office for Reich Security.”

Here, I must observe that Krumey is mistaken: It was not
IVB4, but should read IVD4.

“In transport terms, the main thing to be arranged was
for the immigrant settlers to find room, as a result of
the evacuees having been removed in time. All of this
was arranged by my office in Litzmannstadt.”

That is what I wished to quote from the Krumey statement.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, apart from co-ordination, did you
have, as a further assignment, the elimination of these
problems, and were you able to intervene and put the
situation right?

Accused: In principle, orders had to be issued by the
Higher SS and Police Leaders. The Inspectors performed
their duties on behalf of these Leaders, but it was
unavoidable and absolutely necessary that the officials in
charge on the spot were called to Berlin for consultation
regarding detailed timetables and distribution of trains.
During these discussions, there emerged the many
difficulties which they experienced in practice. These are
listed in detail on page 3 of document 1399. These are
certainly not all the problems, but it says, for example,
that the accompanying detail should consist solely of
irreproachable ethnic Germans or the police. This implies
that, in the past, there had been accompanying details which
did not consist of irreproachable persons, which doubtless
led to undesirable incidents. It then says: “In extremely
cold weather, in order to protect women and children from
death by exposure to the cold, where possible, women and
children should be transported in passenger carriages and
men in goods waggons.” Clearly, the local authorities had
so far not paid any particular attention to this matter.
And it continues along these lines.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1405, document No.
1461. This is an intelligence report, dated 26 January 1940,
drawn up by the office of the Plenipotentiary of the Reich
Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom, and,
at the top, it says, “for the resettlement of Poles and
Jews.” The reason why I am referring to this document is
that it confirms the existence of local arrangements. On
page 1, two Special Staffs (Sonderstaebe) are set up, and on
page 2 – it is a long document of 12 pages – the District
Officers are referred to again, as well as the local
authorities. Perusal of the document shows a clear-cut
local arrangement of matters.

The next exhibit is T/172, document No. 1400. This is a
memorandum about discussions between Eichmann and
Hauptscharfuehrer Seidl on 22 and 23 January 1940, in

Witness, do you have the document before you?

Accused: Yes, I do.

Dr. Servatius: Does the document not indicate that you were
more closely involved with these evacuation matters? Would
you state your view on this.

Accused: No – the document shows that this was a transport
and evacuation matter. This was the first activity in which
I had to engage in Berlin, and all later activities followed
upon this one. The only thing I would deduce from this
document is straightforward transport matters.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/166, document No. 468.
This is a set of minutes, dated 30 January 1940, on
questions of evacuation and resettlement. It concerns a
consultation chaired by Heydrich, on orders from Himmler,
and, on the first page, there is a reference to Section
IVD4, the Accused’s Section, as well as on page 3 and, at
the end, on page 8.

Witness, can you explain what was your involvement in this

Accused: At the Section for Evacuation and Resettlement in
the Head Office for Reich Security, I had to take the
minutes, as can also be seen from the reference at the top
of the page. Page 3 describes precisely my official duties;
it says: “IVD4 is to collect this statistical material and
to draw up the evacuation plan.” The evacuation plan is the
transport plan, which had to be agreed on and settled with
the Reich Transport Ministry, and, on page 3, it says that
IIIES and IVD4 convened for a discussion on specific issues.
IIIES meant that this referred to officials of Department
III at the Head Office for Reich Security, that is to say,
those who processed evacuation and compulsory transfer.

Dr. Servatius: This appears on the last page, page 8, not
on page 3.

Accused: Since it was the staff of Department III – as I
was able to explain at the beginning of this morning’s
Session – who ruled as to the grading of the various groups
and where each was to be transferred to, IVD4, my Section,
had to get together with them, because from there my Section
received the statistics; and it was these statistics which
were used as a basis for discussing the timetable with the
Reich Transport Ministry and determining the number of
trains required. On page4, it says: “Heydrich announces the
following basic instructions issued by the Reichsfuehrer-

On page 6, it refers to the deporting of all the Jews from
the new Eastern Districts and thirty thousand Gypsies from
the area of the Reich to the Generalgouvernement. And on
page 7, Heydrich suddenly announces that, in the middle of
February 1940, one thousand Jews, whose apartments are
urgently required for reasons of the war-time economy, are
to be deported from Stettin.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/667, document No.
507, and exhibit T/210, document No. 795. The two documents
can be dealt with together.

Exhibit T/667 concerns a press report about the deportation
of the one thousand Jews just referred to. This is a press
communique, and it says at the end that the information is
correct, but must be treated confidentially. The second
exhibit, T/210, is also a press communique. The heading
reads: “Deportation continues, death march from Lublin,
deaths from exposure to cold,” and Goering’s decision is

Witness, would you state your position on this?

Accused: Yes. There is actually a core of truth to these
reports. The reason is the excessively fast resettlement
for which orders were issued. A total of fifteen days
elapsed between the issue of the orders and their
implementation. The responsibility for this state of
affairs, as shown very clearly by the documents submitted so
far, lies with those who carried out the resettlement and
who were responsible on a local level for the resettlement.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, it says, however, in the first
sentence: “Despite the objections of the Generalgouvernement
to over-hasty, unplanned continuation of the deportations of
Jews of German nationality to Eastern Poland, these are
continuing, on the orders of the Reichsfuehrer-SS.” How
could that happen?

Accused: In the same way as various countries put up
resistance against taking in Jews, so Governor General Frank
also resisted that. In accordance with Hitler’s order, it
had been stipulated that he had to accept the Jews from the
Eastern Districts which were now to be part of the Reich.
However, it had not been stipulated by any similar decree of
the Fuehrer that he had to accept Jews from the Old Reich
[Germany within its 1937 boundaries], and that is what Frank
obviously relied upon. But the police had to carry out the
evacuations, because they had received explicit orders to
this effect from both Himmler and Heydrich.

Dr. Servatius: I shall now deal with exhibit T/668,
document No. 1172. This is a minute dated 17 February 1940,
from the German Foreign Ministry about a query. The Foreign
Ministry enquires of the Head Office for Reich Security
about these one thousand Jews who had been evacuated from
Stettin. Witness, were you approached on this matter?

Accused: No, the document shows that it was the Government
Counsellor Schellenberg, subsequently Chief of Department
VI, who was approached on this.

Dr. Servatius: So this was just a check-up for information
purposes. And was any blame ascribed to you?

Accused: I could not be blamed for anything, since the
order came from the Chief of the Security Police, and the
local authorities had to implement the compulsory transfer.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/670, document No.
1235. This is another minute from the Foreign Ministry,
dated 21 March 1940. The subject is an enquiry about the
deportation of 158 Jews to Posen.

Witness, in the heading it says: “According to information
from the Head Office for Reich Security, SS
Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann, the matter is based on the
following circumstances.” Would you please comment on this

Accused: Yes. As indicated by the text, I had previously
confirmed to the Foreign Ministry that this evacuation was
illegal. Generally speaking, I should like to make the
point that, time and again, the local police authorities
gave in to pressure from the local Hoheitstraeger (holders
of sovereign authority) and adopted measures (a previous
document dealt with such a case), which ran counter to
general Reich regulations.

Presiding Judge: What was the meaning of the term
“oertlicher Hoheitstraeger,” Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: This was a special arrangement in the Third
Reich. In the party organization there were many offices
with all sorts of duties, but one of them would be the chief
authority in that region, representing the supreme power
there, and able to intervene in his area: the Gauleiter in
the case of a Gau (district), the Kreisleiter for his
subdistrict – the term crops up time and again, since the
senior commander is also a Hoheitstraeger and enjoys
territorial sovereignty.

Presiding Judge: Let us call these Hoheitstraeger local
party authorities.

Judge Halevi: It refers here to the “Stapo,” Dr. Servatius.
In this document, the reference is to the local Stapo.

Dr. Servatius: I do not have the document – I do not know
where the passage is. Which document is it?

Judge Halevi: Document No. 1235. It has been numbered

Dr. Servatius: I cannot see here the term “Hoheitsgebiet”
(area of sovereignty).

Judge Halevi: In his Statement, the Accused referred to

Dr. Servatius: There is a difference between Hoheitsgebiet
and Hoheitstraeger. He also had certain major functions.
Perhaps the Accused would comment on this.

Accused: NSDAP Gauleiter, generally speaking, also had
political authority; depending on the legislation or
constitution of the individual country, they would also be
Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter (Reich Plenipotentiary) or
Gauleiter and Oberpraesident (Administrative Head). In a
few districts only would there be a separate official for
each one of these posts. Bavaria was an example of such an
exception, but, in the Eastern Territories, normally these
persons would combine both positions in one individual, by
way of personal union, and when I referred to the
Hoheitstraeger, I did not mean the party Hoheitstraeger, but
the political Hoheitstraeger, that is to say, the Reich
Plenipotentiary or Administrative Head and, on a lower
level, the Kreisleiter (Subdistrict Leader), who generally
also had a political function as a
Reichsverteidigungskommissar (Commissioner for the Defence
of the Reich). What actually happened was that the local
State Police offices gave in to the pressure and wishes of
these political Hoheitstraeger and carried out measures in
their area which were contrary to some general Reich
regulation – measures which then led to problems in Berlin.

Dr. Servatius: Perhaps I might make another point. The
Accused has said that it was the lower-placed authorities
who did that, who evacuated these people and sent them
across the border. But in this document it says: “Owing to
a lack of living accommodation in Schneidemuehl, occasioned
by the Wehrmacht’s excessive demands on the town, the local
Stapo found itself forced…” In other words, it was not
the small people, but apparently the town authorities and
the military, who were urging this.

Presiding Judge: Please do not forget that, at the moment,
we are taking the Accused’s testimony, and it is difficult
for you to argue with his testimony. You can do that later.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I chose this approach, simply
in order to shorten a question which would have taken some
more time.

Presiding Judge: As long as we know what we are about, that
is in order.

Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, before we conclude the
discussion on these various documents, perhaps you would ask
the Accused something – at first sight, it would appear that
there is a contradiction between T/670 and T/210. In T/670,
the Accused reports that the Jews of Schneidemuehl are not
to be deported to the Generalgouvernement but returned to
Schneidemuehl. He provides this information on 21 March;
and in T/210 it says that, on 12 March, 160 Jews from
Schneidemuehl were deported to the Lublin area. If you are
interested in this matter, perhaps you would ask the Accused
what connection there is between these facts.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you have heard the question which
the Court wishes to clarify. Are both documents before you?
They are numbers 795 and 1235.

Accused: I have them arranged according to the Prosecution

Dr. Servatius: The last one was 1235. The other one is 795
– that is the Lublin death march, this press report. If you
take document 795, in paragraph 2 – the document is dated 14
March – in paragraph 2 it says:

“On 12 March, a further 160 Jews were deported from
Schneidemuehl in goods trains to the Lublin District.
Lublin has been informed of future transports.”

If you would compare the two reports: One is a report,
findings of a Polish Jewish assistance committee, which
worked closely with the American Quaker Organization, and
this reports that 160 Jews have been sent from Schneidemuehl
to Lublin, while the last document, T/670, or 1235 for you,
this says that 158 people have arrived in Posen from

Judge Halevi: That they are to be brought back to

Accused: According to the report, this deportation took
place on 12 March 1940. I notified the Foreign Ministry of
my information around 21 March, that is to say, considerably
later. If I gave the Foreign Ministry such information, I
did so on the basis of existing reports, that is to say, I
provided information which was on the record, because the
information had to be on the record, and could not be the
result of personal or private opinions. In view of the time
difference here, and since I know that I issued these
instructions on the basis of the record in the files,
because I would not act otherwise, I can only imagine today
that either the date of this minute is wrong, or these 158
persons who were moved to Posen were then included by the
Posen authorities in evacuation transports, on orders issued
by the local Posen authorities. The documents have shown
that the Higher SS and Police Leaders were able to issue
orders for Poland.

I remember just now that Reitlinger also dealt with this
matter and, on the basis of his sources which he mentioned,
I remember that it looked as if Reitlinger wanted to state
that these 168 Jews, or 158 Jews, did actually return to
Schneidemuehl. So there must be something wrong here:
either Reitlinger is wrong, or this minute is wrong. In any
case, the information which I provided was on the record at
that time.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, if it is convenient, we will
now adjourn.

Dr. Servatius: I am now coming to a small sub-section and
can continue in the next session.

Presiding Judge: Before we adjourn, I should like to ask the
Attorney General whether, in the next session, the
interpreters can be provided with copies of the documents to
be referred to. This would facilitate things for them.

Attorney General: I shall check, Your Honour. We receive
the list of documents which Dr. Servatius intends to use
rather late. If the Court noticed, today we received this
only during the morning session. We shall do our best to
prepare another set.

Presiding Judge: We shall now adjourn. The next Session
will be tomorrow at 8.30, and tomorrow there will again be
no afternoon session.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08