Session No. 78
9 Tammuz 5721 (23 June 1961)
Presiding Judge: I declare the seventy-eighth Session of the
trial open. The Accused will continue his testimony. I
remind him that he is still testifying under oath.
Accused: Yes, I am aware of the fact.
Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I would first like to take an
exhibit, which comes a little later in the numerical order
of the series of the documents – exhibit T/309, document
No. 1099. There are several communications dealing with gas
trucks and gassing methods.
The first communication, dated Kiev, 16 May 1942, is to SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff. This is department – he is in
Department II of the Head Office for Reich Security,
Technical Department, under Dr. Bilfinger.
The second communication is dated 22 June 1942, and is
addressed to the Senior Commander of the Security Police,
Eastern Territories, sent by Department II, signed Rauff; it
also deals with the provision of vehicles.
The third communication is for the same Section, IID3.
The next communication is from Belgrade and again deals with
these gas trucks, Senior Commander of the Security Police
and the SD in Belgrade.
The fourth communication – again Senior Commander of the
Security Police for the Eastern Territories to the Commander
of Security Police, White Ruthenia.
The last communication in the set is again from Belgrade, to
the Head Office for Reich Security, IID3.
Finally, there is a sixth communication between the same
Witness, did you order or arrange for the use of gas trucks?
Accused: I did not order or arrange for such use and,
moreover, the matter was not within my competence. The
communications contained in this document are all marked
with the filing reference of Department II of Group D and
Section 3, IID3. Page 5, page 6 and page 10, show that the
contact was a direct one between Department II and the
Senior Commander in the Eastern Territories on the one hand,
and the Belgrade Senior Commander, on the other hand.
Dr. Servatius: I now come back to the first document. I
shall leave out document No. 454 – T/198, and am now
referring to exhibit T/175, document No. 1097. This is the
order of the Army High Command, dated 2 May 1941, and signed
by Brauchitsch, about the assignment of the Special
Operations Units of the Security Police and the SD at the
beginning of the eastern campaign against Russia, known as
Operation Barbarossa. I would refer to the bottom of page 2
of the order, end of paragraph 2, where it says: “The
Special Operations Units or Sub-Units are authorized to
adopt executive measures against the civilian population on
their own responsibility as part of their assignment.”
Witness, were you informed of the order at the time?
Accused: No, I was not.
Dr. Servatius: Then there is a series of operational
situation reports about the operations of the Special
Operations Units in the East. First, we have exhibit T/330,
document No. 846. This reports on the liquidations, and I
would refer here to the last page, which contains the
circulation list. The circulation list is not at all clear
and does not show which reports subsequently reached
Eichmann’s Section and which did not. The first obvious
thing is that the circulation list is divided into two
parts. The first part goes up to the last page, where it
says, “Page 10 of the original.” Up to there, there were
the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the various offices, while, from
there onwards, first the Higher SS and Police Leaders appear
and then the Department Chiefs. In the above list, however,
there is a listing of some sections and departments, as well
as units, all of which should really be in the lower part.
Presiding Judge: Is it not a matter of chance, Dr.
Dr. Servatius: I shall come to that. I have tried to
explain it, but it is, nevertheless, odd.
Presiding Judge: I see that page 9 ends with some “Hoehere
SS- und Polizeifuehrer,” and page 10 starts with the
“Hoehere SS- und Polizeifuehrer.”
Dr. Servatius: It is possible that this copy gives a rather
incorrect impression, but there is something else: At the
top, Section IVD4 appears, then, further down, there is
Section IVB4, then you have Group IVB and, according to
normal filing practice, that should be Eichmann’s Section.
But what is not clear is that Group IVB is still listed, and
then below again Department Chief IV appears. What is the
meaning of IVD4 at the top? I could not find out whether a
new Group IVD or D4 was set up. I just wanted to raise this
question for the purpose of investigation; the details are
not clear and, in other reports, there is explicit mention
of Group IVB, in the actual heading.
Presiding Judge: Has the Accused anything to say about the
matter? After all, he was receiving those reports.
Dr. Servatius: I was going to ask the Accused, but I first
wished to refer the Court to the next document, in order to
have a complete picture.
I would ask you to take exhibit T/102 – document 778 – also
an operational situation report, dated 29 October 1941 –
open it at the last page but one – and there is a different
circulation list, and IVB4 is mentioned at the top; and
then, finally, I would ask you to consult the next exhibit,
T/305 – document No. 1092 – which has no circulation list;
but, at the top of the document, there is a note “65th
Witness, there are various other operational situation
reports of this type. Did you receive all these reports,
and will you also please explain the various filing
references in the circulation list, and state what
conclusions you would draw from them?
Accused: Yes, I shall make an observation on this. At
the time when these operational situation reports came out –
of which I received some but was not actually involved – my
Section was no longer called “IVD,” because the
organizational plan of 1 March 1941, was in force by then
and the number of the Section was changed from the original
IVD4 to IVB4. At the time when these operational situation
reports were issued, Section IVD4 was dealing with “Occupied
Territories” matters, as shown in the organization plan. I
beg to make this clear, so as to avoid confusion between
IVD4 and IVB4. Thus, at the time of the occupational
situation reports, my Section was called “IVB4.” I have
already said that I did not receive all the reports. I can
prove this by means of the occupational situation reports –
document Nos. 1464 and 1465. Here…
Dr. Servatius: Would the witness give the T number.
Accused: Unfortunately, I do not have the T number.
Presiding Judge: Exhibits T/295 and T/313.
Accused: Although both these documents have a circulation
list, or rather, precisely because these documents have a
circulation list, it can be shown that these occupational
situation reports did not reach my Section, since there is
no reference to my Section in the circulation list. Now, on
the question of the numbering of the copies: According to
the regulations concerning secret matters, where secret
Reich matters were concerned, when these were duplicated,
all copies had to be numbered, and the relevant number was
placed on the document circulated to the appropriate person.
For example, exhibit T/295 was produced in thirty-two copies
altogether, and the nineteenth copy went to the office where
this document was found after the War. That is as far as
the numbering of the copies is concerned. As for the
Dr. Servatius: That is sufficient for me. I do not think
it necessary for me to go into all the occupational
situation reports, since it is basically a question of what
the Accused heard about, rather than the actual events. I
would just like to come back to the document again.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, perhaps the Accused wished
to say something else about these reports, the ones he
actually received. You interrupted him. I do not know, but
perhaps the Accused wished to say something which should not
Dr. Servatius: I have no intention of suppressing it.
Presiding Judge: I am sure you do not wish to suppress
anything, but I would like the Accused to have every
opportunity of explaining everything, to ensure that
everything is quite clear.
Dr. Servatius: Witness, do you wish to say anything else
about this document?
Accused: I only wished to say that neither I nor my
Section, were in any practical way involved in the matters
referred to in the occupational situation reports. The
document is number 778, unfortunately I do not have the T
Dr. Servatius: T/102.
Accused: On the last page but one, it refers to the
transfer of intelligence assessment from its previous
arrangement, so that intelligence affairs are to be dealt
with by the Special Operations Staff (Kommandostab).
Mueller states as much: “Thus the Kommandostab is
responsible for both the technical and the factual
evaluation of reports from the Special Operations Groups and
Units (Kommandos).” In other words, not only was the
Special Operations Staff dealing with the militant conduct
of matters, if I may call it that, and with the service
regulations, service instructions, but, from that point on,
they also had to carry out all the factual evaluation which
some other authority had done up to them – I think it was
called IVA1 or something like that. In other words, the
specialist section which, according to the Prosecution,
should have dealt with these matters, in point of fact was
not mentioned and had nothing to do with these affairs.
Dr. Servatius: That was the question I was going to ask the
Accused in connection with the next document. He has
already seen it in his own documents.
Judge Halevi: Who were the Kommandostab?
Accused: I did not know the members and heads of the
Kommandostab, I had no dealings with them, but I think it
said on one page of the document that the name – whether it
was the head of the Kommandostab or not, I do not know – was
Pepken or something like it; in any case, there is a name
there in connection with this matter, with the Kommandostab.
I would also like to add that the Kommandostab was directly
subordinate to the head of Department IV.
Dr. Servatius: With this, I would like to leave the
question of the Special Operations Units there and pass over
to another set of documents, with which I would like to
The first is exhibit T/179, document No. 461. This is a
communication from Goering to Heydrich of July 1941; the
precise date is not given in the document. The
communication extends the tasks of the Reich Central Office
for Emigration of Jews. Heydrich is charged with making
preparations for an overall solution of the Jewish Question
in the German sphere of influence and, in the last
paragraph, it says that he is to take preliminary measures
for implementing the Final Solution.
The next document is exhibit T/176, document No. 1091. This
is a formal decree by the Fuehrer, dated 17 July 1941, about
police security for the recently occupied Eastern
Territories. This gives Himmler the right to give
instructions to the Reich Commissioner – in other words, to
the head of the civil administration. That is paragraph 2.
In paragraph 3, this Reich Commissioner is provided with a
Higher SS and Police Leader, who is, therefore, made
directly subordinate to him. This is important for the
entire chain of command, since instructions and measures
will be adopted in these occupied territories. The chain of
command for measures against the Jews was, therefore, as
follows: Himmler, Reich Commissioner, Higher SS and Police
Leaders. In practice, it may well have passed via the SS
and Police Leader working with the Reich Commissioner. In
any case, it did not pass through Department IV.
The next document is exhibit T/219, document No. 1410. This
is a communication from the Wartheland District, sent by a
Sturmbannfuehrer – whose name, according to the reference,
must be Hoeppner – to Eichmann. The stamped date of
dispatch is not clear. There is a stamp at the top of the
communication, 16 July 1941, and another communication,
dated the same day, 16 July 1941, Posen, is attached. It is
difficult to understand how a communication dated 16 July
1941, can already have an incoming stamp for the same day in
Berlin. This incoming stamp is not entirely legible, but
next to it are the initials “UWZ” – Umwandererzentrale
(migration centre). In the bottom left-hand corner, it says
“Zu den Akten” (for filing). That is how I read this note.
In other words, no action was taken. The contents of the
communication are particularly significant. I would first
refer you to paragraph 1. This states that, as far as the
Final Solution of the Jewish Question is concerned, in
discussions in the Reichsstatthalterei (Reich Commissioner’s
Office) – probably meaning Bohemia and Moravia – various
references were made to solving the Jewish Question in the
Warthe District of the Reich – therefore it was not Bohemia
and Moravia, but the Warthe District. Then a proposal is
made as to how to solve the problem.
I now turn to paragraphs 4 and 5, five, which are of
Paragraph 4: “There is a danger this winter that it will not
be possible to feed all the Jews. It should be seriously
considered whether the most humane solution would not be to
do away with the Jews, unless they are capable of working,
by means of some quick method. In any case, this would be
more convenient than letting them starve to death.” The
proposal is also made that, in this camp, all the Jewesses
who might bear children should be sterilized, in order to
provide a total solution to the Jewish Question in this
Witness, did you receive this communication? What steps
were taken as a result?
Accused: Had I received the communication and actually
held it in my hands, I am quite sure that, despite the
twenty years which have intervened, I would have remembered
it, because of its drastic contents. I can, therefore, state
quite truthfully that I did not receive this communication.
I should like, in addition to the explanations given so far,
to try and ascertain whether this communication was
dispatched at all. In the covering letter it says, “I would
welcome your reaction.” On the left it says, “z.d.A.” – zu
den Akten (for filing). In such cases, normal bureaucratic
practice was not to file the correspondence away, but to
keep it available for renewed submission. In addition, this
communication, if I had received it, would have been the
first indication to me of the physical extermination of the
Jews, whereas I can remember very clearly that the first
reference to this I had heard, came from the Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service, Heydrich, and was
made considerably later in time. Thirdly, and in
conclusion, I may observe that, if this were the original of
the document or the file minute, then it would be signed; if
it were the duplicate, it would be initialled – and neither
is true here, neither the first nor the last page is signed.
That is all I wish to say.