Session 078-02, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, perhaps you could tell us how
this document was authenticated?

Attorney General: This is one of the Polish documents; it
was found in Posen, it was not in the Accused’s Section. We
received it from Posen, from the Poles, and it is dated 16
July 1941. In other words, it is a copy from the UWZ office
in Posen, and apparently the stamp is that of Posen.

Presiding Judge: What do you think the UWZ stands for?

Attorney General: It is the Umwanderungszentrale, the
Migration Centre; this is a copy from Posen which was
published by the Polish Government Main Commission for the
Investigation of Nazi Crimes.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to exhibit T/712, document No.
140. This is a communication from the Accused to the
Duesseldorf State Police District Headquarters, dated 14
August 1941, with reference to Jewish art treasures.
Witness, what is this about? Would you explain, please?

Accused: As it was known that Goering often expressed
such desires, I think I can safely assume that this
communication was also issued at Goering’s initiative, so
that I was suddenly ordered by my superiors to write to the
responsible State Police office in Duesseldorf about the
matter. It is quite possible that Goering found out through
his network that there was a particular collection in
Duesseldorf, or a special concentration of antiques or some
other valuables which he coveted.

There are several interesting aspects I would like to refer
to. The deadline for information to be provided is 5
September 1941, showing that the person who communicated
with the Head Office for Reich Security was in a great hurry
and, according to the handwritten note on page 2, the local
office dealing with the matter asked for an extension to
15th September.

Dr. Servatius: Were these valuables to be confiscated?

Accused: The communication shows that they should first
be found, and that it was to be ascertained which works of
art of this type from former Jewish property could be
obtained by auction or by purchase. That means that they
were not to be confiscated, taken into safekeeping and
confiscated, but the local State Police headquarters was to
ascertain whether they could be acquired by means of

Dr. Servatius: Perhaps I can refer to the last handwritten
minute. At the end, this says: “Meanwhile, there should be

Presiding Judge: What does Kauf (purchase) mean here?
Purchase from whom? Dr. Servatius, what is your submission
about this? It says here: “Ehemaliger juedischer Besitz”
(former Jewish property).
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, from other trials, I have
learned that Goering had a large staff of experts, including
Jews, whom he thus protected; he had a large staff,
including Jews, who were art experts, and whom he sent off
to various countries to track down these articles, which he
then bought, using more or less pressure, as the case may

Presiding Judge: It was not clear to me whether the
purchasing was to be from the Jewish owners or from some
department which, in the meanwhile, had already expropriated
the art treasures.

Dr. Servatius: No. I have learned from the trials that he
wanted them for himself, and there was no department which
had seized these things. He was not interested in acquiring
any minor works of art which would be removed together with
the furniture, but in first-rate objets d’art, which he had
first to track down, and which would obviously have been
hidden carefully, or handed over to other people. And for
that he had a whole research staff to deal with these

Judge Halevi: I should like to ask the Accused whether this
was not something which was not outside his province, which
he was not authorized to deal with.

Accused: Indeed. But if someone like Goering gave orders
about something to the Head Office for Reich Security, then
the Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security would pass
it on to his Chief of Department, and whoever received the
order from the Chief of Department had to carry it out,
whether it was within his field of competence or not,
because it was an exceptional assignment and had been
ordered as being such. In this particular instance, the
task of the police was one of pure detective work. That is
clear from the various questions listed to be checked by the
local police. At the bottom of the first page.

Dr. Servatius: The next documents I wish to discuss deal
with the marking of the Jews and restrictions on movements,
these and further matters which belong to the same subject.

First of all, there is exhibit T/831, document No. 503.
This is a letter from the Head of the Reich Chancellery,
Minister Lammers, dated 10 August 1941, with regard to the
marking of Jews in the Protectorate. There are several
pages to the document. The first part contains two letters
from Lammers to the Reich Minister for the Interior and to
Frank in Prague. I would refer to the second page, at the
bottom, where it says: “Since the Reich Minister for the
Interior is in overall charge of dealing with the entire
Jewish Question, it appears to me to be vital,” etc.

The second part of the document is a letter from the Reich
Minister for the Interior, signed by Stuckart, dated 14
August 1941, to Minister Lammers, with reference to the
marking of Jews in the Protectorate. The Reich Minister for
the Interior informs the Head of the Reich Chancellery as
follows: “With regard to the marking of the Jews, the Reich
Marshal announced the Fuehrer’s negative decision, at
consultation of the Gauleiters on 6 December 1938, and
indicated the reasons for it.” That is with regards to
marking of the Jews. “As to the previous examination of the
question last year, I would refer to my letter of 24 July
1940. This decision was given for the area then included
within the Reich.”

The letter from the Reich Minister for the Interior
continues: “In the meanwhile, the political situation has
changed radically. Given the clarification on foreign
policy, it seems to me that, subject to the views of the
Foreign Ministry, as requested by you, foreign policy
considerations have no longer to be taken into account.”
And then, at the top of the next page: “I, therefore, have
no objections to the marking of the Jews in the Protectorate
of Bohemia and Moravia.”

The last communication is a letter from Lammers, of the
Reich Chancellery, to Prague, Secretary of State Frank. It
says – and I quote from the top of page 2: “I should still
like to draw your attention to the statement by the Reich
Minister of the Interior, although the matter has in the
meanwhile been decisively furthered. As a result of a
presentation by the Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment
and Propaganda, the Fuehrer has decided that the marking of
the Jews should now be carried out throughout the entire
Reich.” That, in other words, is Goebbels.

Witness, what was the effect of this marking, as ordered, on
the rounding up of the Jews and the implementation of other

Accused: It cannot be denied that any external marking of
a group of people, whose rounding up has been ordered, makes
police work of any type far easier. This form of marking
was no exception. While marking for the area of the Reich,
including the area previously known as Austria (Ostmark) was
probably not of crucial importance for actual rounding up
purposes, it made things easier, but was not of crucial
importance, because the registration system of the local
police stations was organized so well that things would have
been clear even without marking; nevertheless, this was a
matter of priority for the Reich Minister for Public
Enlightenment and Propaganda, who obviously thought –
because of some departmental considerations – that the time
had come to do something decisive on this subject and get
Hitler to agree to immediate marking. I do not know what
were the reasons which led to this action on his part.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/209, document No.
1064; this is a circular from Heydrich, dated 15 September
1941, to all police headquarters and a number of other

Presiding Judge: What were they called?

Dr. Servatius: Police District Headquarters. There are
comprehensive guidelines on marking, and other measures.
Witness, who drew up the guidelines?

Accused: In the previous document discussed before this
exhibit, document 503, on the last page, it says, “The Reich
Minister for the Interior is preparing regulations to this
effect; according to my information,” writes Lammers, “the
plan is to promulgate a Reich Police Regulation.” So, once
the top leadership agreed about marking, the decision was
taken to deal with the matter by means of a police
regulation. In all such matters, the routine approach was
for all bodies involved in the matter to meet for a joint
consultation, which might take place over several meetings,
depending on the amount of material – which was normally the
case – and all the various points would be discussed here,
which were then officially recorded and would finally be
submitted as a draft for approval by the chiefs of
departments in question. When approval was given with the
desired modifications, the matter would be allocated for
centralized treatment by some office – in this instance, for
example, my Section, which thus received the relevant order,
and then my Section – and this was a purely legalistic job –
collated these points in unified form. In other words it
collected together all the wishes of all the central
authorities, and then, after these central authorities
indicated their approval in writing, this draft went up the
chain. It had to go all the way up to the Chief of the
Security Police and the SD, and thus the point which had
been opened up at the discussion of the top leaders, which
was to be turned into a Reich Police Regulation, was finally
dealt with and settled, so that, in conformity with
instructions, it had now to be issued according to the
circulation list to the local police headquarters and the
state administrative authorities. But, at the same time…

Presiding Judge: Just a moment, wait for the translation.
The reference was to exhibit T/831, the last page…

Accused: Well, once the Jews were marked in this way,
objections were made in departmental discussions by the
representatives of those ministries which dealt with
transport, with reference to the provisions about movement,
because it meant that, from now on, in the future, there
would clearly have to be two classes of passengers to be
transported in their conveyances – be they the railways, the
buses, or planes – one marked and one unmarked, and this
transportation matter would be dealt with in the same police
regulation as that on marking and is reflected here in these
guidelines on page 7. In this respect, the responsible
ministers, the Reich Minister of Transport and the Reich
Minister of Aviation, indicated their wishes, and these were
included in these guidelines by the police authorities. The
document shows again very clearly: Basic matters were
decided on by the highest echelons – they also ordered which
form they were to take; at this stage, the section was also
determined – in this case, my Section – which would have to
deal centrally with the administrative and bureaucratic
measures and the other authorities, so that, in the inter-
departmental discussions, the specialist officers could put
forward their wishes. That is what I have to say about this

Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius, I wonder whether we have so
far received an explanation from the Accused as to the
relations between the Security Police and the SD and the
Ministry of the Interior, just to make this whole matter
clear. It would appear that, prima facie, the Security
Police and the SD is subordinate to the Minister of the
Interior. The Minister of the Interior was, I think, Frick.
Generally, so we heard, the Security Police and the SD were
subordinate to Himmler, only to Himmler. This is something
which, at any rate to me, is so far not clear, and perhaps
this should be clarified.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you have heard the question – the
relationship between the Reich Minister of the Interior and
the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the subordinate departments.

Accused: Himmler personally combined several functions.
Originally, he held the office of Reichsfuehrer-SS. Then he
acquired the functions of Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the
German Police. Later he acquired also the functions of
Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom.
However, this is not relevant here. In his capacity as
Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police, Himmler
belonged – if I can put it this way – to the Reich Ministry
of the Interior and had the same grade as, by way of
comparison, the officiating State Secretary Stuckart. As a
result of Hitler’s and Himmler’s idiosyncrasies and
stubborness, as time went by, difficulties developed which
gave rise to constant friction.

This was finally the reason why, in some year – I can’t
quite remember when, but I should imagine it was 1943 – the
Reich Ministry of the Interior was entrusted to the
Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police as Reich
Minister. The Reich Minister for the Interior was thus able
to issue instructions to Himmler in certain matters, insofar
as they concerned matters of the Interior. In particular
areas, even State Secretary Stuckart could give instructions
to Himmler. But Himmler personally found this to be
unbearable, so what he did was to seek to have all these
high-ranking officials, such as Stuckart, simply promoted to
SS generals, and thus, as Reichsfuehrer of the SS, he was,
so to speak, in control of them. I am not aware of the
finer details and ins and outs, but that is a rough outline,
and that is how things were arranged.

Judge Halevi: With reference to the last question and the
last answer, was it necessary to include Himmler in the
chain of command, or did it go directly from the Ministry of
the Interior to Heydrich? Heydrich signed the police
regulations. Could the Minister of the Interior not issue
police regulations through Heydrich, without letting Himmler
take part in that formally and officially?

Accused: Under the office procedure that would, of
course, have been possible, but, as I said already, because
of the stubborness of the personalities involved, it was not
always feasible. Under Heydrich, for example, it was
possible – and I am sure that is what happened – that
Heydrich simply seized upon the matter, in part without
consulting his chief, Himmler, at most informing him of what
had already happened. Kaltenbrunner was more cautious. He
was a character, a cunctator, totally different from the
aggressive nature of Heydrich, and it was such temperamental
dispositions which determined whether the official channels
were respected or not, if I can put it this way. But these
were the habits of our senior commanders, of which we had no
clear idea, and which, to a large extent, were also stamped
with the imprint of personal ambitions and desires or not.

Judge Raveh: I have a further question to the Accused.
Perhaps you can guide me: If there is a reference in a
document to the Minister of the Interior, how can one know
if it is the Minister of the Interior himself – Frick – or
his subordinate departments which are meant, or if Heydrich
or Himmler are intended – in other words, departments which
actually are not subordinate to him? How can I distinguish
between these two cases?

Accused: I think it is possible to make this distinction
very easily, since no influence was exercised over the
various departments of the Reich Ministry of the Interior by
Heydrich, Kaltenbrunner or Himmler. The actual departments
of the Ministry of the Interior were all subordinate to
Stuckart or, of course, the Reich Minister of the Interior.
Obviously, one has no way of knowing to what extent
preliminary discussions were held on the highest levels,
say, between Himmler and Frick, or between Himmler and
Stuckart. I believe that my answer reflects my
understanding of the question.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08