Dr. Servatius: May I perhaps add something? Does the file
reference show something? If I am not mistaken, there seems
to be some difference according to the file references.
Accused: No, there is no distinction made or to be
deduced from the file references of the Reich Ministry of
the Interior, but in the letterheads of the paper used in
the Head Office for Reich Security there is a difference,
because there were three different letterheads: the
Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich
Ministry of the Interior; the Chief of the Security Police
and the SD, and the Head Office for Reich Security.
However, I am no longer able, today, to give a detailed
presentation of the principles governing the choice of these
various letterheads. I believe that it was also a legal
interpretation – I just do not remember today.
Judge Raveh: If you would take document No. 503, the
previous exhibit, the second letter from Lammers to Frank,
where it says: “Since the Reich Minister of the Interior is
in overall charge of dealing with the entire Jewish
Question…” On the basis of what you have said, was it not
clear from the outset that it meant Himmler or Heydrich, and
not someone else?
Accused: It is my opinion that, where the legal
foundations are basically concerned, the Reich Ministry of
the Interior, and only the Reich Ministry, was responsible,
and not the departments of the Chief of the Reichsfuehrer-SS
and the Chief of the German Police. Many documents, or
rather, several documents, show here that the overall
authority lay with the appropriate chiefs in the Ministry of
the Interior, and that, for example, the legal experts from
the Head Office for Reich Security were invited to the
discussions because they were marginally involved, but not
because of their being in charge. In other words, these
legislative preliminary measures fell under the primary
responsibility of the departments of the Reich Ministry of
the Interior, and not that of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief
of the German Security Police.
Dr. Servatius: To continue: the position as to exhibit
T/682, document No. 197. This is a minute drafted by
Rademacher in the Foreign Ministry on 21 August 1941 for his
superior, Under-Secretary of State Luther. The Accused had
enquired of the Foreign Ministry what their position was
with regard to the foreign Jews in Germany, and whether
marking should apply here, too. He suggests to his superior
that they should be included, and, at the end, there is a
notable sentence which sheds some light on the overall
attitude of the Foreign Ministry to the Jewish Question. At
the end it says: “In my opinion, we can quietly await a
protest from the Swiss or Swedish Governments.”
The next exhibit is T/684, document No. 948. This is a
letter from Ribbentrop’s office to Luther, dated 31 August
1941. Ribbentrop is asking Heydrich for a delay for taking
a position on the marking of foreign Jews.
The next exhibit is T/685, document No. 949, 24 September
1941. This is a letter from Heydrich to Ribbentrop.
Contents: Heydrich states that there is general approval for
marking, which, therefore, includes foreign Jews as well,
“but as regards internal relations, I wish to be
conciliatory and will not insist on implementation.”
Witness, the Prosecution has argued that this letter
originated with you. Could you comment on this?
Accused: Yes. First of all, I would like to say that
this letter dated 24 September 1941, which has just been
referred to, is a formal answer by Heydrich to the
presentation by the Reich Foreign Ministry of the wishes of
the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs. The police
regulations were issued in between these two exchanges of
letters. I have already explained how all the central
authorities involved worked on these police regulations, as
is clearly shown by their contents. I happen to know that
the various sections of the Party, particularly the Party
Chancellery, adopted a rather – I think I would call it
stubborn – attitude, and were not always prepared to
recognize and approve the wishes of the various departments.
Looking at these records today, I think I can safely assume
that the delegate dispatched by the Foreign Ministry for
these departmental discussions – it may well have been
Legationsrat Rademacher – might have felt too weak to stand
up to this pressure as he should have, thus making it
necessary for the Reich Foreign Ministry to issue a warning
in a note to the Chief of the Security Police to the effect
that “Jews of foreign nationality belong to my area, please
keep away.” And in the meanwhile, on 15 September 1941, the
police regulations were issued. Heydrich gave the order
subsequently for a letter to be drafted following the key
words he had ordered, and in this letter he informs the
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs in triumph: “I have
actually taken account of these wishes, see police
regulation so-and-so, which exclude Jews of foreign
nationality, but still, I would ask you if foreign policy
considerations can be excluded, to discuss the matter with
me again, for general application.”
Presiding Judge: One moment, I believe you did not hear the
question, and this is not the first time – you were not
asked to give a general lecture on the letter, but you were
asked a specific question: What about the Prosecution’s
statement with regard to your role in drafting this letter?
Anything else is superfluous, at least at this point.
Accused: Instructions for drafting letters were normally
issued by the Department Chief to his Section. These
instructions had to be followed when the Section wrote the
letter. Generally, it was altered several times, depending
on the addressee, and, at the same time, the Department
Chief informed the Section by a coloured mark whether he
wished to sign this communication as Department Chief, or
whether he wanted the Chief of the Security Police to sign
the communication. The instructions were given by means of
a blue or…
Presiding Judge: This is not of importance at the moment.
There is no need to go into these details. I will explain
it to you in German, because it is of general importance.
Now is not the time for general observations, unless you are
asked to do so by the Defence or the Prosecution. Here you
are asked specific questions, and you must give specific
answers, where you can. That is the difference between this
examination and the interrogation of Captain Less. He said
to you, “Please comment generally.” Here things are
different. Do you understand?
Presiding Judge: I gather that you meant to say that this
letter, exhibit T/685, was drafted by you on the basis of
Heydrich’s instructions, and that you submitted it to
Heydrich for his signature. Is that correct?
Accused: Yes, that is correct.
Presiding Judge: If it is convenient to you, Dr. Servatius,
we shall now take a recess.
Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/685, document No.
949 – this is a letter from Heydrich to Ribbentrop, dated 24
September 1941. Contents: Marking [of Jews] has received
general approval – Heydrich has issued the police
Presiding Judge: I believe that this exhibit has already
Dr. Servatius: Then would you please take exhibit T/751,
document No. 1027. This is a letter from Mueller to the
various police departments and other departments, dated 4
September 1942. It supplements the marking regulations for
Bulgarian Jews in Germany.
Witness, the communication is signed by Mueller – could you
also have signed it?
Accused: No, the fact that it was signed by Mueller shows
the limitations on the powers exercised by me.
Dr. Servatius: I come to exhibit 221, document No. š1247.
This is a communication from the camp commander of
Litzmannstadt to the Regierungspraesident (District
Governor), dated 24 September 1941. The camp commander is
complaining about the fact that the camp is overcrowded, as
a result of the sudden direction to it of a large-scale
Jewish transport. At the bottom of page 1 it says – I
quote: “And now I am faced by an apparent fait accompli
that, not only another twenty thousand Jews, but also five
thousand Gypsies will have to be absorbed in the ghetto in
the very near future.” He refers to the difficulties thus
I now turn to the next exhibit, document No. 1248 – T/220 –
which is a telegram from this District Governor to Himmler
on 9 October 1941. The District Governor passes the
complaint on to Himmler and, on the last page but one, he
complains that the Accused acted there with the methods of a
horse dealer (Rosstaeuschermanieren), as one behaves in
trading horses. The matter referred to appears at the top
of the last page. The situation was that the transport
arrived without authorization; queries were addressed to
Berlin, and the Accused maintained what it says here – that
the camp commander, or a delegate of his, had issued the
Witness, is the complaint made about you justified?
Accused: Yes, it is a just complaint.
Dr. Servatius: Why did you use this method?
Accused: A little while before this time, on an official
trip to the East, as ordered by my Department Chief, I saw
the preparations for extermination. In this case, it was
the first major wave of evacuations of the Jews from the
area of the Reich – around twenty thousand Jews – if one
disregards the Stettin transport. This was the first and
the last time that I was given the choice by my chief
between two points of destination, two destinations, one of
which was Litzmannstadt or, if there were difficulties, to
the East. Now, as I have said, I saw the preparatory
measures and, on the basis of these preparatory measures, I
was resolved that this evacuation should be pushed through
with Litzmannstadt as the destination, and I reached an
agreement with the Head of the State Police Department, and
we both worked on the ghetto administrator and made the
appropriate report to Berlin, so that Litzmannstadt was
approved as the destination. Later it was discovered that
certain information given about Litzmannstadt was not
Dr. Servatius: As for the next letters, the next three
exhibits to which I intended to refer, I can leave these out
now – the army intervenes because of the armaments plants,
although there were complaints because the deportation was
interfered with, and finally the dispute is settled when
Heydrich states that Eichmann had been acting according to
Judge Halevi: Do you mean to say that you used this system,
described as the “Rosstaeuschermanieren” (methods of a horse
dealer), in order to save Jews?
Accused: Since, in this case, I had the choice of
selecting the destination, I personally did not want these
twenty thousand Jews to be sent to the East, but to
Litzmannstadt, because I knew that no means for
extermination had been prepared there.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/714, document No.
504. The document consists of two letters: One is a letter
from the Higher SS and Police Leader of Vienna, dated 27
October 1941, which is a covering letter to the next letter,
from the Chief of the Order Police, Daluege, dated 24
October 1941. This latter communication from Daluege, of 24
October 1941, is an express letter about the evacuation of
fifty thousand Jews from Bohemia and Moravia to be moved to
the area around Riga and Minsk.
Witness, give us your position on this order, and tell us if
you were involved in implementing this evacuation and
Accused: This evacuation was the second wave of
evacuations. My superiors had given clear orders that here
the destinations were to be Minsk and Riga and, in
accordance with these orders, my Section had to work out the
timetable, together with the Reich Ministry of Transport.
The document in question simply shows the instructions of
the Chief of the Order Police to the effect that units of
the Order Police should be made available to accompany the
transports. The documents under consideration do not show
the document which indicates that this evacuation was
ordered by Heydrich – I am sorry, by Himmler – and for the
Security Police sector Heydrich issued operational orders,
just as Daluege issued the operational orders for the Order
Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/294, document No.
1193. These are notes about a consultation presided over by
Heydrich on 10 October 1941, with regard to solving the
Jewish Question in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
The introduction lists the participants in the consultation.
In the middle of page 2, it says – I quote: “In the next few
weeks, the five thousand Jews should be evacuated from
Prague. SS Brigade Commanders Nebe and Rasch could receive
Jews at the camp for Communist prisoners in the operations
area. This has already been initiated, according to
information from SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.” Witness,
give us your position on this statement in the document.
Accused: Yes. This involves the negotiations and
discussions with the Reich Ministry of Transport on the
drawing up of a timetable. These had been ordered, and were
taking place at the time. As to the fact that the Jews
evacuated to Riga or Minsk were killed, that is something of
which Section IVB4 had no idea, neither was IVB4 told about
this. In this connection, I should like to refer to an
operational situation report; unfortunately, I do not have
the T number, it is State Attorney No. 1092…
Presiding Judge: That is exhibit T/305.
Dr. Servatius: T/305, if the number is correct. I have
noted document No. 192, which would be T/292.
Accused: No, 192 is wrong. It should be 1092. On the
last page, in the last paragraph, it says that “the Higher
SS and Police Leader in Riga, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln,
has, in the meanwhile, set in motion a shooting operation
and on Sunday, 30 November 1941, eliminated some” – it is
not very clear, it might be 14,000 – “14,000 Jews from the
Riga Ghetto and an evacuation transport from the Reich.
Originally the action should have…” etc. – the rest is…
So here, the Higher SS and Police Leader in Riga made use of
his powers and his authority on the spot.
At this time, Regulation 11 of the Reich Citizenship Law had
not yet been issued. The Wannsee Conference had not yet
taken place. And thirdly, I believe I remember that these
transports were to be provided with all sorts of items of
equipment. And lastly, I believe I remember the order
stating at the time that in the East large camps were to be
built to house the Jews from the area of the Reich, so that
it was the understanding and opinion even of Section IVB4
that the Jews deported to the East from the Reich would be
assembled in these camps.
Judge Halevi: Is that not in contradiction to your previous
answer that you had seen the exterminations in the East.
Accused: Yes, it is really, but it was then that, in line
with Heydrich’s statement, I received information to the
effect that it was the local Jews who were involved in the
East, whereas everybody believed that, since in this
instance, Jews from the area of the Reich with German Reich
citizenship were involved, these Jews did not fall under the
provisions which applied to the Special Operations Units.