Dr. Servatius: I would, however, draw the Court’s attention
to the fact that there is a participant, a Dr. Loesener,
from the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Department II. It
should be noted how Ministerialrat Loesener supports
sterilization. The reason why this is important is that he
was mentioned, if I am not mistaken, in a testimony as an
outstanding example of how it was possible to free oneself
from official duties, if one was not prepared to go along
with these things. There are various other documents on
that, so that later I shall show that there were probably
other reasons which led this particular gentleman to leave
this Department and be transferred to a different service;
previously he was employed in Department I, where he was
involved in Jewish matters. I would have called the
gentleman as a witness, but I was told that he died
recently, in an accident, I believe.
Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, I cannot see anything about
sterilization in this document.
Dr. Servatius: On page 3, it says: “Ministerialrat Loesener
makes the point that” – that is the paragraph; I do not
think it necessary to read it all out. The issue here is
the legal question of who is of mixed blood, and who should
be sterilized, who should emigrate, who may remain, and so
on – these were the questions being dealt with here.
Judge Halevi: Yes, but my understanding is that Mr.
Loesener is proposing a more moderate solution. At the 1942
Wannsee Conference, it was decided that people of mixed
blood should not be deported, but should be able to remain
and be sterilized, and here he states that people of mixed
blood have at least fifty per cent German blood, and thus
leadership qualities, and that it would be a pity to
renounce this fifty per cent.
Dr. Servatius: I now return to the Wannsee Conference,
which is referred to here. Department I, to which Loesener
belonged, adopted the most uncompromising position at this
conference, calling for compulsory sterilization and
mandatory divorce, and he refers to this, and the comments
he makes are really not those of a resistance fighter.
The next document is exhibit T/301, document No. 1104. This
is a communication from Heydrich to the Reich Ministry for
Eastern Occupied Territories, dated 17 May 1942. Again, it
concerns the definition of “Jew,” and the dispute concerns
the question who is to be in overall charge and who should
Witness, were you somehow involved in this matter which was
discussed between the Reich Minister for the Eastern
Occupied Territories and Heydrich?
Accused: No, and this letter, too, proves that the matter
was dealt with by a Section in Department II of the Head
Office for Reich Security – the Section was in overall,
practical charge not only of the definition, but also of
questions of competence.
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit has not yet been submitted;
it does not have a T number, it is document No. 1613. I
would beg leave to submit the document.
Presiding Judge: That will be N/13. You may proceed, Dr.
Dr. Servatius: This is a minute from the Reich Ministry for
the Eastern Occupied Territories, District Court Councillor
Dr. Wetzel, dated 4 June 1942, about the definition of
“Jew.” The document refers to the position of various
departments on the matter. I would refer you to page 6, at
the end. This comments on competence, and the District
Court Councillor queries the competence of the Reichsfuehrer-
SS in this matter and argues in favour of his own office.
The following documents deal with the Wannsee Conference,
which was the conference of State Secretaries which dealt
with the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. I would
first refer to exhibit T/181, document No. 946, which is an
invitation to Under-Secretary of State Luther – Foreign
Ministry – dated 29 November 1941, to this conference, which
was originally planned for 9 December 1941. Signed:
Heydrich; file reference: IVB4.
The next exhibit is T/183, document No. 465 – no date. It
is headed: “Desiderata and Ideas of the Foreign Ministry
with Reference to the Planned Overall Solution of the Jewish
Question in Europe.” These desiderata were drawn up in the
department called “Germany III.” They are as follows:
On the Jewish Question.
1. Deportation of all Jews of German citizenship
resident in the German Reich, including Croatian,
Slovakian and Romanian Jews, to the East.
2. Deportation of all those Jews previously holding
German citizenship living in the areas occupied by us
who, under the latest ordinance to the Reich Citizens
Law, have become stateless.
3. Deportation of all Serbian Jews.
4. Deportation of the Jews handed over to us by the
5. Statement of readiness of the Romanian, Slovakian,
Croatian, Bulgarian and Hungarian Governments to deport
to the East the Jews living in those countries.
6. Influencing the Bulgarian and Hungarian Governments
to introduce Jewish laws along the Nuremberg lines.
7. Inducing the other governments of Europe to
introduce Jewish laws.
8. Implementing these measures as in the past in close
co-operation with the Secret State Police Bureau.
I would direct the Court’s attention particularly to this
last point, since today, in many respects, it is being made
to look as if Eichmann and the Secret State Police compelled
the Foreign Ministry to act, but here, something of the
agreement or close co-operation can be seen, and the
proposals speak for themselves.
The next document is exhibit T/179, document No. 890, which
is a letter from Heydrich to Gruppenfuehrer Hoffmann, of the
Race and Resettlement Head Office. The last paragraph of
the letter lists the persons who are being invited.
Presiding Judge: That is probably T/182, is it not? Not
179, in any case.
Dr. Servatius: Perhaps there has been some clerical error
on my part. Exhibit 182 with me is document No. 1101.
Presiding Judge: Quite right. And there, at the end, is a
list of addresses.
Attorney General: Apparently our document No. 890 is T/180.
Dr. Servatius: In T/180, the last paragraph indicates those
invited to attend. The next exhibit is T/182, document No.
1101. This is a minute from the Chief of the Security
Police, which bears reference IVB4, dated 1 December 1941,
re Final Solution of the Jewish Question. A new participant
has appeared from the Generalgouvernement, SS
Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, and he notes that State
Secretary Buehler from the Generalgouvernement should also
be invited. They were both invited.
Witness, what was the special significance of the
Accused: Heydrich, without doubt, saw in the invitation
to State Secretary Buehler reinforcement and support for his
intentions. I believe that the proceedings of the Wannsee
Conference also bear out this view of mine.
Presiding Judge: The letter would appear to show something
different: that again there was a dispute about competence
here, since the letter says that it appears that the
Governor General is trying to arrogate to himself treatment
of the Jewish Question, and his representatives are to be
summoned, in order to clarify the matter.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, this was a question proposed
here; but, in the subsequent decisions, it can be seen that
things were to start first in the Generalgouvernement, and,
according to what I was told in a conversation with the
Accused, he said that this man was brought as reinforcement,
because Heydrich had certain misgivings.
Presiding Judge: But I would draw attention to the first two
passages. Perhaps the Accused would care to comment?
Accused: May I ask, Your Honour, which section you are
Presiding Judge: On the first page, there is a paragraph
which begins: “From the measures recently adopted in this
field by the Generalgouvernement.”
Accused: This was a struggle for power between the
Generalgouvernement and Heydrich, just like the rivalry
between Heydrich and Ribbentrop. And now Krueger, the State
Secretary for Security of the Generalgouvernement, came to
Berlin before this meeting, and there would definitely have
been a discussion of this whole issue of overall charge in
the Generalgouvernement, between these two – Krueger, the
State Secretary for Security, who, at the same time, is a
Higher SS and Police Leader in the Generalgouvernement, and
Heydrich. In accordance with Krueger’s proposal, State
Secretary Buehler was also invited, and this minute which
had to be drawn up by me shows that I was subsequently
instructed (in the subsequent consultation, the Specialist
Officer in IVB4 was instructed) to invite Buehler and
Krueger as well to the meeting fixed for 9 December 1941 in
Judge Halevi: I have a technical question: Is the date of
28.1. perhaps a typing error; should it not be 28.11.? At
the very beginning of the document.
Accused: Yes, indeed. I had also noted this typing
Judge Halevi: What should the correct date be? Not of the
Accused: According to the date of 1 December, it should
Judge Halevi: Thank you.
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/185, document No. 74.
This is the record of the consultations at the Wannsee
Conference. After a change in date, this conference was
held on 20 January 1942; it was what was known as the
meeting of the State Secretaries. In the attendance list,
at the beginning of the record, Mueller and Eichmann are
shown as representing the Head Office for Reich Security.
Heydrich was in the chair at the consultation.
Witness, what do you know about the background to the
calling of this conference?
Accused: The prime motive for Heydrich himself, was
doubtless to expand his power and authority.
Dr. Servatius: Did he have reason to fear any difficulties?
Accused: According to the practice until then, all the
offices were always trying, for departmental reasons, to
delay things and make reservations – in other words, there
was always a whole series of individual discussions in the
long drawn-out deliberations held until then. Those were
dragging on, and there was never a clear-cut solution
achieved right away. This was the reason why Heydrich
convened this Wannsee Conference, in order, as it were, to
press through, on the highest level, his will and the will
of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police.
Dr. Servatius: Witness, I believe that you have already
stated to the Court that you prepared the address given by
Heydrich? Or perhaps that emerges from the notes in the
addendum to the Sassen Documents?
Presiding Judge: In T/37?
Dr. Servatius: Would you please explain again how you first
came to deal with this matter.
Accused: I was ordered to collect the statistical
material which Heydrich intended to use in his address, as
preparation for the Wannsee Conference. I was also to
prepare a general review of the measures carried out in
recent years with regard to emigration, its problems and
results. The gist of this material which I collected
appears in the first seven pages, as I have now seen again;
but what has struck me is that certain sections I saw here
were not written by me, but were Heydrich’s – who gave this
speech, rather like all his speeches, as far as I could
observe, in extempore fashion.
This applies to the sentence at the end of page 7: “Suitably
directed, the Jews should be assigned, as part of the Final
Solution, for labour in the East, in large long columns; the
sexes should be segregated, and those Jews who are capable
of working should be led into these areas to build roads.”
This sentence could not possibly have originated with me,
because this was the first time, at the Wannsee Conference,
that it appeared here, and it became a central point in the
new order announced by Heydrich.
May I also add that my second duty at the Wannsee
Conference, in addition to these matters I have just
detailed, was to keep the record of proceedings with the
help of a secretary.
Dr. Servatius: Is the record a correct report of the
contents of the deliberations?
Accused: The record of proceedings correctly reflects the
substance of the main points, but it is, of course, not a
verbatim record, since – how shall I put it – certain over-
plain talk and jargon expressions had to be rendered into
office language by me, and Heydrich corrected the record
three or four times, I believe, and it returned via the
official channels through Mueller. It was redrafted
according to his wishes, until the record of proceedings as
it exists here was produced.
Presiding Judge: Can we stop here, or do you have something
else to say about this document, which, by general consent,
is an important one?
Dr. Servatius: I would prefer to start with it at the next
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, could you also tell us how
we are progressing, according to plan, or whether we are
Dr. Servatius: So far, I have managed to keep to my
schedule, even though it has not been easy. I hope that my
assistant will return soon, so that I may speed things up a
Presiding Judge: No, this was not a complaint against you.
I should just like to know where we stand.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I hope that I will have enough
time tomorrow to work out myself how the system is actually
being applied, and how much more time it will require.
Presiding Judge: I would like to make it clear that I have
no intention to rush you.
Dr. Servatius: I had no such impression; it is simply that
I do not wish to act in such a way as to take up more of the
Court’s time than necessary, and I would wish, as far as
possible, to avoid tedium.
Presiding Judge: Very well, as long as the direct
examination of the Accused continues, we shall hold morning
sessions only, and then we shall see how to proceed.
The next Session will be on Monday morning, at 8.30.