Session 079-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: There is a reference to a second discussion.
Were you invited to the second discussion?

Accused: I did not need to be invited to the second
conference, since, in accordance with orders, I was the
person who, on behalf of my superiors, was to dispatch the
letters of invitation.

Dr. Servatius: I proceed to exhibits T/1373, document No.
877, then T/189, document No. 1206, and a third exhibit,
T/190, document No. 106.

Presiding Judge: Which was the second exhibit, Dr.

Dr. Servatius: T/189, document No. 1206. It is the
invitation to the second discussion of the Specialists, with
a list of participants. The attendance list includes
yourself and your three Specialist Officers. Does that
indicate that you were closely involved with the matter,

Accused: I should like to correct something: There were
not three Specialist Officers, but only one,
Sturmbannfuehrer Regierungsrat Suhr, while Guenther was, to
some extent, a Deputy Specialist Officer and Regierungsrat
Hunsche was also a Deputy Specialist Officer. Section IVB4
really had no say in the matter, as far as these particular
discussions were concerned. The contents show that it was a
question for the Head Office for Race and Resettlement
Affairs, as well as for the Party Chancellery and the Office
of Racial Policies of the NSDAP, because the issue here was,
I would put it this way, the medical position on

Dr. Servatius: Witness, if so, why were you present?

Accused: According to instructions, the minutes had to be
drawn up by Section IVB4, because the minutes had to be sent
subsequently to all the participants, so that these
Departments could indicate their position to the Head Office
for Reich Security. There is another interesting aspect to
these minutes. While the minutes of the first discussion
are not headed with the reference IVB4, this set of minutes
is headed with the Section reference IVB4. This is further
proof that obviously no one from Section IVB4 took part in
the first discussion and, if the styles are compared – and I
have tried to compare the styles – I can see some similarity
with the style of the first minutes. I remember saying in
my interrogation that, as far as I was aware, because of the
problematical nature of the subject matter and the
importance of the subject, the minutes were drawn up by the
representative of the Party Chancellery and of Department II
of the Head Office for Reich Security, since the main
substance concentrated on the legal side of things.

I must complete my statement, because otherwise it could be
objected that, “Well, but two legal experts from your
Section did attend the meeting!” So, to make sure
everything is quite clear here, I would point out that
Department II was actually in charge of the matter, and
that Suhr issued the letters of invitation and the other
correspondence relative to this discussion, as various
documents indicate.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit I shall discuss is T/192,
document No. 878. This concerns sterilization matters. It
is a letter from Luther to Eichmann, dated 7 December 1942,
providing notification of a minute about the results of
research on sterilization. The actual minute is not
available here.

Were you, accordingly, involved in sterilization methods?

Accused: No. I had nothing to do with matters of
sterilization, either from the legal point of view or in
terms of implementation. As the subsequent documents will
show, this was the task of other Departments.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/1374, document No.
556. This is a letter from Brack to Himmler himself.
Enclosed is a report about castration by X-rays. I must add
that the letter is dated 28 March 1941, in other words,
shortly after the last letter. Brack asks Himmler what
theoretical or practical follow-up there should be with
regard to sterilization by X-rays.

There is a communication from a Dr. Pokorny to Himmler,
dated October 1941. He refers to possibilities of
sterilization by means of a plant-based poison.

Presiding Judge: This exhibit will be marked N/15.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1375, document No. 11.
It is a letter from Viktor Brack, again to Himmler, dated 23
June 1942. Brack is again urging castration by X-rays.

The next few documents show that Section IVB4 becomes
connected with the sterilization. These are exhibits
T/1380, document No. 555; another exhibit, T/1379, document
No. 409; and the last exhibit is the circular, a note from
SS Obersturmfuehrer Fischer from Himmler’s Adjutant’s
office, dated 4 July 1942. It is addressed to IVB4, for the
attention of Guenther. It transmits photocopies of
documents from the firm of Madaus, which is the
pharmaceutics firm in question, and a request is made for
closest cooperation with Pohl.

Dr. Servatius: In the first document, T/1380, it says: “I
enclose a copy of a letter to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther,
dated 4 July, for your information, a letter from the
Reichsfuehrer.” To this belongs also exhibit T/37(179),
document No. 408. I submit the document to the Court.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit N/16.

Dr. Servatius: This is a letter from Himmler to Pohl, dated
14 March 1942. It says that Pohl is to work together with
Guenther. The other exhibit is T/1378, document No. 407.
This is a note for the files and concerns a discussion with
Pohl about plant-based poisons. It is dated 22 June 1942.
Lastly, there is exhibit T/1377, document No. 326. This is
a letter from – the signature is not legible – to Professor
Glauberg, about sterilization experiments.

On page 2, at the end of the exhibit, it can be seen that a
copy of the document was to go to the Head Office for Reich
Security, Berlin, to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther, IVB4,
Jewish Affairs Section. For information.

The question is whether this communication does not indicate
that you, as Head of Section IVB4, were involved with

Accused: At first sight, it would appear that, formally,
one would have to answer in the affirmative. However, if
the matter is investigated, doubts arise, and I must say
that I did, in actual fact, have nothing to do with it, and
I can give the following explanation. Being fair, the
Israeli police captain who interrogated me, when he asked me
about tape 74, drew my attention to the fact that this
document, No. 326, which was discussed in a previous tape,
was a provisional document, and that the final document
would be submitted to me in tape 74 to which I have
referred, and in that final document, that is to say, in
this kind of original document – there is a reference to SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther of IVB4, Jewish Affairs Section,
and there is something about SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.

What I heard in tape 74 provided actual confirmation of what
I stated in connection with an earlier tape, that I had
nothing to do with it, and, as a result of the original
documents, I have drawn my own conclusions, because I was
able to draw them, having now seen all these documents. I
based myself on a document submitted here, State
Prosecutor’s exhibit 874, the deposition by Huppenkothen, in
which Huppenkothen, as the interim deputy head of Department
II, states – and, in fact, he recently confirmed his
statement to some extent in his testimony as a witness –
that Mueller was accustomed, without his Specialist
Officer’s knowledge, to give a secret assignment to someone
in the sections, and the fact that I keep seeing the name
Guenther mentioned in all sorts of documents about all sorts
of matters, matters of gas and sterilization and others,
notes from a doctor’s diary and so on, proves to me that
Guenther obviously and actually had a secret assignment of
this type from Mueller, a secret assignment which I knew
nothing of. That is what I have to say about this matter.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have the exhibit
which was presented to the Accused? In his preliminary
investigation, in tape 74?

Dr. Servatius: No, I have not seen this exhibit. I have not
yet been able to endeavour to see it, but I am sure the
Attorney General will be able to correct the Accused if he
is mistaken.

Presiding Judge: We would like to see the exhibit ourselves.
Perhaps you could ask the Prosecution for it, as it is
referred to in this tape.

Dr. Servatius: I shall endeavour to obtain this exhibit.

Presiding Judge: It was given number T/37 – a subnumber of
T/37 – and so you should be able to obtain it from the

Dr. Servatius: I shall go into the matter, and submit it
subsequently to the Court.

Some exhibits on sterilization. Firstly, T/1380, document
No. 557. This is a letter from the Deputy Gauleiter in
Vienna to Himmler, dated 24 August 1942.

Presiding Judge: I believe we have already discussed this,
have we not?

Judge Halevi: The number is probably wrong.

Dr. Servatius: Its content is certainly very similar to
that of another exhibit. I do not believe that we have
talked about it.

Presiding Judge: I am sorry, that was a mistake. Please

Dr. Servatius: There is another Department here which is
interested in pursuing such sterilizations: the Vienna
Gauleitung (District Leadership).

Presiding Judge: This is T/1380. So there is a mistake in
the T number. This is T/1380.

Judge Halevi: T/1381.

Dr. Servatius: It is document No. 557.

Presiding Judge: I understand from the Clerk of the Court
that this exhibit has not yet been submitted.

Dr. Servatius: I would have tended to agree originally, but
subsequent investigation has shown that this T number
already existed. So there must be some sort of oversight.

Presiding Judge: T/1380 is Prosecution document No. 555, is
it not?

Dr. Servatius: In that case, Your Honour, may I submit this
exhibit with a request to have the requisite copies made
available to me? I shall, in the meanwhile, make my own
copy available for the Court file.

Presiding Judge: Please do so. I shall mark this exhibit
N/17. And what would you now like to state regarding this
document, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: This communication refers to the annual
report of the Dr. Madaus pharmaceuticals firm, which
provides information about a plant-based poison used by
South American natives for sterilization purposes. This
would, it says, thus be a simple means of achieving mass
results, and Himmler is asked for his opinion.

Witness, were you informed of such preparations?

Accused: No, not at all.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1376, document No.
405. It is a memorandum by SS Standartenfuehrer Brandt,
dated July 1942, from the Fuehrer’s headquarters – on a
discussion about sterilization matters, in the presence of
Professor Dr. Gebhardt, Brigade Commander Gluecks (no, that
is Inspector of Concentration Camps, Brigade Commander
Gluecks) and Professor Klauberg. At the end of the
memorandum, it says: “The Reichsfuehrer has stressed to all
those concerned, that this concerns extremely confidential
matters which may only be discussed internally, and thus
those who are involved each time in experiments or
discussions must be obligated to observe strict secrecy.”

The next exhibit is T/816, document No. 455. This is a
sworn deposition by the aforementioned Rudolf Brandt from
Nuremberg, dated 9 October 1946. What is important here is
page 2 of the deposition, point 5, in which it says that
Oswald Pohl, Head of the Economic-Administrative Head
Office, took a personal interest in this matter.

Witness, did you deal with this matter through Pohl?

Accused: No, I did not deal with this matter through
Pohl, either.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to a new section – collection of
skulls and skeletons. I have here police document No. 46 –
it should be T/37(95) or T/1363 – I could not find out
exactly what the number was from my office.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bodenheimer, would you check, please –
T/37(95) and T/1363 – we divided this document up, and it is
our T/1363 to T/1366.

Dr. Servatius: This is a summary of five documents about
Professor Hirt’s skeleton collection at the University of
Strasbourg. The first document: Sievers, the director of
the Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage) writes to Brandt on
Himmler’s personal staff on 9 February 1942, and in point 2,
there is a reference to a letter from Brandt, dated 1
November 1942 to IVB4, Eichmann. No, that is wrong, there
is no reference to a letter from the Accused, but rather a
proposal which Sievers makes, in order to obtain the skulls
of Jewish-Bolshevik commissars. It reads: “…the second
point concerns a proposal to obtain the skulls of Jewish-
Bolshevik commissars.”

The second letter is a communication from Brandt to IVB4
Eichmann, dated 1 November 1942. It reads: “…on the
instructions of the Reichsfuehrer, he wishes to enable the
skeleton collection to be established,” and Sievers’ visit
to Eichmann is announced. Attached to this letter as sheet
2 is a specification of how to proceed, in medical terms,
when obtaining skulls.

The third communication is dated 2 November 1942. It is
another letter from Sievers to Brandt, in which he indicates
that all that is now required is for the Head Office for
Reich Security to receive official instructions from the
Reichsfuehrer for the requisite support. Then there is a
fourth document, which appears before the previous document,
although it is a later communication. It is another letter
from Brandt to Eichmann, dated 6 November 1942, and it is
striking that it has the same text as the letter of 1
November 1942, directing that the establishment of the
skeleton collection be facilitated.

Attorney General: To avoid misunderstanding – I think I
explained when I submitted the letters that Sievers contacts
Brandt and suggests a draft for the letter to be addressed
to Eichmann. The date which appears on the draft is 1
November 1942. Brandt acts in accordance with Sievers’
proposal, and on 6 November 1942, he sends a letter to
Eichmann. What appears here, on 1 November 1942, is not a
letter but a draft which Sievers is proposing to Brandt:
Approach Eichmann in these terms. And Brandt accepts the
proposal and approaches Eichmann on 6 November 1942.

Dr. Servatius: It is true that reference is made to a
document; but I could not ascertain whether it was this one.
However, one thing is quite definite – that there is a
letter with the same contents dated 1 November, and there is
the draft for the letter dated 6 November 1942.

Presiding Judge: I thought it was the other way round, that
the draft was first and then the final letter as signed.

Dr. Servatius: Yes. Generally, it would be assumed that
the order of the documents was as I received them – anyway,
that is the order as received, and if one goes through
Sievers’ deposition, which is in the next document, it
appears that that is correct, and what happened is that, in
fact, two identical letters appear to have been dispatched.

Presiding Judge: At the end of the letter dated 2 November,
there is also mention of a draft. I think that is quite
clear, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: It was as a result of the record of Sievers’
interrogation that I first came across this; I also thought
initially that it was of no particular significance, but
afterwards, when the document is discussed, some explanation
of a possible nature will be given.

Presiding Judge: Very well, please proceed.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08