Session 079-04, Eichmann Adolf

Accused: Yes. At the time these forms of words were
ordered by Himmler under the title of “Sprachregelung”
(prescribed usage), and, in accordance with these orders,
which came through the Head of the Security Police and
Mueller, they were to be used for the files. Now, this
order was not always observed, for a simple reason, that is
to say, in dictation it was often overlooked and forgotten.
However, in most cases, when the Chief of Department IV went
through the files, he would make a note of it and require
the necessary changes to be made.

As a further explanation, I would add the following: This
document is directly connected with the outcome of the
Wannsee Conference. And, in turn, this document is also
directly connected with document T/730, which was dealt with
at the beginning of today’s session, in which it is stated
that the individual local stations are to report to the Head
Office for Reich Security the numbers of the Jews liable to
evacuation, with the exceptions laid down in that decree.
Consequently, these figures were available. On the basis of
these figures my Section, in accordance with orders, had to
draw up the timetable together with the Reich Ministry of
Transport, since the deportation itself had been decided on
at the Wannsee Conference. I would point out, by the way,
that this was the third wave of evacuations; two had already
taken place before in 1941.

Now, in these two waves of evacuation in 1941 – the two
major evacuation waves of Jews from the area of the Reich to
the East – there had been difficulties which came to the
notice of the Chief of the Security Police and Security
Service, Heydrich, himself, and so, in the future, he made
the individual Heads of the State Police Stations personally
responsible for ensuring that these directives were strictly

Dr. Servatius: One moment, witness. You must avoid such
long sentences; this is not a written communication, you
must speak briefly, in short sentences, so that the
interpreter can follow you. Otherwise no one will be able
to follow.

Accused: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Silence in court! I thank Dr. Servatius
for doing my job for me this time.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to page 2. Reference is made
there to the W Account, which is well known, and then it
says, “in order to provide this fund with sufficient monies,
the Jews should in the near future be encouraged to make
major donations to the W Account.” Then there is a sentence
which is not at all clear, and it reads: “So far, apparently
as a result of a misapprehension that the fund directly
benefits the Jews, few contributions have been received.”

Would you comment on this, please.

Accused: All I can state today is that the local stations
at that time considered that the Jews might have tried in
this fashion to save some of their property, since under
Regulation 11 it was considered to be forfeit to the Reich.
And, in accordance with all of the propaganda of the time,
the individual representatives of the local stations were
taken in by this propaganda and thought to themselves, “put
a stop to this anyway.” That is my only explanation of the
matter today.

Presiding Judge: I want to understand that reply. From the
document I gather what is being said is: “Don’t worry; the
money is not actually a donation, but is simply being taken
away from the Jews, and therefore you can encourage it.
Because it is being taken away from the Jews, you can
exercise pressure on them.”

Dr. Servatius: May I perhaps explain?

Presiding Judge: No, I am sorry, I would rather hear from
the witness himself. Is what I have said correct?

Accused: That is what it amounts to in the end, Your
Honour, in the following way: In accordance with Regulation
11, the property had anyway become forfeit to the Reich
Exchequer. Now some legal experts or other – as I have
already said, possibly as a result of a common finding,
together with the legal experts of the Reich Association –
had found a modus vivendi at the time for part of the
property which, under Regulation 11, had in any case become
forfeit, to be diverted, without the Reich Treasury, the
Oberfinanzpraesidenten (the heads of the Finance
Administration) being able to do anything about it, so as to
obtain the sums necessary for release for deportation and
for maintaining Jewish institutions, without, however,
having to follow the long-winded official procedure. And
thus, someone had the idea that a donation cannot be
appropriated by the Reich Exchequer, if it is transferred in
due time. So the term “donation,” if I can put it this way,
was a type of trick, and thus, Your Honour, it really does
amount to what you yourself said, Sir.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I think that the Accused stated
something further about the matter, since that sentence has
not yet been clarified. It says here, “as a result of a
misapprehension, i.e., that the Jews will benefit directly
from the money, too little has been received to date.” And
then it says that, as a result of the propaganda, the bodies
concerned with the matter did not insist and make it clear
to the people: “‘You must donate money,’ because they
thought that the Jews themselves might receive the money,
and, as a result of the propaganda, that is something which
they did not wish…”

Presiding Judge: The stress is largely on the word
“directly”; that is what you mean, is it not?

Dr. Servatius: Yes. On the last page, it says that
accommodation will be in trains, but trains can only
accommodate seven hundred persons, yet a thousand Jews must
be accommodated in them.

Witness, is this not a needless complication, for which you
were responsible?

Accused: No. This is a matter which, in any case, could
not be decided by the Head Office for Reich Security or by
Section IVB4. But, as far as I remember, the figure of
seven hundred is one which was quite customary at the time,
given the standard number of carriages, which unfortunately
is not specified here, because otherwise it would be easy
enough to make the calculations, for military transports.
In the case of military transports, individual soldiers had
their own baggage with them, whilst here extra goods waggons
were made available for the luggage and were attached to the

Presiding Judge: If there is a disturbance again [in the
courtroom] I shall have to take the necessary measures.
This will not be allowed. Let everyone have his thoughts
and not express them.

Accused: …so that the people who were being removed
would not have their luggage with them, but separately in
the attached goods waggons. So, in accordance with a
calculation by the Reich Ministry of Transport, the capacity
of the carriages was determined to be not seven hundred but
one thousand.

I should like to add to my statement that these statements
are the result of studying the document on the one hand, and
a weak recollection on the other. However, since the expert
who, in accordance with orders, had to conduct negotiations
with the Reich Ministry of Transport at the time, the former
Hauptsturmfuehrer Novak, is now in a Vienna prison, I am
sure that what I have said now can be filled out in more
detail than I have endeavoured.

Judge Halevi: I have a question about your previous answer,
which I did not understand. You explained to Dr. Servatius
that the term “um nach aussen das Gesicht zu wahren” (to
save face with the outside world) was a Sprachregelung
(prescribed usage), as you put it, for use in the files; but
I do not understand. I can understand that such phraseology
is prescribed for usage in official files, some paraphrase.
So you talk about “Aussiedlung” (compulsory transfer)
instead of “Evakuierung” (evacuation); or, instead of using
the term extermination, you call it the Final Solution. But
here the matter concerns transferring elderly Jews to
Theresienstadt, and you have said that the reason for this
was in order to save face with the outside world. So how
does that come to be a question of prescribed usage?

Accused: I probably did not make myself sufficiently
clear. This prescribed usage was not laid down for use in
the files; such prescribed usage was decreed for
circumstances when these matters had to be talked about in
contacts with outside bodies, in negotiations and so on, and
if a note for the files was drafted about such negotiations
and discussions, naturally the prescribed usage had
automatically to be used in the files as well. But the main
thing was Himmler’s wish and determination that such
prescribed usage be used with regard to the outside world.

Judge Halevi: Which prescribed usage?

Accused: Saving face with regard to the deportations to
the East, where the conditions in which the deported persons
had to live were far worse than in Theresienstadt. So
Himmler wanted to turn his Old People’s Ghetto,
Theresienstadt, into a kind of showplace, and he gave orders
accordingly, so that people would believe that that was the
way in which the Jewish Question was being solved in
Germany. In brief, that was the point of this whole
required prescribed usage.

Judge Halevi: All right. I have another question: On the
second page, there is a sentence which reads: “the Jews must
not, under any circumstances, receive information, and
therefore total secrecy must be observed.” Why was that

Accused: Most files of this type were either classified
or restricted material in the Head Office for Reich
Security, in accordance with orders.

Judge Halevi: Why, what was the reason?

Accused: In order to avoid police preparations being
visible to the outside world. Such were the orders at the

Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, the indications about the number of
persons per transport – was this order also implemented?

Accused: I cannot answer this accurately at the moment,
but I do remember that when I read through the sixteen
hundred documents which I found here, I found that a
considerable number of documents – that is to say, a
considerable number of directives – are available for the
various districts and regions, and in all these directives
the figure mentioned is one thousand for transport per
train. From the same documents, I also became aware of the
fact that other occupancy figures are given for the
transports, within the Generalgouvernement, for example.
But it can be ascertained that the transport, which to some
extent was interurban, within the Generalgouvernement did
not have its timetable determined by Section IVB4 together
with the Reich Ministry of Transport. Instead, the Reich
Ministry of Transport transferred all powers to the
Directorate General of the German Eastern Railways, in
Cracow, and the local authorities of the
Generalgouvernement, for which the Higher SS and Police
Leaders were responsible, had drawn up the timetables for
the Generalgouvernement on their own responsibility. In
conclusion of my statement, let me add that a few documents
will shortly be produced which will corroborate and confirm
what I have just said.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/737, document No.
1279. These are directives for the technical implementation
of evacuation of Jews to the Generalgouvernement. There is
an incoming stamp of 22 March 1942 on the document. The
directives are probably from Section IVB4. I would draw
attention to point 2, at the bottom of page 1:
“Determination of the Category of Persons to be Evacuated,”
where reference is made to the Reich Citizenship Law.
Certain exceptions are laid down. On page 2, under III,
“Transport,” again it is stressed that to accommodate more
than one thousand persons in a transport is not permitted.
It also says, “The following must be taken along for each
individual,” and then a list of items follows. This
includes basic foodstuffs for two weeks. On page 4 it says:
“When notice of departure is given, the destination should
not be entered in the register, but the entry should simply
be `moved to unknown address’ or `emigrated’.”

Witness, did you draw up these directives?

Accused: The actual administrative work was carried out
by Section IVB4. I would like to make some comments as
evidence for the fact that the various provisions in the
directives were not devised by IVB4, but were imposed from
outside on the Secret State Police – these represent the
wishes of the various ministries and the orders of the
German Reich police, etc.

On page 4, the last paragraph reads: “When Jews are reported
as having departed, the word `emigrated’ must be entered.”
This is another example of what was known as the
“Sprachregelung” (prescribed usage), and, in a document
which has already been dealt with, document No. 1560, a
letter from Himmler to Gluecks, dated 25 January 1942, the
first sentence reads: “…since no Russian prisoners of war
can be expected in the near future, I will require Jews and
Jewesses who are being emigrated* {* In the German original:
“die ausgewandert werden”} from Germany…” So here Himmler
is using this term which thus, at the same time, was an
order to the Chief of the Security Police, and in these
directives, which had to be drawn up by March of that year
in accordance with instructions, the term “emigrated” had to
be used.
Dr. Servatius: On the last page but one, page, in the
middle, under V, “Reception,” it reads: “The Commander of
the Security Police and the Security Service in Cracow is
responsible for the reception of the evacuees in the
Generalgouvernement.” I would draw attention to this
passage, because I consider that thus Eichmann’s competence
ceases on the reception [of the deportees].

I shall pass over two documents, exhibits T/736 and T/200.

Judge Raveh: I again have a question for clarification.
We have heard that the BdS (Befehlshaber der
Sicherheitspolizei – Senior Commander of the Security
Police) was subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader,
but I am not so sure if we have heard what the relationship
was between the BdS and the SS and Police Leader. To make
things quite clear, let me repeat: We have heard that the
BdS was subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader, but
I do not know – and it would be useful if we could be told –
what the relationship was between the BdS and the SS and
Police Leader.

Dr. Servatius: The situation was such that the Higher SS
and Police Leader acted as a personal representative of
Himmler, and the BdS was not directly subordinate to him; he
was here subordinate to the Governor General within the
government. However, the Higher SS and Police Leader could
always exert his influence, and have the BdS made
subordinate to him.

Judge Raveh: That is not what I was asking – I was not
asking about the Higher SS and Police Leader, but about the
relationship between the BdS and the SS and Police Leader.

Dr. Servatius: On the bottom of the same page of the
document, under “Reporting Procedure,” a conclusion can be
drawn on that: Notification of departure is received by
Section IVB4, next by the Chief of the Security Police and
the Security Service, and then by the SS and Police Leader,
that is Globocnik, who is also the Camp Commander. This
Globocnik must be subordinate to the Commander of the
Security Police and Security Service, who is a Dr.
Schoengarth, in Cracow.

Presiding Judge: This does not fit in with the plan given by
the Accused.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, in the next Session I shall
submit some tables which will be the best foundation for
discussing these command relationships.

Presiding Judge: Very well.

Dr. Servatius: I shall pass over the next two scheduled
exhibits, T/736 and T/200. I come to a new section,
“Executions.” The first exhibit is executory regulations
from Himmler about executions, dated 6 January 1942, file
number S IVD2.

Presiding Judge: What is our number?
Dr. Servatius: T/202. On page 1, point 2, under
“Transmittal of Orders,” it reads: “The order for execution
shall be signed by the Chief of Department IV, Head Office
for Reich Security, or a specially empowered

Question to the witness: Did you receive such an order or
instruction, so that you were empowered sign?

Accused: Do you mean, so I could give the order?

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08