Session 079-05, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: Not the order, but whether you could sign
the order, as it says here. The order shall be signed by
the Chief of Department IV, or by a specially empowered
representative – were you such a representative?

Accused: If it was a question of passing on an order
issued by a superior authority and signing such a
transmission of an order, the answer is yes. Any Specialist
Officer – obviously after consultation with his principal –
was authorized so to act, and document Nos. 1254 and 1255,
which are not to be dealt with here, show this very clearly,
since they are orders for execution issued by the
Reichfuehrer- SS and Chief of the German Police, and these
went to the local station through the official channels,
that is, through Section IVB4. I would like to be allowed
to explain these documents in more detail.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you wish to refer to
these exhibits or not? I obviously leave this up to you, as
it is your duty to direct the Accused, and not the other way

Dr. Servatius: He should comment on the documents.

Presiding Judge: First of all, what are the numbers, the
references of these exhibits?

Accused: Document Nos 1254 and 1255.

Presiding Judge: I am told that they are T/200 and T/201.

Accused: Both telegrams show from the “reference” that
there had previously been a report of the Zichenau State
Police Station. In the report, the local State Police
station asked Berlin for authorization to execute the Jews
whose names are listed. The text of the telegram sent in
reply shows that this request from the State Police station
passed through official channels to the Reichfuehrer-SS and
Chief of the German Police, since in each telegram it says,
“By order of the Reichfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German
Police, the special treatment proposed against the Jews is
to be carried out,” while in the other telegram it says,
“The Reichfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police has
given orders that the Jews listed in the report mentioned
above be hanged in the presence of their fellows by race.”

Both these telegrams are signed by me. These are orders
from the Reichfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police
which came directly from him to Section IVB4 through the
official channels, via the Head of the Security Police and
the Security Service and the Chief of Department IV, with
instructions that the State Police station be notified
accordingly of Himmler’s order. In the document…

Dr. Servatius: Witness, I think that we can leave the topic
for the moment; we shall return to these matters later.

Accused: All right.

Dr. Servatius: I now turn to an exhibit which I omitted
some eight to ten documents ago. This is T/1280, document
No. 175. Directives on general affairs affecting the
country. These are directives from the Economic-
Administrative Head Office, dated 23 March 1944, Chief of
Department D 1.

Right at the beginning of the section on “General
Correspondence,” there is a noteworthy point. Under point
1, it says: “In principle it is prohibited to communicate
directly in writing with the Head Office for Reich Security
or the Reich Criminal Police Headquarters.” Point 2: “It is
also prohibited to make applications for executions directly
to the Head Office for Reich Security or the Reichfuehrer-
SS.” Further on it says: “Report after implementation can
be made directly to the authority which gave the order.”

However, after implementation the main notification is to be
made here, that is, to the Economic-Administrative Head
Office. The provision to which the Accused has already
referred today is on page 2. Under the section on
“Transfers of Prisoners,” it reads: “Transfers to other
camps, particularly at Stage III, should not be applied for
at the Head Office for Reich Security or the Reich Office of
Criminal Police. In principle, transfers can only be
authorized from here.”

Under “Escape of Prisoners,” under point 2, it says that,
when prisoners are recaptured, applications for execution
must be reported to the Reichfuehrer-SS. Then, under
“Deaths,” it is mentioned that deaths of Poles who are not
on the German population records, and of Russians, are
notified by most camps to the Head Office for Reich Security
or the Reich Criminal Police Headquarters. This is
prohibited under existing orders. On page 3, under
“Punishments,” it says that it is not admissible to obtain
permission for police punishment from the Head Office for
Reich Security.

Accused: May I interrupt? It should be “Pruegel-Strafen”
(corporal punishment), not police punishment.

Dr. Servatius: I would correct what I said – in the
document it only says “P-Strafen.”

The last comment on the exhibit concerns so-called “N-N”
prisoners – “Nacht- und Nebelhaeftlinge” (night and fog
prisoners). This matter is also to be submitted to the
authority in question.

I shall omit another document, No. 1174, which does not yet
have a T number, and I come to a new chapter, the “Lidice
Children.” First, there is exhibit T/1091, document No.
865. This is a communication from the Race and Resettlement
Head Office, dated 12 June 1942, to the Migration Office in
Litzmannstadt, Krumey. The communication is from the Head
Office for Race Affairs and is signed SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Bichler. The contents concern eighty-six Czech children who
cannot be Germanized and who have remained alive after the
executions in Lidice, and who have been transported from
Prague to Litzmannstadt by the Bohemia and Moravia Race and
Resettlement Head Office. A list giving the names of ninety-
one children is attached to the communication, and on page
1, two children have been deleted, since they have been
removed as being able to be Germanized. Then there is a
note to the first page of the list, probably meaning that
11, 14 and 40 are missing, as they are able to be
Germanized. The names are ticked off on the list.

The next exhibit is T/1092 – document No. 866. On 17 June
1942, the Migration Office in Litzmannstadt – Krumey – asks
the two Commanders of the Security Police and the SD Office
what is to happen to these eighty-eight children. The last
sentence asks that IVB4 be asked to indicate what should
happen to the children.

The next exhibit is T/1093, document No. 867. On 20 June
1942, Krumey applies directly to Eichmann and asks for
provision to be made for the children.

Exhibit T/1094 – 868 – two days later, on 22 June 1942,
Krumey applies to the Head Office for Reich Security,
Section IIID4 – Dr. Ehrlich – and states that he has already
informed IVB4 as well. He says that he addressed himself to
them, in the assumption that the children were to receive
special treatment.

The next exhibit, 1089, comes later – I shall omit it for
the time being – and I turn now to T/1095. This is an
acknowledgment, dated 2 July, 1942. The text reads as
follows: “…on the basis of a telegram, dated 2 July 1942,
from the Head Office for Reich Security, eighty-one Czech
children from the Gneisenaustrasse Camp handed over to the
Litzmannstadt Secret State Police Station.” Again a list of
children is attached; they are now eighty-one. A previous
communication showed that seven children had again been
removed as being able to be Germanized. On the last page of
the document, there is a list concerning the children’s
departure from the Gneisenaustrasse Camp.

The next exhibit, T/1096 – document No. 936 – is a
ommunication from the Head of the Bohemia and Moravia Branch
Office of the Head Office for Reich Security, dated 4 July
1942, to the Litzmannstadt Migration Office, Krumey. This
is a notification of a transport of another twelve children
who are not able to be Germanized, plus six who are able to
be Germanized – a total of eighteen children.

The next exhibit is T/1097, document No. 937. This is a
communication from the Prague Branch Office of the Race and
Resettlement Head Office, dated 6 July 1942, to the
Litzmannstadt Migration Office, Krumey. The communication
contains a notification that these twelve children are being
transferred on orders of SS Gruppenfuehrer Frank, in
agreement with the Head Office for Reich Security, to the
Litzmannstadt Migration Office. The last page contains a
list of the children’s names and an acknowledgment that the
children were collected by the Litzmannstadt Gestapo on 25
July 1942.

Exhibit T/1098, document No. 938. A communication dated 9
July 1942 to Section IVB4, Eichmann, enquiry with a request
for instructions as to what to do with these twelve

Now exhibit T/1099, document No. 939. Telegram IVB4, signed
by Guenther, dated 14 July 1942. Contents: The children are
to be immediately transferred to the Litzmannstadt Gestapo.
Sheet 2 of the exhibit: another acknowledgment that the
children have been received, 25 July. It states that the
twelve children were to be handed over for further
accommodation. At the beginning mention is made of a
telegram, Decree No. 123, 613, which is not the same number
as the telegram of 14 July 1942, which is stapled to that

Witness, would you state what you know of this matter.

Accused: I know nothing at all of this matter and can say
nothing about it from my own knowledge. However, from
studying the files I have seen that this is another instance
to which I did not react at all personally.

The first time my name appeared on a telegram was 20 June
1942, and the first time that my Section reacted was twenty-
four days later, that is, on 14 July 1942, when there was a
signature “on behalf of,” signed Guenther. According to the
Office Organization Plan, Section IVB4 was not responsible
for these matters: Within Department IV, another Section in
Group IVD was responsible for the Protectorate of Bohemia,
Moravia and Czechs in the area of the Reich. However, since
Krumey had written in vain to all possible authorities in
the Head Office for Reich Security, and also the Commander
of the Security Police in Prague, to try and clarify the
matter, I have the impression that this application to
Guenther is another one of those special assignments which
he was given.

If I had been responsible, I should at least have given
Krumey an interim acknowledgment of his telegram of 20 June
1942, and would not have waited twenty-four days. However,
this did not happen, which again proves to me that this was
a special assignment. In this context, I gather from
Counsel for the Defence that documents about the Lidice
matter are on the way, which will probably shed light on the
matter and clear it up once and for all.

Presiding Judge: That is the second time that we have heard
that the fact that some matter was not dealt with for some
time proves that you did not deal with it. Do you mean to
imply that you were more efficient than other officials in
the same office?

Accused: No, Your Honour, I am not implying that; but if
it takes that long, then, as far as I am concerned, that
proves to me that there was a lack of clarity as far as
competence goes, and there had first to be negotiations with
the departmental chief for the matter to be dealt with,
which it could not do so until the question of competence
was clarified. And it took some time to get things clear,
whilst, if competence had been clearly assigned right from
the outset, there could have been a reaction through the
normal channels.

Presiding Judge: You may be seated.

Dr. Servatius: The exhibit to which the Accused is
referring is said to have been submitted when evidence was
taken [abroad] and was appended to the record. I am not yet
familiar with the exhibit.
Presiding Judge: I assume that something which is unknown to
you is also necessarily unknown to the Accused.

Dr. Servatius: He does not know the content, but is
generally familiar with it. I have been told by my
assistant that this is apparently a significant document
which will shed some light on the matter.

Presiding Judge: Very well, I understand now.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, a few days ago I received a
letter from Bremen in which a female witness wrote that she
knew that these children were in a convent until the arrival
of the Russians. I have made enquiries, first of all in
order to ascertain whether this lady is a reliable witness.
I may have to ask for further evidence to be taken. I have
asked for her to make a sworn affidavit before a notary
public on the matter, so that I can provisionally submit it
to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Very well.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to a new section. Compulsory
transfer (Aussiedlung) from the Generalgouvernement. First
of all, exhibit T/251, document No. 1253. This is a letter
from the Director General of the Eastern Railways,
abbreviated to Gedob, dated 28 July 1942, to SS
Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, on Himmler’s personal staff.
Notification is given of the transport from 22 July onwards,
of five thousand Jews per day from Warsaw to Treblinka, as
well as a train of five thousand twice a week from Przemysl
to Belzec.

In the last paragraph, the Director General of the Eastern
Railways says that the trains were arranged with the
Commander of the Security Police in the Generalgouvernement.
Also, the SS and Police Leader of Lublin, Globocnik, is
notified. I believe that this indicates that the
Generalgouvernement dealt with the matter on its own,
without the Head Office for Reich Security.

The next exhibit is T/261, document No. 1114. Together with
this, there is the next exhibit, T/260, document No. 1113.
It is advisable to read the second document first, as an
introduction. This is a report from the Border Police
Commander, dated 27 July 1942, and concerns a first
communication dated 23 August 1942, about a dispute between
the Border Police and the local commander of the Armed
Forces about the removal of Jews. It should be noted that
in this dispute the Head office for Reich Security is not
involved, but instead, the local branches take issue with
the OKW (Army Supreme Command).

The next exhibit is T/263, document No. 1531 – a list of the
SS Leaders of the Head Office for Reich Security working in
the Generalgouvernement. The list is undated.

I believe that we can deduce from this that these SS Leaders
are not subordinate to the Head Office for Reich Security,
but are in the Generalgouvernement and are subordinate to
the commanders there.

Accused: May I make a supplementary comment on this?

Dr. Servatius: Witness, can you comment on this?

Accused: Yes. The Prosecution had ascertained that
Burger, Otto and Liska, Walter, who are named in the list,
were to some extent my subordinates. I would like to
clarify the situation. As far as Liska, Walter is
concerned, there seems here to have been a confusion of
names with a member of the SS called Lischka. This Lischka
was my predecessor in Department IV, that is, actually in
Section IVB4, and on 14 October 1939, he was still in charge
of II, the Reich Central Office. But then Lischka left the
Head Office for Reich Security and turns up later with the
Commander of the Security Police and Security Service, in
France. He was not subordinate to me. As for the second
person named, Burger, Otto, this Burger does not seem to be
the same one as the Burger who, I think, was also active in
Hungary, for example, and somehow there is a reference to
him also in the southeast. I believe that this Burger had a
totally different first name.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, have we come to the end of a

Dr. Servatius: Yes, indeed, I am now coming to the
Department for the Strengthening of German Folkdom in this

Presiding Judge: All right. I also want to check on
something in respect of our future sessions. Can we agree
that from Thursday onwards we shall be able to go back to
having afternoon sessions again? We have reduced our
working hours for your convenience, but I have the
impression that, in the meanwhile, you have managed to catch
up and go over the exhibits, so that we can return to having
afternoon sessions.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I believe that appearances are
not real: I have not been able to catch up, but the number
of exhibits which I have had to deal with has diminished,
and I have used the convenience of the arrangements to the
extent that I have had to take advantage of the time when
there are no sessions to do more work – it really is
impossible for me to proceed under any other arrangement.

Presiding Judge: Well, it really does look as if appearances
are not real, and for your convenience we shall continue
with the current arrangements.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you very much.

Presiding Judge: The Court will recess until tomorrow
morning at 8:30.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08