Session 080-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: On the plan, at the left, the Higher SS and
Police Leader appears twice, subdivided into once for
occupied territory and once for the Reich; in occupied
territory he is in charge of the Commander of the Security
Police, while the equivalent on Reich territory is called

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, I see a little question mark
here, just next to IVB4, what does this question mark mean?

Dr. Servatius: I have to ask the Accused, I do not know if
the draftsman put this in, or if it…

Accused: I am sure that the draftsman put this in because
he was not familiar with the material, the divisions between
the sections are clear, and there are no queries at all

Presiding Judge: In other words the question mark here can
be deleted, can it not?

Judge Halevi: There is another query. In the second column
from the left there is a reference to the book Poliakov
Schwarz which has not been made available to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: Have you found it?

Accused: When I made this drawing I relied mainly on my
own knowledge, and then in order to corroborate my own
knowledge, which had been affected by a 16-year
interruption, I checked on the literature available to me,
and I had thought that the Warthegau had a set of rules
which differed from the normal arrangement, and that is
referred to in Poliakov Schwarz-Ausgabe, page 197, where I
obtained confirmation of what I thought.

Judge Halevi: Perhaps the correct thing to do would be to
make a copy of this passage in the book, and to append the
copy to this exhibit, so that we know what is involved.

Dr. Servatius: I shall submit a photocopy of the passage.

Judge Halevi: Thank you very much.

Judge Raveh: Does number 21 also apply to the

Dr. Servatius: I do not understand the question, does 21…

Judge Raveh: The last exhibit, N/21 – does it also apply
to the Generalgouvernement? It says “area of the Reich,” it
says “occupied territory,” and it is not clear whether
“occupied territory” includes the Generalgouvernement.

Dr. Servatius: In brackets it says “there was a special
arrangement in the Generalgouvernement and in the occupied
Russian territories, but I am not particularly familiar with
this arrangement; the same is true of the Warthegau – these
areas were subject to special additional orders from
Himmler.” At the bottom right of the plan there is the
explanation: the sentence begins “Die Befehlswege” (the
chains of command).

Judge Raveh If that is the case then the question is, to
what extent can one refer to Part C of exhibit N/21?

Dr. Servatius: I should imagine that several explanations
will be required in respect of this point, and I shall ask
the Accused about it; we have also received further
documents from which conclusions can be drawn.

Presiding Judge: Very good.

Dr. Servatius: There is another drawing showing the chains
of command, subordinate and superior positions and the
situation of the various offices and authorities involved. I
submit the document.
Witness, would you please examine the document and confirm
that you drew it and that it is correct.
Accused: Yes, it is correct.

Dr. Servatius: Part of this refers to Hungary, and I shall,
therefore, return to it later. The same question of
submission of a photocopy also applies here. Reference is
made there to Reitlinger, page 474, on the right-hand side,
on the Chief of Security Police and SD in Hungary.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/22.

Attorney General: Perhaps I might make the point that it
would be a good idea for the Defence to submit another
document which is referred to here – Kaltenbrunner’s
testimony before Judge Morgen, which is also mentioned in
this exhibit, at the top on the right. “Eichmann receives
his orders from Mueller and myself.” I do not believe that
this is available to the Court. I simply showed the Court
where it appears in the I.M.T., but I did not submit it. It
might, therefore, be a good idea to complete this exhibit.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps, then, if this is necessary to
understand the exhibit, we can receive a copy.

Dr. Servatius: I shall do so. There is a further table:
Chains of command in the organization of the Security Police
with particular reference to the Generalgouvernement, the
Protectorate, Holland, France, Belgium, Austria, with the
lines of command by the higher authorities and the various
possibilities of monitoring implementation of orders by the

Witness, please examine the document. Has it been drawn
according to your draft, and is it correct.

Accused: Yes.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/23.

Dr. Servatius: The various columns show the different
areas, Generalgouvernement, Holland, France and Austria.
When going through the various documents one should take
this plan and check how the people who gave the orders – at
the bottom there is an explanation about the way the chains
of command have been represented.

Judge Halevi: I would like to ask the Accused a question in
this connection. Why does the Gruppenleiter (Group Chief) of
IVB never appear? Things always go directly from Amtschef
(Chief of Department) Mueller to IVB4. Normally in the other
Departments we see in the Geschaeftsverteilung (organization
plan) that there is a Gruppenleiter – and once there was a
Gruppenleiter – Hartl, I think, but he does not appear
anywhere in this table. Do you understand the question?

Accused: That is true. There was a Gruppenleiter, a Group
Chief in charge of me, too. But actually this Group Chief
was only able to intervene in minor, insignificant matters,
while in major matters Mueller kept everything for himself,
so I have made no reference to my Group Chief who was in
charge of me. This is not the only Section where that was
how things actually worked. Some of the Sections in
Department IV worked the same way, so I have not gone any
further. In actual fact, I should also have drawn in Group
IVB, but for the reasons I have just mentioned, I did not
think this necessary.

Judge Halevi: Is that what the situation was in 1941? At
the time it was Hartl and later a Mr. Roth, was it not?

Accused: Yes. Right up to the end there was always a
Group Chief in charge of me.

Judge Halevi: But he did not intervene, did he?

Accused: For example, if the Chief of Department was not
present, then the Group Chief would have had to decide, and
I would have had to report to the Group Chief. But if the
Chief of Department was present, my orders were to submit
files to him as a matter of course and to obtain his

Judge Halevi: Thank you very much.

Dr. Servatius: Another table shows the chain of command of
the Security Police and the Foreign Ministry to the Advisers
on Jewish Affairs. It also says here that these advisers had
to carry out the instructions of Department VII or, like
Richter and Wisliceny, those of Department VI as well. I
submit the document.

Witness, you have seen the table; is it according to your
specifications, and is it correct?

Accused: Yes, it is drawn according to my specifications
and it is correct.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/24.

Dr. Servatius: One last table which I submit shows the
Departments which took part in the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question. There is a second page to the plan:
supplementary plan with various explanations. I submit the

Is the table drawn according to your specifications, and is
it correct?

Accused: The table is drawn according to my
specifications and it is correct.

Dr. Servatius: I would just briefly like to explain the
colouring: red refers to killing, blue is legal efforts and
green stands for deportations.

Presiding Judge: I mark this N/25.

Attorney General: Here too, with the Court’s permission,
there is reference to Poliakov as a source. I do not know if
this is the same document which has already been shown to us
or not. On Page 2 it says, “B. Poliakov red, C. Poliakov –
black;” this is in document No. 728.

Judge Raveh: On Page 1, there are many such references to
Poliakov, Reitlinger – practically all the way through.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius will have to see to that, and
if there is no other way the entire book will have to be
submitted – either the entire book or the section which
discusses organization matters.

Dr. Servatius: I think I shall submit the book or the

Presiding Judge: You can now continue with your questions.

Dr. Servatius: I continue with document No. 1413, which has
no T number as yet. It is a general order from Himmler dated
12 November 1942 about carrying out relocation in the Zamosc
area near Lublin. The order is issued by the Reichsfuehrer-
SS as Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German
Folkdom. I would draw the Court’s attention to page 1 at the
bottom, point 4a. It says, “overall charge of the
implementation of this assignment remains in the hands of my
representative in the Generalgouvernement, the Higher SS and
Police Leader in the Generalgouvernement, Secretary of State
for Security, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of Police
Krueger, working in close co-operation with my main

Presiding Judge: This exhibit will be marked N/26.

Dr. Servatius: The last page contains a list of addresses,
which shows who was to receive the document.

Presiding Judge: Does this have anything to do with Jews?

Dr. Servatius: At the top it says: “Combating Bands.”
These “bands” consist largely of partisans, including Jews,
and I therefore assume that it is relevant – particularly
since this shows clearly the entire structure of command for
such cases.

The next document is T/379, document No. 287, which contains
an order from the same Krueger, who has just been referred
to in connection with the relocation of the Polish
population. There are detailed provisions as to where these
people are to go – to the Litzmannstadt Race and
Resettlement Head Office.

Presiding Judge: But that is not T/379.

[To the Clerk of the Court] Perhaps you can try and find it.

[To Dr. Servatius] What is the Prosecution number?

Dr. Servatius: 287.

Presiding Judge: It is in Polish, is it not?

Dr. Servatius: There must be some mistake – I have a
document in German – an order from Krueger – SS
Gruppenfuehrer, Higher SS and Police Leader.

Presiding Judge: No, that must be another exhibit.

Dr. Servatius: I would like to withdraw the exhibit – if
later I consider it necessary, I shall return to it.

Presiding Judge: You can give the exhibit to Mr. Bodenheimer
and he will find the correct number for you, if you wish.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, there appears to be some slight
discrepancy in my files, I shall try and clarify things…

I shall omit a document and come now to T/373 – document No.
1411. This is a telegram from Guenther, IVB4 to Krumey in
Lemberg, dated 26 October 1942. The communication contains
three points: first of all, a report about the discussion in
the Economic-Administrative Head Office with the
aforementioned Krueger, as well as with Globocnik, about
problems related to the setting up of a relocation camp. In
this context, I would point out that the document which
could not be found and has to be clarified, contains an
order which sends transports of 1,000 people per transport
to Berlin and Birkenau – as part of labour allocations. And
according to this exhibit, which I shall produce, Section
IVB4 is involved in these transports. Reference to this is
made by this telegram.

Presiding Judge: Did you say Berlin, or did you mean Lublin?

Dr. Servatius: Berlin and Birkenau – in this telegram they
are both included in the term “zum Arbeitseinsatz” (for
labour allocation)…

Accused: That is stated in point 2.

Attorney General: The subject is evacuation of Poles from
the districts of Lublin-Lemberg and Radom. So it says in the
actual telegram, in point 2.

Dr. Servatius: The fact of the matter is that these Poles
are coming to Berlin, to replace the Jews there. In point 2
it says: “For information, it should be known that from 2
November…the Reich Transport Ministry will be requesting
two transport trains a week from Zamosc to Berlin with 1,000
Poles per train (then there is an illegible passage) three
trains (again illegible) from Zamosc to Auschwitz. I would
ask you to arrange things so that this action can start on
schedule at the beginning of November.”

Witness, when did you deal with this matter in Berlin? It
was a matter concerning the Generalgouvernement, was it not?

Accused: There was only one aspect of this Zamosc action
which was of importance for my Section, and that was the
drawing up of the timetable, the transport of the Poles who
were ordered to be evacuated from the Zamosc area to Berlin
on the one hand, and to Birkenau on the other. That is what
my Section dealt with, and, as was always the case in such
large-scale actions, all the Departments involved in such
actions had a prior meeting to deal with the problems.

I would like to add in connection with this telegram, that
there is also a reference in brackets to accommodation of
children, with mention of Head Office for Reich Security
IIB, IVD2 and Reich Criminal Police Bureau V. These points
relative to accommodation of children are accounted for in
Moravia by the following document.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08