Session 080-04, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: Very well, that will do. You have answered
the question.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to a few individual cases which
were dealt with in Section IVB4. I turn now to exhibit
T/764, document No. 135. This is a communication from the
Accused to the Foreign Ministry dated 2 February 1943, in
connection with the proprietors of the Capitol Cinema in
Heidelberg. The application is for approval of measures
against this businessman, who is Hungarian, a Hungarian Jew,
but with papers which conceal his belonging to the Jewish
race, as it says. The businessman in question had formally
transferred his business to others, and in practical terms
was continuing to run it through his wife and son. He was
summoned by the local Gestapo. However, only the son
appeared. The Accused proposes certain measures, for
example, the withdrawal of a residence permit for failure to
extend the couple’s passports, and sending the son to a
concentration camp.

Witness, How did you deal with that matter?

Accused: I received the information through the service
channels. Since the information came from a representative
of the Fuehrer, it had to be investigated extremely
thoroughly, and most urgently. The result of the
investigation is before the Court, and after my superiors
had considered the contemptuous attitude towards the police,
in such cases an order was immediately given to be sent to a
concentration camp. I cannot say any more about this affair.

Presiding Judge: In this particular case who issued the
instruction “concentration camp”?

Accused: The instruction “concentration camp” could only
be issued by the Chief of Department – never by a Specialist

Dr. Servatius: This communication by you is addressed to
the Foreign Ministry, because a foreigner was involved. What
was the reply of the Foreign Ministry?

Accused: I no longer remember exactly – the Foreign
Ministry apparently…the official in charge apparently made
marginal notes about this, but I cannot make them out on my
copy as the reproduction is not clear. I do not know.

Dr. Servatius: These notes in the margin are very
indicative, at least where I can decipher them. At the
bottom of page 2 there is a comment that false papers were
paid for, and there in the margin it says: “nothing new.” On
the last page, where it says “sent to a concentration camp,”
I think there is a comment “quite right.” The official in
charge in the Foreign Ministry appears not to have entirely

made up his mind – at the top, under the date, there is a
cross, which according to my information means that the
superior official wishes that a consultation be held.

I now pass over the next document No. 1207, which has not
yet been submitted, and I come to exhibit T/766 –
communication from the Foreign Ministry to the Head Office
for Reich Security, dated 17 February 1943, signed: von
Hahn. T/766 contains a report on a request from the Swedish
and Italian legations for lists of Jews holding the
nationality of those countries. The Foreign Ministry is
pleased about the drawing up of those lists, in order to be
able to use them later against the Jews. In the second
sentence it says: “…if the lists of these nationals of
Jewish race are drawn up by German authorities, this has the
major advantage of ensuring that all persons whose further
sojourn in the German sphere of influence is undesirable,
can be seized. Moreover, we will then be able to implement
the entire action with the desired rapidity, and will not
need to take into account any difficulties which the foreign
missions might raise in registering their nationals of the
Jewish race.”

The next exhibit T/773, document No. 933, is the reply to
the previous communication – a communication from IVB4 to
the Foreign Ministry, signed: Guenther. Complete lists are
not available – only the lists of the Jews from the Reich

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, unless you have any
questions about the exhibits which you wish to ask the
Accused, I would ask you to postpone quoting these documents
until your summing-up. Otherwise we will hear this twice. I
made a similar point to the Attorney General, and after all
this applies to the Defence as well.

Dr. Servatius: The situation is such – things become clear
when the document is read. If I ask the Accused questions,
he will take up a great deal of the Court’s time, and in my
opinion it is helpful to understand a document which is
before us. In my summing-up later, the document will no
longer be available, and then the matter will no longer be
clear, or the summing-up will become very long.

Presiding Judge: If the document is necessary to explain the
Accused’s testimony, then naturally reference must be made
to it at this stage of the proceedings. Otherwise I must
repeat to you what I have already insisted on to the
Prosecution – we shall peruse the exhibits if they are
referred to in the summing-up, and therefore they do not
have to be referred to twice.

Dr. Servatius: If that is so, I would ask a further
question, Your Honour, as regards separating the oral
summing-up from a written addition to be made as a Closing
Brief. Perhaps these matters could be dealt with in the
latter, without having to burden the Court with them in the
oral summing-up.

Presiding Judge: You may proceed as you see fit.- Under our
rules of criminal procedure the summing-up is oral, but we
will allow you to submit part of it in writing as well, and
you may refer to the documents in the oral and in the
written summary, as you see fit.

Dr. Servatius: I thank the Court.

Presiding Judge: To make things quite clear, I should now
like you to refer to the documents only insofar as they are
directly connected to the testimony of the Accused. In other
words, when either the Accused himself refers to them, or
when the document is necessary to explain the testimony of
the Accused.
Dr. Servatius: I shall proceed accordingly.

I now refer to exhibit T/776, document No. 322. This is a
memorandum from von Thadden to Eichmann, and concerns
Iranian nationals.

Witness, did you deal with this matter of treating as Jews
this Iranian sect of Jews, and did you provide information
in this respect?

Accused: Obviously I can no longer remember today, but
given the content of this memorandum from the Foreign
Ministry, I know what the prescribed procedure was in such
matters. I was unable to judge on the basis of my own
knowledge, as I did not know it. So here in accordance with
the instructions of my chief I had to contact the competent
department, in this case Department VII of the Head Office
for Reich Security, and get their experts to produce an
opinion, on the basis of which an answer was drawn up.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1253, document No.
1367. This is a letter from Himmler to Kaltenbrunner,
stating that he has distributed a book on Jewish Ritual
Murder particularly to men who deal with the Jewish
Question. Witness, did you read the book, and what benefit
did you derive from it?

Accused: Today, I cannot remember whether I received this
book – I may have, but then again, I may not have – but in
any case I read a great deal about ritual murders, and so I
probably cannot say whether I read it in this particular
book or not. In any case, the Jewish officials with whom I
had dealings, knew that I considered these matters to be in
the realm of fairy tales, and did not myself accept this
point of view.


Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/789, document No.
1592. This is a memorandum from von Thadden of the Foreign
Ministry, about the establishment of a camp for Jews to be
exchanged with foreign countries. Von Thadden fears that the
camp arrangements are too stringent, and this might
jeopardize the exchange negotiations.

Witness, what do you know about these exchange camps?

Accused: The exchange camps were not under my control –
they were under the control of the Economic-Administrative
Head Office. I am not conversant with the organizational
and other aspects. It was not up to me to decide on the use
– that is to say the approval or otherwise – of exchanges;
such decisions were taken by the superior authorities of the

Dr. Servatius: But von Thadden wrote to you that the
conditions were bad, and that the superior authorities must
intervene. If so, why did he write this to you?

Accused: Because all correspondence about the exchange of
Jews went between my Section and von Thadden’s Department;
both Special Officers transmitted these matters to their
respective chiefs for further processing, so von Thadden now
assumed that he should automatically submit these matters of
the camps to me. I passed the matter on to my chief, who
doubtless transmitted it to the relevant authority.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, in this letter where can we
see that it was sent to the Accused’s Section? In the
letter, T/739, it says R4, but that could also refer to the
Foreign Ministry itself, could it not?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, there is a slight discrepancy
in the short summary of the documents. There is another
communication in which von Thadden indicates that the
conditions in the camp are very bad, and he says that the
higher authorities should intervene to change things.
However, I am unable to give the number of the document.

Judge Halevi: Perhaps it is T/790?

Dr. Servatius: Document No. 1418.

Judge Halevi: Precisely. That is T/790.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/678, document No.
910. This is a memorandum from Eichmann to the Foreign
Ministry, dated 22 March 1941. The subject is a query about
how to deal with foreign Jews.

Witness, why were you making an enquiry at the Foreign
Ministry? Were you not able to take a decision on this
without the Foreign Ministry?

Accused: In the case of Jews with foreign nationality,
the emphasis was on the fact that they were foreigners, and
here the Foreign Ministry was the office in charge.

Dr. Servatius: I now pass over two exhibits and come to
exhibit T/744. This is a communication from Eichmann to
Rademacher, Foreign Ministry, dated 9 July 1942. A request
is made for clarifications with regard to the treatment of
foreign Jews in France, Belgium and Holland, and an urgent
decision is requested, since, as the Foreign Office is
aware, evacuation will start shortly in these countries.
Which action is involved here?

Accused: The date, 9 July 1942, indicates to me that this
document must refer to the actions ordered in France,
Belgium and Holland. This is not indicated by the actual
communication, but Himmler’s order is quite clear in the
documents dealing with France, and since I am aware of this,
I can already now give this information with regard to this

Presiding Judge: It says so in the actual letter. Apparently
this escaped the notice of the Accused.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1021, document No.
181. This is a memorandum from IVB4 to the Foreign Ministry,
indicating that Jews from Romania are now to be evacuated in
special trains to the East. The communication is signed by

Witness, the question is whether you initiated or drafted
the communication.

Accused: I did not initiate the communication, but it is
possible that I drafted this communication in accordance
with my chief’s instructions, and on the basis of a rough
outline from him, since at this time the evacuation of the
Jews from Romania was under discussion between Mueller and

Dr. Servatius: Read the last paragraph of the
communication, and tell the Court whether any conclusion can
be drawn from it with regard to its author.

Accused: In my opinion this last paragraph refers to the
determining of the…the proposal regarding the category of
persons to be affected.

Dr. Servatius: I will now pass over several exhibits and
come to exhibit 267, document No. 940. This is a query from
the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, dated 28 February 1942,
with regard to the transfer of the foreign Jews in the
Warsaw Ghetto. The Accused requests the opinion of the
Foreign Ministry.

Witness, why did you contact the Foreign Ministry in this

Accused: As far as the Generalgouvernement was concerned,
my Section IVB4 was involved when arrangements had to be
made for Jews of foreign nationality, because this factor
was likely to be an important one in the future for the
Reich. Since the Foreign Ministry was constantly approaching
the Head Office for Reich Security because of interventions
by foreign missions, IVB4 had to clarify matters in this
connection with the Foreign Ministry – and this
clarification subsequently became a general rule.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to exhibit T/268, document No.
941, and T/269, document No. 942. These exhibits again deal
with foreign Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto; it says that
discussions have been held with the Accused, and the result
was that there should be a countersignature.

Witness, what was the meaning of this countersignature? Did
this not make your own position far more prominent?

Accused: This co-signing, as it was known, was routine
for individual Specialist Officers in the departments and
also for inter-ministerial departments, as will be
demonstrated by a later exhibit. In all matters which were
of general importance, because they were, or might be, the
origin of a circular, there had to be co-signing by all the
sections involved, as otherwise the superior departmental
chiefs would not have appended their own signature.

Dr. Servatius: I shall now omit several documents and take
T/271, document No. 9. Several exhibits are included under
this number.

First of all, there is a communication from IVB4 dated
January 1943, with no further details as to the exact date,
to all Secret Police Headquarters and other departments.
Under “Note” on page 1 it reads: “The question of the
treatment of Jews of foreign nationality in the territory of
the Reich, including the Protectorate and the
Generalgouvernement, in the Occupied Eastern and Western
Territories, for which there is an urgent need for a
comprehensive arrangement, has recently been discussed both
in writing and in personal consultations with the Foreign
Ministry. The result achieved appears in the Decree set out

At the top of the communication there are two names,
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann and Regierungsrat Hunsche.
Witness, would you explain the significance of the double

Accused: This was a bureaucratic provision which was
covered by an ordinance issued but not actually observed,
but which was still valid, and normally this provision was
only observed by the jurists, who sometimes remembered it
and invoked it. It ties up with the other reference given at
the top, IVB4; I am IVB4, I am the Specialist Officer, B is
the official in charge, Regierungsrat Hunsche.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08