Session 080-06, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: Do you know whether these suggestions in
this document were accepted, that is to say that the
suggestion should be rejected because otherwise it would be
seen as a sign of weakness, or because it could be exploited
for propaganda purposes? It also says that “it could not be
reconciled with the policy vis-a-vis the Arab people.” Was
there any discussion on this and what do you know about it?

Accused: These were the objections in principle of the
Foreign Ministry, which as far as I am aware really appeared
only following an agreement with the Grand Mufti, although
already prior to that the Foreign Ministry had maintained
that emigration to Palestine would mean strengthening that
country, and creating a new foreign-policy opponent which
might perhaps arise against Germany, and for that reason
should be rejected.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/1255, document No.
218. This is a communication from the Foreign Ministry to
Eichmann dated 3 March 1943. It was a notification by the
German Ambassador to Bucharest, reporting on the attitude of
Vice-Premier Antonescu towards the emigration of Jews on
Romanian ships. The German Ambassador opposes this
emigration by ship.

Witness, the communication went to you, did anything happen
as a result of it?

Accused: In this communication the Foreign Ministry is
not asking for an opinion – I think it was for information
only – the actual facts of the situation were known, and
nothing more had to be done, except that in such cases such
a communication went up through the service channels, with
Mueller taking a decision as to whether it should be filed
away, or whether it should be passed on for information to
the higher echelons.

Dr. Servatius: Was this an exceptional correspondence, an
exceptional communication, when this came to you?

Accused: At that time, there were so many communications
from the Foreign Ministry to the Head Office for Reich
Security which went through my Section as well, with the
same or similar content, that I would like to answer that
this communication did not appear to be exceptional, as it
dealt with matters already known – except for the problems
with the ships, about them running ashore and so on –
basically the position of the Foreign Ministry was clear in

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/1048 – document No.
231 – this is a communication from the Accused to the
Foreign Ministry – about evacuation of Jews from the Balkans
to Palestine. The communication is dated 3 March 1943. It
says that the emigration of 1,000 Jewish children to
Palestine should be prevented if possible.

Witness, what made you write this letter?

Accused: It says: “according to reliable information
which must be kept confidential.” Today, that indicates to
me that there was some report or information or notification
from a highly-placed source in the Reich. Such information
had to be dealt with particularly having regard to Himmler’s
strict order to stop all emigration.

Dr. Servatius: What did Department VII of the Chief Office
for Reich Security deal with?

Accused: Department VII dealt with research into enemies
of the Reich from a scientific standpoint.

Dr. Servatius: Which Department dealt with Intelligence?

Accused: Department VI.

Dr. Servatius: Did you have dealings with Department VI in
connection with such matters?

Accused: I should like to qualify this: such confidential
information, which had to remain secret, could perfectly
well have reached Department IV through Department VI, but
then it would be information from important personalities
abroad, and this would be channelled to the various
specialist sections through the intelligence service of the
Head Office for Reich Security, that is Department VI.

Dr. Servatius: I shall now pass over several documents and
come to T/950, document No. 1037. This is a communication
from Section IVB4, Guenther to the Foreign Ministry.
Notification about the emigration of 4,000 Jews, 4,000
children to Palestine. Steps are to be taken to avoid this
emigration taking place. How did the Department receive this
information about such planned emigration?

Accused: In this instance it was not information from
Department VI of the Head Office for Reich Security. In this
case it was information which the bureau of the DNB, the
German News Agency, had somehow passed on to the Head Office
for Reich Security. I myself remember that Mueller had
extremely close links and connections with the DNB, and as
long as von Rittgen was in charge, I still remember, the
head of the DNB, von Rittgen was in constant direct touch
with the Chief of Section IVB4. I do not know whether this
was still the case in 1943, but I can well imagine that this
was how Mueller himself got this information from the DNB
and then instructed Section IVB4 to notify the Foreign
Ministry accordingly.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/951, document No.
1038. This is a communication from the Foreign Ministry to
Eichmann, dated 7 April 1943. The information contains the
negative attitude of the Bulgarian Government, which is not
particularly willing to co-operate with regard to the Jewish

Witness, why was the information given to your Section?

Accused: I have just seen that this is the reply to the
letter of 2 April which has just been dealt with, the
information from the German News Agency. This is shown in
the heading.

Dr. Servatius: In other words this is the official
notification to you, while the other information appears to
be from the news agency. However, the question was why is
there this insistence from the Foreign Ministry, and why did
they notify you?

Accused: This was in accordance with the instructions
which the Foreign Ministry had received, as shown in the
last paragraph of the previous document, which reads: “I
would once again ask for appropriate steps to be taken in
order to prevent any emigration to foreign parts from
Bulgaria,” and since the specialist officers of the Foreign
Ministry knew that my Chief of Department, Mueller, was
constantly and on an almost daily basis in very close touch
with their department chief – either Luther or Wagner – they
made a point of indicating the view of the Foreign Ministry

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1050, document No.
980. This is a telegram from the Commissioner on Jewish
Affairs, Richter, through the Bucharest Embassy of the
Foreign Ministry to the Accused, dated 7 April 1943. This
states that a transport of seventy-four children had been
stopped – this was an emigration transport – by causing the
Jewish Council to intervene, and Richter told a
representative of other circles who intervened that, if the
transport were to continue on its way, the country of
destination would be changed – in other words it would be
sent elsewhere. How is this comment to be understood?

Accused: In Romania, Richter was under the orders of his
Head of Mission. The Foreign Ministry’s position with regard
to emigration to Palestine is well-known and has been shown
by the documents. In accordance with orders the Head Office
for Reich Security, too, had to stop everything.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, is it not possible that the term “a
different destination” could be understood in a rather
sinister sense, which was to make the people concerned to
give in?

Accused: Yes, it is equivalent to a threat.

Dr. Servatius: When it came to practical instructions, was
Richter not subordinate to you?

Accused: No, Richter was not subordinate to me – neither
personally nor practically. Richter obtained his technical
instructions directly from Mueller, where they concerned
Jewish matters.

Since Richter was also working in Intelligence he received
his instructions in that respect directly from
Kaltenbrunner. If my Section had to correspond with Richter
through the prescribed channels, this would be by orders
from my Chief of Department, through von Thadden’s section
in the Foreign Ministry. If Richter himself was in Berlin,
after visiting the Chief of Department and the Chief of the
Security Police, he would also call on me at the end.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1051 – document No.
981. This is a telegram from Ambassador Beckerle in Sofia to
the Foreign Ministry, dated 10 April 1943.

I have a question in this connection: Could the Commissioner
on Jewish Affairs negotiate independently with a foreign
authority – that is to say with a Ministry or a Secretary of

Accused: The Commissioner on Jewish Affairs was not
permitted to conduct negotiations on his own initiative with
any authority whatsoever. However, if he had received orders
or instructions from the Police Attache, who was his
superior and if the Police Attache had instructions from his
Ambassador – then naturally he was allowed to do so. I would
refer in this respect to the relevant Operative Orders on
the basis of the arrangements between the Head Office for
Reich Security, or Himmler and Ribbentrop, with reference to
the Police Attache.

Dr. Servatius: Another exhibit, T/952, document No. 1034,
is a communication from the Accused to the Foreign Ministry
dated 4 May 1943. This is another notification about the
emigration of Jews to Palestine. It says that the Palestine
Government has authorized larger-scale entry. It says that
this entry must be prevented.

Witness, you said earlier that initially you were
particularly in favour of emigration to Palestine, and now
we have this contradictory position.

Accused: As long as there was no ban on emigration – no
general ban – I did not have any actual order during the
earlier part of the War to prevent emigration to Palestine
as well, and on the contrary, I even forced its pace. But
when the general ban came from the Reichsfuehrer-SS and
Chief of the German Police, I had no choice other than to
obey orders. In any case there was no way that I could have
got anything through the meshes of the official setup.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibits are T/1260 – document No.
1310, T/1263, document No. 1309 and T/1261, document No.
1311. These are communications by the Mufti to Ribbentrop,
to the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, and again to Ribbentrop
with a request for support of his political aims.

Were you in touch with the Mufti? Did you co-operate with
him? Would you care to give the Court information on the

Accused: Yes. As far as I know I saw the Mufti just once.
This was during an evening hosted by Department VI in the
Security Service guesthouse, to which most of the Specialist
Officers of the Head Office for Reich Security had been
invited. Each Specialist Officer, including myself, was
presented to the Mufti. At that time there was an agreement
between the Mufti and Himmler, according to which – I know
of only three people – but in any case several people had to
go through the Head Office for Reich Security as
intelligence agents. In this case it was three Iraqi Majors.
According to orders, these three Iraqi Majors came to work
in my Section for their information for a day or two – I
cannot quite remember now. Subsequently, neither I, not any
officer of IVB4, had anything at all to do with either the
Mufti or any of the three Iraqi Majors.

Dr. Servatius: Did the Mufti ever offer his services to you
as an adviser on Jewish affairs?

Accused: No, and what is more, I never exchanged words
with the Mufti other than to state my name when I was
presented to him. I had nothing at all to do with the Mufti
in practical terms.

Judge Halevi: But you were certainly presented to the Mufti
as the Specialist Officer on Jewish Affairs?

Accused: I cannot reply one way or the other, because I
no longer remember, but I should like to add the reservation
that it is quite possible that the host, Department VI, did
tell him, but I myself do not know.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to a section which concerns the
attempt to get Jews out of the territory of the German
Reich, which was in the end led by Ambassador Feldscher. In
this connection there is a document, No. 743, which has not
yet been submitted. At the moment I do not have any copies
here: perhaps I can submit my own copy? This is a draft
report of the Foreign Ministry, listing the various
endeavours by foreign authorities, as well as containing a
draft reply to the relevant bodies. I would ask for
permission to submit that later on.

Presiding Judge: I mark this N/30. You may take the document
back after the Session in order to make more copies. Do you
wish to quote from the exhibit?

Dr. Servatius: No, this is just a general reference,
because all these actions are grouped here in a convenient
form, giving an overall picture.

The next exhibit is T/1071, document No. 150. This is a
communication from Section IVB4, Guenther, to the Foreign
Ministry. The document refers to efforts by the Romanian
Government and the International Red Cross.

Witness, did you deal with this matter?

Accused: As shown in the communication I – that is to
say, the Section – dealt with this only to the extent that a
highly confidential notification which reached Section IVB4
was sent on to the Foreign Ministry, and the Police Attache
in Bucharest was also advised. Since a similar instance has
already been brought up today, I can more or less assume
that this confidential information also came from the DNB,
the German News Agency. Finally, I should also like to say
that one document refers to 13 July 1944, at which time I
was in Hungary, not in Berlin.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to T/1259. This is a
communication of the Foreign Ministry dated 27 May 1944, for
internal use. It says that the Reich Foreign Minister has
ruled that nothing shall be done for the moment in the
Feldscher affair.

I shall now omit several exhibits. Generally these show the
same negative attitude towards the various efforts, with
various reasons being put forward in order to explain why
these matters should be rejected. I should like to submit
some of these exhibits later, but I do not have them yet
available in triplicate, perhaps I can do so at the
beginning of the next session.

I turn now to document No. 667, which has no T number as
yet. I can submit this document provisionally, for the time

Presiding Judge: This will be N/31.

Dr. Servatius: This is a collection of communications with
regard to information to the Red Cross about departures on
the steamer “Tari.” On page 5 permission is given for the
departure, on 21 April 1944; on the same day, page 7, the
permission is revoked.

Do you know anything about the facts? About the sudden
change in attitude?

Accused: Although these matters go back to 1943 and
earlier, I am unable to say anything about this particular
communication because this is also dated 21 April 1944 –
that is to say, a period when I was not stationed in Berlin.

Presiding Judge: What is the situation, Dr. Servatius, can
we stop here?

Dr. Servatius: Certainly. I should be grateful if we were
to stop, in order to allow me to prepare the documents still

Presiding Judge: The Court will adjourn till 8.30 tomorrow

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08