Session 081-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 81
14 Tammuz 5721 (28 June, 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the eighty-first Session of the
trial open.

The Accused will continue his testimony. I remind the
Accused that he is continuing to testify under oath.

Accused: Yes, Your Honour, the Presiding Judge.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I would
like to submit now, in connection with the drawings, two
books: The Third Reich and the Jews, known as Poliakov
(Black), and the other book: The Third Reich and its
Servants – The Foreign Ministry, Justice and the Wehrmacht,
known as Poliakov (Red). The other books referred to – I
think it is Reitlinger and another document – I will submit
Presiding Judge: I have marked these books.

Dr. Servatius: I now submit a document which does not yet
have a T number, No. 1388. I do not know whether I have
already referred to it. It is a minute of the Foreign
Ministry, dated 27 April 1944, on the Feldscher Operation.
This minute reads:

“Having heard the opinions of the relevant departments
and groups of the Foreign Ministry, I propose to inform
Ambassador Feldscher that the Polish text of the
British enquiry cannot be regarded by the German side
as a positive response to the position taken by our

Presiding Judge: I mark this document N/32.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/792, document No.

This is an appeal by the Swedish legation on behalf of the
Bondi children. I refer to the last page where it says:

“The Head Office for Reich Security refuses, as the
official in charge informed me, any discussion about
these cases, since the Reichsfuehrer-SS has ordered
that Jews already ghettoized may not be released.”

Witness, were you the official in charge mentioned here?

Accused: In this case, I cannot have been the official in
charge, as this document is from 12 October 1944, at which
time I was not in Berlin. However, this is an old order by
Himmler and it will have to be brought up in connection with
a later document, to which reference will have to be made
later today.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to the last of the documents I
wish to submit in connection with Germany, and which are
bound together in file 12. As the result of a rearrangement
of the Defence, I have left out a whole series of documents,
so that only about seven or eight remain here.

I would like to discuss now exhibit T/247, document No. 943.
This is an unsigned and undated minute concerning a
consultation on the transformation of the Litzmannstadt
Ghetto into a concentration camp. It is handwritten, and at
the top Eichmann is listed among the participants.

Witness, in what capacity did you take part in this

Accused: I no longer have any recollection concerning
this consultation, and whatever I have to say about it I
have gathered from the documents, and determined through
studying the documents.

Dr. Servatius: It says here “Eichmann of the Head Office
for Reich Security,” it is not quite legible, then it says
“representative of Kaltenbrunner,” and further on “Dr.

Presiding Judge: Kaltenbrunner, isn’t it, Kaltenbrunner?

Accused: A representative of Kaltenbrunner, in the true
sense of the word, of course I never was. This formulation,
“a representative of Kaltenbrunner” is a mode of expression
of someone who was a stranger to the entire organization of
the Security Police.

Dr. Servatius: Now, this concerns the establishment of a
concentration camp, or perhaps the transformation of this
ghetto. What was your part in this project?

Accused: The conversion of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto was
ordered by Himmler, as the document after the next one will
show. My presence in person there, was to prove to those
present the consent of the Chief of the Security Police and
the Security Service that with the transformation of this
ghetto into a concentration camp, the agents of the State
Police headquarters at Litzmannstadt lost their function
from the Security Police aspect.

Dr. Servatius: I move on to exhibit T/248. This is a report
from the industrial corporation “OSTI,” which conducted the
economic affairs of these ghettos. The business manager,
Horn, sent this report, and transmitted it on January 24 to
Pohl at the Economic-Administrative Head Office. The report
itself begins on page 3.

Witness, did you take part in drafting this report, or did
it reach you subsequently?

Accused: This report which I have in front of me, I
cannot recall it at all.

Dr. Servatius: I refer to page 8. It says there, at the
bottom, under point 1: “The ghetto of Litzmannstadt must
become a concentration camp.” There are several marginal
notations, and it says next to it, in large letters, “yes.”
This must be a notation by the recipient Pohl.

The next document is exhibit T/249.

Attorney General: Would the Court not rather hear from the
mouth of the Accused who wrote the word “yes”? I hardly
believe that Dr. Servatius can testify on that.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius is not testifying he argues,
and that is clear to all of us. And when he is saying that,
this simply has the same juridical value as any other
argument. We take this course to mix argument and evidence.
If he chooses, he will ask the Accused. If you so desire,
Mr. Attorney General, you will question the Accused.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, did you recognize the handwriting
of Pohl?

Accused: In the documents which I have seen here, the
handwriting of Pohl is conspicuous, and cannot be overlooked
and the notation “ghetto” on page 3 is, in my opinion, in
the same handwriting as the word “yes.” But what appears to
me to be more important is when it was a matter of the
Litzmannstadt Ghetto becoming a concentration camp, then
there was altogether only one person under Himmler who could
decide about this, and that was Pohl.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/249, document No. 945.
This is a letter from the Reichstatthalter (Reich
Plenipotentiary) Greiner, actually the Gauleiter of the
Wartheland, to Pohl, dated 16 March 1944. It says at the
beginning of the second paragraph:

“The ghetto of Litzmannstadt should not be transformed
into a concentration camp as Oberfuehrer Bayer and SS
Hauptsturmfuehrer Volk, were sent by your office to my
district, emphasized during the discussion at my office
on 5 February. The instruction issued by the
Reichsfuehrer-SS on 11 June 1943 is not to be carried
out any more in that respect.”

Accused: This must be a typing error. This should be
Greiser, not Greiner. My photocopy also indicated an N
instead of an S, but the Gauleiter and Reichstatthalter was
called Greiser.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to document No. 1175, which has
not yet been submitted, and I am submitting it now. It is a
communication from Pohl to all Chiefs of Head Offices,
Higher SS and Police Leaders, dated 4 July 1944. It is a
general communication which refers to authorization and

Presiding Judge: I hear that this document has already been
filed by the Prosecution as T/1417.

Dr. Servatius: This document shows that the Head Office for
Reich Security is not listed among those authorities which
are concerned with the administration of property.

Witness, did you nevertheless have anything to do with these
property matters?

Accused: I had nothing to do with these matters, although
point 3 on the first page, states that matters of property
rights accruing from persons who have died in SD assembly
camps, and cannot be delivered to the above-mentioned for
reasons of security, should be delivered to the Head Office
for Reich Security. But surely this would have had to be…
I do not know any more whether it would have been Department
I or II, the Department which dealt with administration, in
any event not Department IV, and in particular not my

Dr. Servatius: I move on to exhibit T/347, document No.
722, and T/346, document No. 721. This is, first, a query*
{*Sic. In fact this is a reply by Eichmann to the Foreign
Ministry} from Eichmann to the Foreign Ministry dated 9 July
1942, and then letters are appended which contain an
intervention by the Argentine embassy and an enquiry about a
certain Gershon Willner. These include various
communications from several offices, among them two
communications signed by the Accused. In the course of the
search for this Argentine national named Willner, it is
found that various answers are being given, and in reality
the man is already dead, and, in fact, he had already died
before different replies were given.

Witness, could you clarify this affair?

Accused: Yes, Sir. First of all, I would like to state
that in my file I have only one document which is signed
with my name, not two. At first glance, when one looks at
the sequence as presented, as the files had indeed
originally been placed together, it seems indeed that
Section IVB4 had actually given a reply which is open to
attack. However, if one views these files in their
chronological order, an entirely different picture emerges.

On 17 April 1942, in exhibit T/346, the embassy of the
Republic of Argentina applies to the Foreign Ministry
concerning Gershon Willner. On 4 June 1942 the
Representative of the Foreign Ministry at the Office of the
Governor General gives the Foreign Ministry a reply to a
query, which must undoubtedly have arrived in the meantime
from the Foreign Ministry. He reports that according to
information from the Commander of the Security Police and
the SD in the Cracow District, the above-named person had
been detained on 27 December 1941 and thereupon was
transferred to the German penitentiary in Tarnow, and that
it is intended to transport him to the Auschwitz
concentration camp. On 16 June 1942, a few days after the
report, the Foreign Ministry informs the Reichsfuehrer- SS
and the Chief of the German Police (surely this should read
“the Head Office of Reich Security”) that in view of the
present attitude of Argentina vis-a-vis Germany, it would be
inopportune to send this Jew of Argentine nationality to a
concentration camp, as this could be used as propaganda
against the German Reich.

According to the prescribed routine in the Head Office for
Reich Security, IVB4 undoubtedly would have had to address a
query to the Generalgouvernement, since in exhibit T/347 of
9 July 1942, Section IVB4 of the Head Office for Reich
Security, which was now apprised of the matter for the first
time, could inform the Foreign Ministry with reference to
the above-mentioned letter of 16 June 1942, that the
Argentine national and Jew mentioned in the “Reference,”
died on April 12 of this year in spite of copious medication
etc., etc.

What the considerations were which impelled the Commander of
the Security Police and the SD in the District of Cracow
when he informed the Representative at the Office of the
Generalgouvernement on 4 June, that this person, who was the
object of the enquiry, was to be sent to Auschwitz, and
whether he knew at that time that the person in question had
died, or whether he had merely looked into his files and
found out that the man had been detained, but he had the
intention, etc. – that was beyond the knowledge of the Head
Office for Reich Security. These are local matters of the

I informed the Foreign Ministry in accordance with the
truth of that which the office of the Generalgouvernement
had reported to the Head Office for Reich Security. Section
IVB4 was in this case, as in other matters, nothing but a
transmission-agent, for orders emanating from above
downwards, and for the provision of information from below
to those authorities which had requested this information.

Presiding Judge: This remark that he died in spite of having
received fortifying medication, was that also contained in
the information which you received from the

Accused: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, it must have
been included there, since otherwise the proceeding would
have been a mere figment of the imagination, but the matter
had to be documented – every bit of information had to be
documented at all times – therefore, this explanation must
have been the answer from the office in the
Generalgouvernement. It is unthinkable that it could have
been in any other way.

Judge Halevi: The file to which you are referring, was kept
at Auschwitz?

Accused: I assume that this matter never got to
Auschwitz, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: Where is the registration of this man’s
death? Did he not die in Auschwitz? Do you understand this
letter to imply that he did not die in Auschwitz but in the

Accused: Yes, Your Honour, it is this way: The Head
Office for Reich Security became apprised of these matters
only, let us say, around 16 June 1942, when it received the
letter from the Foreign Ministry. Then, a query was
addressed to the Generalgouvernement, surely, and it says in
that document No. 721 of 4 June. That means that as far as
the Commander of the Security Police and SD was aware, he
was then still in the Generalgouvernement. I gather from
this file, that this person must have died in the German
penitentiary in Tarnow.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to a discussion on a smaller
chapter, concerning the Jewess Cozzi. This includes exhibits
T/348 (document No. 744), T/349, T/350, T/351, T/352, T/353
and T/354. This is the course of events: The Jewess Cozzi,
widow of an Italian subject, requests that she be treated as
an Italian and be exempt from the measures taken against the
Jews. She endeavours to leave for Italy. The Italian embassy
intervenes in support of this, and the Foreign Ministry also
requests it. The Fascist Party also writes in support, but
her departure is nonetheless refused.

Witness, would you comment on this incident?

Accused: The communication in exhibit T/348 of 10
November 1942, indicates, in the first sentence, that “in
the course of the general evacuation measures in the Eastern
Occupied Territories, the Jewess Cossi has been transferred
to the Riga Ghetto.” That such transfer into the Riga Ghetto
of the above-mentioned Cozzi had actually taken place,
Section IVB4 could naturally only learn on the basis of a
report which has meanwhile been requested and submitted.
Exhibit T/792 submitted today, shows on page 4 that Himmler
had forbidden any release of Jews already ghettoized. This
prohibition was so strict on Himmler’s part that the Foreign
Ministry even considered whether it should not approach
Himmler in this respect officially, in order to obtain an
exception. Since Section IVB4 could not take a decision on
its own, expecially not in a case like this – in other cases
it deliberately refrained from taking decisions – at best
the Chief of Department IV could have approached the
Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police, on his own
initiative, in the case of the Jewess Cozzi, but I could not
have done so. And the Chief of Department obviously refused
and insisted on Himmler’s order being implemented.

Therefore, all interventions in the period from 10 November
1942 until 25 September 1943 were in vain, from whichever
quarter they may have come. On that day, Section IVB4,
acting upon instructions from the Chief of Department IV,
had to inform the Foreign Ministry that in view of the
change in the political situation in Italy, this Jewess
would now be transferred to a concentration camp.
Apparently, the Chief of Department IV had by now had enough
of the entire affair, and used this opportunity to close the
file in this manner.

Dr. Servatius: What was the attitude of the local
authorities in this area, Latvia, where Mrs. Cozzi was held
in detention, or in the ghetto?

Accused: The attitude of the local authorities, insofar
as this concerned the Security Police, was based on
Himmler’s order and was against release. The position taken
by the representative of the Foreign Ministry at the Office
of the Reich Commissioner for Eastern Occupied Territories,
is furthermore evident from the documents – that he
supported the position of the local offices of the Security
Police and the Security Service.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09