Session 082-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: The diagram is an auxiliary means when
considering these matters. The names of those involved are
also given. The first documents show who initiated the
measures against the Jews in occupied France. The first
exhibit is T/385, document No. 440.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, a further query about this
diagram. I see the arrows indicate political efforts,
police efforts, and so on. Is this a diagram about efforts
or of the chain of command?

Dr. Servatius: I should imagine this means contacts with
the police, since the police authorities were not allowed to
issue orders. However, with the Court’s permission, I would
ask the Accused to answer the question himself.

Presiding Judge: Please do so.

Accused: For example, in France, Mueller was not allowed
simply to issue orders; the supreme authority was the
ambassador of the German Reich. Any police order – say,
from the Head Office for Reich Security to the Senior
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in
Paris – would only come into effect once the German
Ambassador had given his assent. That is why it could not
be called “channels of command.”

Presiding Judge: But, on the other hand, when we take Hitler
as Military Commander of France, these were not just efforts
– they were orders, and that is why this is not quite clear
to me.

Accused: That has not been made quite clear here, Your
Honour. Obviously, all authorities could issue orders. The
High Command of the Armed Forces obviously issued orders to
the Military Commanders of France, and the Foreign Ministry
issued instructions to the ambassador.

Presiding Judge: Very well. Thank you.

Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius, what does the remark in the
top left-hand corner mean,”35 – none…of the

Dr. Servatius: I have explained that already. These
figures were originally the numbers of explanations which at
that time – which now…

Judge Raveh: So that should also be deleted? What is at
the top should be deleted as well?

Dr. Servatius: I have not included all these explanations
to which reference is made here; but since the numbers were
already in the chart, it was not possible for me to have a
new diagram drawn up.

The starting point for the measures against the Jews is
exhibit T/385, document No. 440. This is a communication
from Ribbentrop to the Chief of the High Command of the
Armed Forces, dated 3 August 1940. This gives in detail the
duties of Ambassador Abetz. It reads: “The Fuehrer has
appointed the present envoy Abetz to be ambassador, and at
my suggestion has ruled as follows. His duties are…”

The main item is number 3: “Exerting influence on the
leading politicians in the occupied and unoccupied areas
along the lines desired by us.”

Under item 6 appears “Advising the Secret Military Police
(Feldpolizei) and Secret State Police on the seizure of
politically important documents.”

Item 7:

“Putting in safekeeping and making an inventory of
public art treasures, as well as of private, and
particularly of Jewish, owned art treasures on the
basis of special instructions to this effect.”

Paragraph II: “The Fuehrer has given explicit instructions
that Ambassador Abetz alone is responsible for dealing with
all political questions in both occupied and unoccupied

The next exhibit I shall submit is document No. 229 which
has not yet been presented. It is a short document, perhaps
I can read it out. “Supreme Commander of the Army, Chief of
the Military Administration in France, Administrative Staff,
Administration Department, 19 August 1940.” The text reads
as follows:

“In discussions on 17 August 1940, Ambassador Abetz
proposed that the Military Administration in France:

(a) decree that, with immediate effect, no more Jews be
allowed to enter the occupied zone;

(b) prepare to remove all Jews from the occupied zone;

(c) investigate the possibility of confiscating Jewish
property in the occupied zone.”

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/36.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit, which shows who are the
main instigators, is document No. 955, exhibit T/387.

Presiding Judge: Did I understand you to say T/387?

Dr. Servatius: Document No. 955, T/387. This exhibit,
T/387, is a letter from Luther (the Foreign Ministry) to the
Reichsfuehrer-SS, asking for his views on the query from
Otto Abetz about anti-Semitic measures, which would then be
used as a basis for removing Jews from France.

The next exhibit is T/388, document No. 86. This is a
communication from Heydrich to the Foreign Ministry, dated
20 September 1940. This is the first communication in which
the SS makes its appearance here, in this specific case
Heydrich. Heydrich accepts Abetz’ suggestions and asks for
the Sipo (Security Police) commandos in occupied France, who
have the requisite expert personnel, to be extensively
involved. Witness, which department drafted or issued this
communication? The reference at the top is S IVD6. Which
department is that?

Accused: This is a section in Department IV of the Head
Office for Reich Security. I believe that this section
handled occupied territories.

Dr. Servatius: Reference is made here to a commando which
exists in France. When was this commando employed in
operations, and what was its status? That has to be
especially stressed.

Accused: I no longer remember exactly what the situation
was; I only know that originally there was an operations
commando unit in France who, in course of time, became
commanders, with a senior commander in charge. I obviously
had nothing to do with France at that time, because
otherwise a different section would not have appeared at the
top of the letter.

Dr. Servatius: I shall omit the next document, which brings
me to T/394, document No. 1209. This is a letter from
Mueller of IVB4, dated 23 October 1941, to the Delegate of
the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Police for
Belgium and France. The full title appears here. It says:
“The Reichsfuehrer-SS has decreed that, with immediate
effect, the emigration of Jews should be prevented.”
Further down it says: “Only in very special cases, e.g.,
when a positive Reich interest exists, may the emigration of
individual Jews be permitted, after a prior decision has
been obtained from the Head Office for Reich Security.”

Witness, what is the meaning of “positive Reich interest”?
Please give an example.

Accused: It was my superiors who decided whether
something was a positive Reich interest. Mueller was the
immediate superior for that purpose. If I am not mistaken,
I believe that probably economic motives were always the
primary criterion in such instances.

Dr. Servatius: I would like to submit document No. 309,
which has not yet been presented. This is a telegram from
the German Ambassador in Paris, Abetz, to various offices,
dated 1 October 1940. It deals with Jewish matters,
nationality status.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/37.

Dr. Servatius: Ambassador Abetz is suggesting a collective
cancellation of citizenship for Jews. Until now, it was
possible to cancel citizenship only in the case of breach of
loyalty. This is where the legal foundation is taken from.
There are French-Belgian-Luxembourg laws which stipulate
that someone who does not remain loyal to the government can
be deprived of citizenship. However, now collective
cancellation of citizenship is to be carried out because of
race. Points 1 and 2 deal with former Austrian and Reich
German Jews and, at the end, it says: “The measure proposed
above should be considered as merely the first step towards
solving the overall problem.”

The next exhibit is T/389, document No. 1071. This is a
letter from Dr. Knochen to the Head of the Military
Administration, France. A further step is taken here: In a
decree dated 30 October 1940, the Reichsfuehrer-SS ordered
the setting up of special concentration camps for housing
the Jews living in the occupied territories.

Presiding Judge: That is to say, Jews who do not have French

Dr. Servatius: Precisely. On the next page it lists them:
Germans, former Austrians, Czechs, and Polish nationals –
i.e., all those who are now subject to German sovereignty.
Of particular importance is what appears at the bottom of
the second page:

“For all these reasons, I would propose that a
consultation be arranged between the various bodies
involved, as soon as possible, in order to arrive at a
solution to this problem as a part of the final
clearing up of the Jewish Question, which will follow
the lines of the Final Solution which both the Fuehrer
and the Reich Marshal wish.”

Witness, were you aware of these instructions, and did they
guide your further activities in France?

Accused: The measures referred to so far were not known
to me at that time, because otherwise I would have dealt
with them. But, naturally, they were the preliminaries, the
base, on which everything else was subsequently founded.

Dr. Servatius: I would like to submit another document,
445. This is a telegram from Abetz to the Foreign Ministry,
dated 3 April 1941. It refers to a discussion with the
Commissioner for Jewish Affairs in the Vichy Government.
Efforts are being made to distinguish between French Jews of
long standing and recent arrivals.

Presiding Judge: This will be N/38.

Dr. Servatius: This states in detail that a law should be
promulgated in order to step up pressure. At the end it
says: “The embassy has entrusted Embassy Counsellor
Zeitschel with the duty of liaison with the French
Commissioner for Jewish Affairs and the Jewish Affairs
Specialist of the Security Service in Paris.”

Witness, who was the Jewish Affairs Specialist Officer in
the Security Service in Paris?

Accused: The term should not be Security Service but
another technical one. What it means is the office of the
Plenipotentiary of the Chief of the Security Police and the
Security Service, who was subsequently the Senior Commander
of the Security Police and the Security Service. At one
point that was Dannecker, whose successor was a
Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Roethke. I do not believe there is
anything further – that is all.

Dr. Servatius: Did you, at that time, receive current
reports from Dannecker and give him instructions?
Accused: I was not able to receive reports directly from
Dannecker, nor to give him direct instructions. Dannecker
sent these reports through his superior by official channels
to Berlin, and I was able to act only by way of the Chief of
Department IV. Any other arrangement was impossible, in
accordance with the service regulations of Department IV.

Dr. Servatius: I would also submit document No. 441, which
has no T number as yet. This is a communication from
Department IVB4, signed by Schellenberg, apparently on
behalf of Mueller, dated 20 May 1941, to all State Police
Regional Headquarters, as well as to Knochen, and
subsequently to other agencies as well.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/39.

Dr. Servatius: On page 2, there is a reference to the Final
Solution. It says: “Emigration of Jews should be prevented
as indicated above, because otherwise this will complicate
emigration from other areas.” Further down it says: “In the
light of these facts, and in view of the Final Solution of
the Jewish Question which will definitely come about,
emigration of Jews from France and Belgium must be

Witness, what does the term “Final Solution” mean, as used

Accused: As the files show, at this point – 20 May 1941 –
the Final Solution means the Madagascar Plan.

Dr. Servatius: I shall omit several documents and come now
to T/404 – that is to say, document No. 113 – and T/403 –
document No. 54. T/403 is a memo from Dannecker, a minute
about the deportation of one thousand Jews to the East,
dated 10 March 1942. This shows that he is referring to the
urgent need to deport immediately the Jewish inmates of
Compiegne. The second document is also a minute from
Dannecker. In a letter dated the 10th, that is the same
day, he says that something positive really must be done –
such as deporting several thousand Jews.

How could these local offices make such suggestions to you?

Accused: In the documents omitted for the time being, the
reason appears quite clearly, they show how this sort of
thing could happen. Once high-level instructions had been
given to carry out deportations from France – as is shown by
those documents omitted – the Senior Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service was able, on his
own initiative, to press for emptying the concentrations
camps, since he had received approval in principle from
Himmler through Abetz, who obtained it.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/407, document No.
693.* {*Erroneously reffered to as document No. 690 on page
572, Volume II} This is a telegram from the Accused, dated
12 March 1942, to the Chief of the Security Police for
Belgium and France in Paris, for the attention of
Obersturmbannfuehrer Knochen. The text reads:

“Reference: Discussion on 6 March 1942 with Dannecker.
There is reason to think that, in addition to the one
thousand Jews from Compiegne who are to be deported,
probably on 23 March 1942, subject to the agreement of the
Foreign Ministry being obtained, in the near future a
further five thousand Jews will be deported to a
concentration camp.” Witness, would you comment on this
document and indicate the background leading up to these

Accused: Embassy Counsellor Zeitschel in Paris had made
notes for a presentation, which Abetz used when he visited
the Fuehrer’s headquarters. In these notes it says that the
Madagascar Plan was not a useful idea and should be dropped,
because it could only lead to problems. Zeitschel proposed
a territorial solution in the eastern countries. In this
context, he asked Ambassador Abetz to discuss the matter and
to clarify it with the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as well as with Himmler and Reich Marshal Goering. After
Abetz returned from the Fuehrer’s headquarters, he announced
that Himmler had authorized deportation of the Jews held in
French concentration camps as soon as transport facilities
permitted. On the basis of the information from Abetz, the
Senior Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Paris
then asked the Chief of the Security Police for permission
to proceed in accordance with these instructions – Himmler’s
instructions. What we see here are the consequences of
these orders issued at the top.

Dr. Servatius: At the end of the communication is an
indication as to those who are to be notified of the
departure of the transport. Three offices are mentioned:
firstly, the Head Office for Reich Security, Department
IVB4; secondly, the SS Leadership Head Office, Inspector of
Concentration Camps Gluecks in Oranienburg; and thirdly, the
Auschwitz concentration camp.

Would you please tell the Court why these three offices were
to be notified.

Accused: This was in accordance with orders from my
chief. IVB4 – that is, the section in the Head Office for
Reich Security – had to be notified of what was happening,
since I had to report to my chief about implementation of
his orders. Information to the Inspectorate of
Concentration Camps had also been ordered, for the attention
of Gluecks, because this was the office which decided which
concentration camp would receive these transports. And the
third place, the actual concentration camp, had to be
notified, so that it was aware that a transport train was on
the way. Those, then, were the reasons. In all cases it
was the Chief of Department who issued subsequent
operational orders as to what was to be done with the
individual transports, once IVB4 had submitted the document
from the Reich Transport Ministry containing the timetable.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09