Session 082-04, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: The document referred to by the Accused has
not yet been submitted, document No. 815. I submit it as
evidence. It is a letter from SS Standartenfuehrer Knochen
to the Head Office for Reich Security, dated 13 January

Presiding Judge: I mark this N/40.

Dr. Servatius: It reads as follows:

“In consultations, Leguay, the representative of Police
Chief Bousquet, indicated that the Italian Government
had handed a note to President Laval, stating the
following: It did not object to the measures adopted by
the French Government in the newly-occupied zone with
regard to Jews of French nationality (marking identity
card, food stamps, etc.). However, it did object to
those measures adopted against Jews of foreign
nationality, that is to say, not only Italian Jews were
thereby being protected by Italy, but also all other
foreign Jews as well.”

More details follow on the difficulties, and then, at the
end, it says:

“If the Italians are now going to take sides for all
Jews with foreign nationality, that will make it
impossible to continue with the Jewish policy as
designed by us, i.e., it will not be possible to count
on Jews of French nationality being handed over to us
and deported in the coming months.”

I shall now omit various documents and come to document No.
819, which has not yet been submitted; I submit it to the
Court as evidence. This is another communication from SS
Standartenfuehrer Knochen in Paris to the Head Office for
Reich Security, SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, dated 2 February
1943. A secret report of the French police is being
transmitted, and the report indicates in detail how the
Italian authorities in the Maritime Alps district have taken
sides for the Jews, and how the Italians have prevented the
measures against the Jews. At the end, Knochen says: “I
would be grateful if the report could be submitted to the
Reichsfuehrer as soon as possible.”

Presiding Judge: I mark this N/41.

Dr. Servatius: T/610, document No. 723. This is a
communication from Ribbentrop’s staff to Himmler’s personal
staff, dated 24 February 1943. On page 2, paragraph 2, it

“Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs asks Reichsfuehrung
(Reich Leadership) SS for immediate notification of all
their wishes with regard to the Jewish Question in
Italy and the areas occupied by Italy, viz. southern
France – so that the wishes in question can be
discussed personally with the Duce in Rome, if
necessary. The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs asks
for these wishes to be indicated in full, in order to
be able, in an in depth discussion with the Duce, to
obtain a clear-cut, concrete conclusion.”

The next exhibit is T/611, document No. 724. This is a
communication from Ribbentrop’s personal staff to Legation
Counsellor von Sonnleithner in the Foreign Ministry. There
is a comment on the issue of Italy’s treatment of the Jews
in southern France. Under II it says:

“With regard to the treatment of the Jewish Question
outside Italy, the Reichsfuehrung-SS would urge that in
discussions there it be indicated that the Jewish
measures of the Head Office for Reich Security in newly-
occupied France and Greece should not continue to be
sabotaged by the Italian military commanders.”

Further down, it says that this is having a contagious
effect on Croatia, Serbia and the other countries in south-
east Europe.

Dr. Servatius: I now turn to exhibit T/612, document No.
961. I have omitted one document. This is a letter from
von Hahn in the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann, dated 25
February 1943, containing an urgent reminder of the need to
concretize the wishes of the Reichsfuehrung-SS with regard
to the Jewish Question in the areas occupied by Italy.
Witness, did you draw up a more concrete list of such

Accused: I did not draw it up. I received the documents
from the Head of Department IV, and it was my duty to copy
these documents into a report. And this report, which will
be the next exhibit, was circulated as the concrete
expression of the wishes of the Head Office for Reich
Security, after the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS
and Chief of the German Police had already indicated in
rough outline what such concrete ideas would be.

Dr. Servatius: The document to which the Accused is
referring is T/613, which is the next exhibit – document No.
962. In the reference it says: “Current discussions with
Eichmann.” The communication bears the signature “Mueller.”
The last sentence of the letter, on page 3, reads: “This
general attitude on the part of the Italians with regard to
the matter we are dealing with, contradicts totally the
demand the Fuehrer has made in all his speeches and

Judge Raveh: So who drafted this in the end?

Accused: In view of the fact that it was to be the basis
for a consultation, this letter…

Presiding Judge: You were asked who drafted this document.
On that there is a brief answer. You are not paying
attention to what I keep telling you.

Accused: I beg Your Honour’s pardon. I am simply trying
to explain things in detail. I keep making the same
mistake. I shall endeavour to explain briefly.

Judge Raveh: So who drafted the document?

Accused: It was drafted by my Department Chief, and then
I put it together and dictated it according to his
instructions, using the sentences he wished to include.

Judge Raveh: Who collected the details mentioned in the

Accused: I do not know, Your Honour. I must have
received these letters from my departmental chief, because
the first letter, for example, was sent by Himmler to
Ribbentrop, and I would not even have had a copy of it in my

Dr. Servatius: I shall omit exhibit T/456, and come now to
document No. 820. This has not yet been submitted. I
submit it in evidence.

This is a communication from Mueller to Knochen, dated 2
April 1943. Mueller had gone to Rome on instructions from
Himmler, where he discussed measures for the area occupied
by Italy with the German Ambassador and the head of the
Italian police, with particular reference to a police
official called Lospinoso.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/42.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, do you know why Mueller undertook
this journey in person?

Accused: Mueller had been dealing with all these problems
in person, on his own, so that he himself made the journey
to Rome.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to document No. 196. I do not
know whether it already has a T number. It might be T/481.

Presiding Judge: That is correct, Mr. Bodenheimer confirms
that – T/481.

Dr. Servatius: This is a letter from the Foreign Ministry,
signed von Thadden, dated 6 May 1943, to Eichmann. It

“In accordance with your wishes, the embassy in Rome
has been instructed to reopen discussions without delay
on the subject of the treatment of Jews and French
nationals in the areas of France recently occupied by
Italian troops. Ambassador von Mackensen should
intervene and meet the police commissioner in charge of

Witness, what do you know of these efforts related to Police
Inspector Lospinoso?

Accused: Mueller himself went to Rome in order to hold
negotiations with this Italian Police Chief, Lospinoso,
because the key problem of further deportations from France
was the Italians’ treatment of the Jews, as was ascertained
by the senior police officers dispatched to these areas in
order to inspect the situation. The aim of Mueller’s
discussions was apparently, as I have learned from the
files, for him to negotiate in person with Lospinoso, or for
Lospinoso to get together with the Senior Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in France, and hold
conclusive talks on these matters.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/485, document No.
1217. This is a communication from Standartenfuehrer Knochen
in Paris to Mueller, dated 28 June 1943. He is asking for
250 members of the Security Police, in order to supervise
the French police, as well as to be able to arrest as many
Jews as possible with German forces.

Witness, do you wish to state whether you were involved in
this matter and what action was taken on it?

Accused: As the documents prove, I was not involved as
initiator, but rather, this was the result of the initiative
of my superiors, those high and highest, not only in the
Security Police, but also in the Foreign Ministry, so that
the Senior Commander of the Security Police now suddenly
needed 250 men as reinforcement.

Dr. Servatius: A further exhibit, T/486, document No. 1218.
This reads – Mueller is writing to Knochen:

“The renewal of the action announced from your end is
very cheering news, particularly since the
Reichsfuehrer-SS has insisted recently on the
operations being speeded up.”

I turn now to the next volume of exhibits. First of all
document No. 717, which has not yet been submitted – the
first one in volume 19. This is a communication, signed by
Senner, to the Head Office for Reich Security, Group VIB,
dealing with the evacuation of the Cote d’Azur and the
search for Donati.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/43.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, this is signed “Senner.” Who is
this person, what is Group VIB? And where are these
instructions from?

Accused: The document is not available to me at the
moment, because I was not informed that it would be
discussed, but I can still reply. I do not know the name
Senner. VIB is Department VI in the Head Office for Reich

Dr. Servatius: That would be Department VI, the
intelligence department?

Accused: Department VI, Schellenberg. Espionage and

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/497, document No.
1520. This is a communication from Roethke in Paris to the
Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, dated 26 September
1943. Again this is about Donati, an Italian national, who
is being searched for – he is considered to have special

The question is, therefore, what did Section IVB4 have to do
with this search?

Accused: I became aware of this matter from the documents
during my imprisonment, I have no recollection of it. As far
as I am informed, Donati is a man who protected Jews and
prevented their being evacuated. Now, here the Senior
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service,
that is to say, his official dealing with it at IVB,
intervened, in order to be able to proceed here in co-
operation with Department VI.

Presiding Judge: The contents appear clearly from the actual

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/496, document No. 665.
This is a telegram from Eichmann to the Senior Commander of
the Security Police in France, and in the penultimate
paragraph it says: “Please investigate the matter and arrest
the Jew Golub immediately, and, if possible under the
directives, include him in an evacuation transport to the
East to collecting camp Auschwitz.” The communication is
addressed to Knochen, Senior Commander of the Security
Police in Paris.

Witness, according to this, were you able to issue orders
for such arrests?

Accused: Basically, I was unable to issue orders for any
arrests, unless I had received a corresponding command from
my chief. I no longer remember this particular instance –
what happened at that time. From the date, I can see that
at that time, in accordance with the orders issued by
Himmler, it was no longer possible, so that under these
orders the State Police had to intervene.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/454, document No. 715.
This is a minute from Roethke, of the Paris office, dated 16
September 1942. On page 1, item B, there is a plan for
arrest, and the document in general also contains the rules
for arresting rich and influential Jews, as well as
arresting those wearing the Star.

Witness, is this plan based on your instructions?

Accused: May I look at the document? I do not have it
before me. No, this was an internal matter of the office of
the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security
Service, and Department IVJ, as the Department of the Senior
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service is
acting here in accordance with the instructions of its
superior. It has nothing to do with the Head Office for
Reich Security.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit, T/455, document No. 37, is
yet another report from Roethke in Paris to Eichmann’s
office, dated 23 September 1942. This is a report about a
departing transport train, and in the last sentence at the
bottom it reads: “The brother of the former French Prime
Minister, Leon Blum, was also deported on today’s

Witness, this was someone well-known; who decided on the
deportation of Leon Blum’s brother?

Accused: When it came to well-known people, not even the
Head of Department IV would take a decision; he would also
have to obtain the relevant instructions, either from the
Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, or,
normally, directly from Himmler.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/464, document No. 253.
This contains enquiries regarding proof of residence for
persons receiving pensions. A Certificat de Vie is to be
issued, and the reply to the enquiry indicates that, for
reasons of principle, notification of this cannot be given,
and that the only information to be given is “moved –
address unknown.”

Witness, is this linked to the Nacht und Nebel (“Night and
Fog” [see Glossary]) decree which initially had special
application to France?

Accused: This matter had nothing to do with the “Night
and Fog” decree. It had a causal connection with the matter
dealt with here a few days ago – with regard to the
territory of the Reich, where Himmler wished that use be
made of the terms covered by the concept of “Sprachregelung”
(prescribed usage).

Dr. Servatius: Exhibit T/465, document No. 122. This is a
telegram from Eichmann to Knochen in Paris, which at the end
reads: “I would therefore ask for immediate information as
to the extent to which it will be possible to resume
transports of Jews from France early next year.
Possibilities for reception are available.”

Witness, are you pressing for this resumption?

Accused: I was not in a position of being able either to
press for such resumption, or to issue orders to stop such
operations. The only thing I was able to do was what my
Department Chief ordered me to do. This is dated 19
December 1942 – this was the time, as I have already had the
opportunity to explain in connection with another document,
when Himmler was exerting particularly great pressure, at
the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, so that here I no
doubt had received orders from Mueller to send this telegram
to Paris.

Judge Halevi: That was before the defeat at Stalingrad, was
it not?

Accused: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: These possibilities for reception – that was
Auschwitz, was it not?

Accused: Today, I would not dare to say whether it was
Auschwitz – it may have been the Generalgouvernement,
because after such a long time, I am…

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09