Session 083-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 83
16 Tammuz 5721 (30 June 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the eighty-third Session of the
trial open. The Accused continues his testimony. I draw
the Accused’s attention to the fact that he is still
testifying under oath.

Accused: Yes, I am aware of it.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I am not
returning to the chapter of France, but am now coming to
that of Holland. I should first like to submit Reitlinger’s
book, The Final Solution (“Die Endloesung”). One of the
charts refers to it.

Presiding Judge: I shall mark this book with initials.

Dr. Servatius: I submit a chart for the chapter on Holland
which the Accused drew up on this subject some time ago.
The lines are less important, since they belong to a text
without which they are difficult to understand, but it
provides a survey of the departments with their names.

Presiding Judge: I mark the chart N/45.

Dr. Servatius: The first exhibit is T/526, document 1355.
This is the draft of a report by the commissioner general
who is the general in charge of security, the Higher SS and
Police Leader Rauter, to the Reich Commissioner – that is
Seyss-Inquart. This Higher SS and Police Leader was at the
Ministry of the Interior and there spoke to the Ministerial
Counsellor, Dr. Loesener. Here he reports that he had been
told the following. I quote:

“The most extreme advocate for the intention to
intensify the Regulations for Blood Protection
(Blutschutz), and in particular to consider half-Jews
as Jews, was Senior Government Counsellor, Reischauer,
of the Party Secretariat in Munich.”

At the bottom of the page it says: “Sturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann from the Head Office for Reich Security closely
collaborates with Reischauer.” There is an addition in

“Eichmann has set up the Central Office for Emigration
in Vienna and Prague and conducted the deportation of
Jews from Stettin to the Generalgouvernement.
Eichmann, too, strongly favours the revision, though he
is considerate in matters of form.”

On the second page, in the penultimate paragraph, it says:

“If the communication from the Commissioner General in
Charge of Security of 18 August 1941 mentions
`departmental discussions by the highest Reich
authorities,’ then this was an error, because so far
there had been only oral discussions, there has been
nothing in writing as yet. Reischauer himself had
spoken merely of a `loose working arrangement.’ No
specific opinions by the Department had been demanded
by Reischauer and Eichmann.”

Attorney General: We have a Hebrew translation here of this

Interpreter: This time we have not even got the original
documents about Holland.

Attorney General: The material arrives late from the
archives, and therefore it is difficult for us to supply the
whole sets of copies all at once.

Presiding Judge: See to it that tomorrow these translations
will be supplied before the start of the session. They are
not required at the moment.

Attorney General: We shall do so.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you heard what was said about you;
would you state whether this is correct? What can you state
about these events? There is one more thing I should like
to mention: This is a communication from Rauter, the Higher
SS and Police Leader, which is neither signed nor has a

Accused: While reading this file, I detected a number of
factual inaccuracies, one of them in the first paragraph on
the second page, where it says:

“Some time ago the Head Office for Reich Security
called for a consultation, to which Counsellor
Feldscher of the Ministry of the Interior was
dispatched. The subject of the consultation was the
prohibition of marriage in the Netherlands.”

When I read this sentence, I began to wonder, because as far
as I can remember, and to the extent that my memory was
reinforced by all those other documents, the first time
Feldscher had been in the office building – where, amongst
others, also Section IVB4 was housed – was after the Wannsee
Conference, namely on 6 March 1942. I then looked at the
date of this entry – 19 September 1941 – that was when I
began to examine this communication critically. Then, right
away, on reading the first paragraph, I began to have my
doubts. [It says:] “As instructed, I discussed the matter
on 16 September 1941 in Berlin in the Ministry of the
Interior. The Specialist Officer Loesener told me the
following.” That is when I told myself that this, too, is
impossible, because the position of a Higher Police Leader
implies that, when in Berlin, he would not go and report to
a specialist officer and sit down and discuss the matter
with the specialist officer. Instead, if he were already
discussing it in the ministry, he would do so with a chief
of department, at the very least; in case of doubt, he would
certainly discuss it with the State Secretary.

I read on and saw that, in the occupied territories, there
was to be a revision of who was to be considered a Jew.
When I took the relevant document, I saw, too, that what was
being discussed here had been a consultation in the Ministry
of the Interior on 30 January 1942, at which Loesener and
also Reischauer had taken part, and when it says,
furthermore, “because Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann works
with Senior Government Counsellor Reischauer,” this is
correct insofar as Reischauer also took part in the various
discussions which had been ordered. However, there can be
no question of close collaboration, because Reischauer put
forward the point of view of the Party Secretariat, and
these discussions in which Reischauer participated generally
dealt with legal matters, as can be seen from the documents.

Here, too, I was hardly in a position to offer my opinion,
since this matter was being worked out and decided upon by
the jurists. And then, when I saw that the communication is
neither signed nor has a letter heading, I said to myself,
this communication is peculiar in more than one sense.

To sum up, I have to say that what is written down here is
not correct.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to exhibit T/523, document No.
1627. This is a communication from the Foreign Ministry,
signed by Rademacher, to Mueller, of 5 September 1943. It
deals with the intervention by the Swedish Ambassador, and
with the attitude towards reprisals, such as in incidents in
the Netherlands where 660 Jews were deported as reprisals.
The last paragraph on the last page is significant for the
presentation of the case.

“In principle, the Foreign Ministry shares the view of
the Head Office for Reich Security and, on its part,
supports the reprisal measures against the Jews for
being the authors of the disturbances.”

Next, I present document 615 which has not yet been
exhibited. It has already appeared as T/37…

Presiding Judge: I hear it is T/37(212).

Dr. Servatius: This is a communication from
Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police Rauter in The
Hague to Senior Commander of the Security Police Harster,
also in The Hague. It does not give the name here, but he
is the Senior Commander of the Security Police. The
communication is dated 18 August 1942.

Presiding Judge: I mark this document N/46.

Dr. Servatius: The first sentence says:

“In yesterday’s meeting of commanders, I brought up the
subject of not deporting the Christian Jews.”

Further on, in the lower half of the communication, it says:

“The Reich Commissioner, i.e., Seyss-Inquart,
immediately interrupted me and explained that he had
made no declaration whatsoever that Christian Jews were
not to be evacuated, and that he is definitely of the
view that, after all other Jews have been deported,
also the last Christian Jews should be transplanted to
the East at the first politically suitable

The next exhibit is T/531, document No. 1496. This is
another communication from the Higher SS and Police Leader
to Himmler, this time dated 24 September 1942. It is an
interim report about the deportation of Jews. In the first
paragraph it says:

“Until now, together with the Jews deported to
Mauthausen as punishment, we have sent off twenty
thousand Jews to Auschwitz.”

Further on it says:

“However, in agreement with the SS Commissioner, I am
deporting also all the Jewish partners of mixed
marriages, insofar as no children have issued from
these mixed marriages. This will involve about six
thousand cases, so that about fourteen thousand Jews
from mixed marriages will remain here for the time

It goes on to mention a “Werkverniminglager”* {*Dutch for:
cleaning-up the work camp} and he says that the Jews were
permitted to flee to that place, so as to have them
assembled there. He goes on to say – the last words at the
bottom of the first page:

“On 1 October, the Werkverniming camps are suddenly
going to be occupied by me, and on the same day the
relatives outside will be arrested and put into two
large, newly-created Jewish camps in Westerbork.
Instead of two trains each week, I shall try to obtain
three. These thirty thousand Jews are going to be
deported from 1 October onwards. I hope that by
Christmas we shall also be rid of these thirty thousand
Jews, so that altogether fifty thousand, which is half,
will have been removed from Holland.”

Also the last paragraph on this page is of significance: “On
15 October Jewry in Holland is going to be outlawed.” I am
omitting some of the text; then a new sentence: “Every Jew
met with anywhere in Holland will be put into the large
Jewish camps.” Then follow observations about the
confiscation of assets.

The next exhibit is T/543, document No. 589. This is a
letter from Zoepf, the Senior Commander of the Security
Police. He writes on 27 April 1943 to IVB4 in Berlin. I
should like to draw attention to the fact that the heading
has the same file number, and that one needs to make sure
each time whether it is the Commander of the Security
Police, one of the offices, or the Department in Berlin.
Also, in the other countries, the file numbers were brought
into line; the same applies to the other official files.
The letter states the position as regards the evacuation of
Jews. Point 4 on the second page is important for the
presentation of the evidence. It says there that “the Vught
camp will soon be filled even more by reducing the Jewish
Council and by the “Armament Jews” (Ruestungsjuden). The SS
Head Office, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Maurer, intends to put up
an armaments industry there at first.”

Witness, what is this Head Office, Obersturmbannfuehrer
Maurer, and what has it got to do here with Jewish matters?

Accused: The other files show that this
Obersturmbannfuehrer is from the Economic-Administrative
Head Office – that same Head Office which had control over
the concentration camps. Instead of Head Office, it should
really read Economic-Administrative Head Office, abbreviated
to Head Office E. and A. (V. und W. Hauptamt). It was
probably for the sake of brevity that the writer of this
letter called it “SS Head Office.” In reality, the SS Head
Office is quite a different office, and this SS Head Office
had no Obersturmbannfuehrer Maurer, nor had the SS Head
Office anything to do with camps. The reference here is,
doubtless, to a concentration camp that had been put up in
order to work for the armaments industry.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/544, document No.
1356. This is another communication from Harster, the
Commander of the Security Police, to the Central Office for
Emigration of Jews, Camp Westerbork, of 6 May 1943. It
says: “On the basis of the last directive from SS
Gruppenfuehrer Rauter and the consultations conducted with
the representative of the Head Office for Reich Security,
the following operations are to be carried out for the
handling of Jews within the coming months.”

And further on:

“Point 1. The Reichsfuehrer-SS wishes to have as many
Jews transported to the East this year as is humanly

Witness, were you the representative of the Head Office for
Reich Security, or do you know who was?

Accused: Today, I can no longer say with any certainty
whether the reference was to me or someone from another

Dr. Servatius: I refer only to the last sentence in the
communication, still on the third page. He writes:

“I request that the preparations necessary for these
operations within the framework of the local competence
not be neglected, despite the current political
situation. Most important: Detailed orders will be
given from here in due course.”

The next exhibit is T/554, document No. 591. This is a new
list, list No. 23. It reports on a consultation at the Head
Office for Reich Security. The communication is dated 9
July 1943. I refer to the bottom of page 3, paragraph 1:
“Taking along of assets by those being returned.” It says
there: “No general decisions will be made by the Head Office
for Reich Security as regards these assets.” And at the end
of the paragraph: “The Reich Commissioner shall himself
decide on matters of property.”

On page 5, in further proof, it says about a consultation
with Guenther: “It had already become known in the Head
Office for Reich Security, through radio reports transmitted
from London, that in the Netherlands the Jewish partner of
mixed marriages is being sterilized.” I am leaving out a
few lines. It goes on to say: “Guenther was very surprised
that this had already been commenced, without the knowledge
of the Head Office for Reich Security.”

The next document No. is T/556, document No. 463. This is a
communication from Dr. Harster, the Commander of the
Security Police, to the Reich Commissioner, that is Seyss-
Inquart’s office, and there to the representative of the
Foreign Ministry with Seyss-Inquart.

The first paragraph is important. It says: “The Reich
Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories decided, in
agreement with the Reichsfuehrer-SS, that the Jews in the
Netherlands who live in mixed marriages, with and without
children, will be exempted from wearing the Yellow Star,
upon proof of their infertility.” This points to close
collaboration; that is to say, it reveals the close co-
operation of these offices.

The next exhibit is T/559, document No. 606. This is a
communication from Eichmann to the Commander of the Security
Police in the Netherlands. Naumann has now replaced
Harster. The communication mentions “accommodation
passports” which have arrived from abroad, and the last page
but one mentions censorship of letters.

Witness, yesterday you said in connection with the
Theresienstadt camp that you had nothing to do with the
supervision of postal matters. Would you explain how it is
that you were involved in this matter here?

Accused: In this instance, such a preventive measure was
of importance to the state. The date – 5 November 1943 –
and the proximity of Holland to England, the enemy at that
time, were the motivating forces behind those preventive
measures. While such dangers did not exist in the
Protectorate, situated, as it was, in the heart of the Reich
of that time, they definitely existed here; hence the Head
Office of the Reichsfuehrer was obliged to adopt such a

To clarify this further, I should finally like to mention
that the whole subject of foreign censorship was brought to
the attention of the Head Office for Reich Security through
the official channels, no doubt via Department VI –
Espionage and counter-espionage – and accordingly, in the
end, had to be dealt with by Department IV.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09