Session 083-02, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit, T/561, is another
communication from Zoepf, dated 11 November 1943, about a
consultation on 10 November 1943 with the participation of
Eichmann, Hahnemann and Zoepf. It is a memorandum
concerning diamond dealers, workers and other specialists.
Significant here is point (e) on page 2; the final decision
is reserved to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, upon submission by the
Head Office for Reich Security.

The next exhibit, T/563, document No. 1352, is a
consultation the same day, again on the treatment of Jews –
this time in the presence of Higher SS Police Leader
Naumann. The plan of action is set out in a number of
points, of which point (c) is significant. It says there:
“According to a notification from SS Group Leader Gluecks,
the furriers etc. will be deported to Auschwitz on 13
November 1943.”

Witness, can you explain the authority of SS Gruppenfuehrer
Gluecks in this matter?

Accused: SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks was the Chief of
Office “D,” Inspection of Concentration Camp Matters, in the
Economic-Administrative Head Office. This document confirms
what I said once before, namely that it was not the Head
Office for Reich Security which determined the points of
destination and other details, but the Economic-
Administrative Head Office.

Dr. Servatius: Was there a particular reason why you
yourself travelled to Holland for this meeting?

Accused: Of all the points mentioned here, all I can
still clearly remember is the fact, or the impression, of
the diamond cutters; I do know that at the time there was a
lot of correspondence on that.

Dr. Servatius: You do not remember any special mission?

Accused: No doubt I had to ascertain the facts on the
spot in order to report them, because, as the text shows, I
could not myself make decisions.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/571, document No.
1439. This is a communication from Seyss-Inquart to Bormann
of 28 February 1944. Seyss-Inquart writes:

“We have resolved the Jewish Question in the
Netherlands to the extent that, for the moment, all
that remains is to enforce the existing regulations.
The Jews have been removed from the Dutch national
community, and insofar as they have not been deported
for forced labour in the East, they have been
concentrated in a camp.”

At the end of the paragraph, he says that the Jewish assets
have been seized and the Reich Minister of Finance is
dealing with that matter as well. The last paragraph on
the first page is significant:

“The question of Jews in mixed marriages is still open;
here we went further than the Reich and also obliged
these Jews to wear the Star.”

The next exhibit is T/535, document No. 223. It deals with
a specific case of emigration against payment of a
considerable sum. It is a communication from Eichmann,
dated 11 December 1942, to the Foreign Ministry. It says at
the end of the first paragraph: “When it is positively in
the interest of the Reich, it is intended, after
examination, to permit the emigration of some Jews.” I
refer to this document because yesterday the Accused was
asked about the “positive interests of the Reich” on the
matter – they are money matters. Page 2 mentions at least
100,000 S.Fr., but at the end, the specific case of
Professor Mayer, where 150,000 S.Fr. are being offered, is
refused, and that for a special reason – because he is an

Judge Halevi: Could the Accused perhaps explain this?

Accused: Your Honour, today I can no longer explain why
this application had to be refused at the time.

Judge Halevi: But it gives the explanation here. Because
he was an intellectual.

Accused: For professional reasons, except that I can no
longer remember what were the specific reasons why the
application was refused for those reasons.

Judge Halevi: But there is another letter, T/534,
Prosecution document No. 1484. This is the letter that you
mention, to which you refer, a letter dated 1 December 1942.

Accused: Attorney General’s number 1484, yes.

Judge Halevi: There it is explicitly stated: because he is
an intellectual. And this is what I am asking you to

Accused: Your Honour, today I cannot add to what I have
read here, because I no longer remember the actual case. It
says here that an intellectual is involved; hence, the
reason, the fact that an intellectual is involved was the
reason for the refusal.

Judge Halevi: Why? Can you explain why?

Accused: It was probably feared that, due to his mental
capacity, this man might cause harm abroad, that is what I
imagine. I myself could not, after all, decide. I would
never have had the authority on my own account to refuse the
offer of 150,000 S.Fr. Those things had to be decided at
the top where these misgivings were certainly put forward.

Judge Halevi: All right.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/538, document No.
1351. This is a statement by Harster, who has been
mentioned several times already, dated November 1947, which
is after the War. It is an interrogation by the Dutch
police. The subject is the removal of mentally ill persons
and the clearing of a mental hospital. At the bottom of
page 2 it says in the German text:

“After a consultation with Seyss-Inquart, Rauter
apparently decided to convert the said institution into
an SS hospital. Due to the technical difficulties
connected with clearing the said institution, my
department, through the agency of Zoepf, got in touch
with Eichmann in Berlin. Eichmann then gave the order
that the said institution must be cleared completely.
For this purpose he ordered a train with 25-26
carriages, in which the patients were to be
transported. The order to clear the institution, along
with the transportation of the patients, I got from
Eichmann. I acquainted Aus der Fuenten, via Zoepf,
with this order, and it was carried out by one of

Would you state your position whether this testimony here by
the witness Harster is correct?

Accused: This testimony by Harster cannot be correct, for
the following reasons: If the Higher SS and Police Leader
Rauter in the Occupied Dutch Territories decided with the
highest authority in the Occupied Dutch Territories of that
time, Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, to convert this
institution into an SS hospital, and if a tour of inspection
preceded that, then these persons, who themselves introduce
legislation, have no need of the services of a Specialist
Officer in the Head Office for Reich Security to order the
clearing of an institution such as this. Rather it must be
that – and it could only be like that – that Rauter, or else
Seyss-Inquart, commanded the evacuation, and then a train
was ordered through the Commander of the Security Police and
the Security Service, and my Section, as in all other cases,
had to obtain such a train and fix the timetable in
conjunction with the Reich Ministry of Transport. That is
how it was; it could not have been otherwise.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit has not yet been submitted;
its police number is 594. I offer the exhibit as evidence.
It is a minute from Luther of the Foreign Ministry, dated 10
August 1942, for State Secretary Weizsaecker. It, too,
deals with Dutch nationals who are Jews.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/47.

Dr. Servatius: The first page is significant:

“On the subject of deprivation of Dutch nationality,
Group DIII was less concerned with excluding the
protecting power than with the principle of the matter,
namely adaptation of the German legislation concerning
Jews, clarification of the legal position of assets,
etc. It is immaterial for the planned deprivation of
nationality if a Jew in question left the country
voluntarily or was resettled, so that also in the
numerous cases of voluntary emigration there is a basis
for an unambiguous arrangement. Deportation is
generally to the Eastern Occupied Territories which do
not belong to the Reich.”

This ends the chapter of Holland. I now come to that of
Belgium; this is list No. 25. To start with, I submit a
chart which is more like an illustration of the chain of

Presiding Judge: I mark this chart N/48.

Dr. Servatius: The first exhibit here is T/516, document
No. 1072. This is a communication from the office of the
Foreign Ministry in Brussels, signed by Ambassador Bargen,
to the Head Office of the Ministry in Berlin. It shows the
co-operation between the different departments. In the
first paragraph it says: “According to instructions, I spoke
to the Military Commander, the Head of Military
Administration and the Chief of the Security Police, about
the deportation of the Jews residing in Belgium, as a result
of which the following picture emerges.” It then says that
this has been temporarily discontinued. Then, at the end,
in the last paragraph, it says: “Upon the resumption of
deportations, it is also intended to remove all Jews of
Belgian nationality, who number about four thousand.
However, their turn shall only come after all foreign Jews
have been deported.” The last sentence reads: “Hence, the
intentions of the military administration would seem to be
in agreement with the wishes over there.”

The next communication is exhibit T/518, document No. 701.
It is a communication from the Foreign Ministry in Berlin to
the office of the Foreign Ministry in Brussels, dated 27
February 1943. It says:

“The introduction of the general measures against the
Jews is being effected by the local representative of
the Security Service. The Foreign Ministry informs the
Head Office for Reich Security in every case when there
are no reservations as regards the application of the
general anti-Jewish measures to foreign nationals.”

The next exhibit is T/512, document No. 753. Ambassador
Bargen from the office of the Foreign Ministry in Brussels
writes to the Ministry in Berlin on 9 July 1942:

“The military administration intends to implement the
requested evacuation of ten thousand Jews. The chief
of the military administration is now at Headquarters,
in order to discuss the matter with the Reichsfuehrer-

A little further on it says:

“The military administration believes, however, that it
can overcome its reservations if the deportation of
Belgian Jews is avoided. Hence, to begin with, Polish,
Czech, Russian and other Jews will be selected, with
whom the quota could theoretically be filled.”

Presiding Judge: Is there an explanation why the military
administration was so active particularly in this country?
I believe we did not see anything like this in other

Dr. Servatius: A careful reading of it shows that there is
always some slight objection and dragging of feet. In
Belgium these measures were carried out comparatively late,
but even so, in the end there is co-operation and the answer
is “yes,” and there is agreement. This will be shown in the
next document which I am about to submit.

This is document No. 761, which has not yet been submitted.
I offer it as an exhibit. It is a communication from the
Foreign Ministry in Berlin to the office of the Ministry in
Brussels. In the second paragraph on page 1 it says:

“Since today the Jews still remaining in Belgium
disregard the orders of the Military Commander and,
moreover, employ every means to blur their Jewish
character, crawl into hiding places which are hard to
clean out, and finally, since the first intimations
have already come to light about the participation of
these Jews in active resistance to the occupying power,
then quick and energetic action should prevent the
expansion of this danger area.”

It is Luther of the Foreign Ministry who is so insistent, as
emerges from the next paragraph:

“I would therefore request to consider, in agreement
with the Military Commander, the possibility henceforth
to extend the measures taken to all Jews in Belgium,
and to concentrate them in an assembly camp until the
transports can be carried out.”

One more sentence from the last paragraph: “A thorough
cleansing of Belgium from Jews must, in any event, take
place sooner or later.” This is followed by reasons, which
are set out in detail.

Presiding Judge: I mark this letter from Luther exhibit

Dr. Servatius: This ends the chapter of Belgium. I now
come to that of Denmark, list No. 26. Here, too, I submit a
chart for the chain of command, and I repeat my comments on
the preceding chart as regards numbers and lines. There are
some peculiar marks at the top of the chart, small wavy
lines on both sides of the specialist officers. These were
probably made by the draughtsman, and someone then copied
them. They are meaningless and can be deleted.

Presiding Judge: I mark this document N/50.

Dr. Servatius: I have considerably shortened the list of
documents. I now come to T/585, document No. 251. This is
a statement by Dr. Mildner, Commander of the Security
Police, of 22 June 1945. It deals with the operation
against the Jews in Denmark and how it came about… I have
the handwritten document in front of me. It says there:
“Dr. Best explained to me” – Dr. Best is the commander…

Presiding Judge: On what page, please?

Dr. Servatius: On the second handwritten page.

Dr. Best is the authorized representative of the Reich. “He
explained to me that Reich Minister Ribbentrop naturally
knew Hitler’s intention to exterminate the Jews in Europe.
He reported to Hitler about the Jewish Question in Denmark
and proposed to remove the Jews from Denmark.” Then, at the
bottom of page 5 it says: “To implement the operation, the
Reichsfuehrer-SS, Himmler, had the Eichmann Special
Operations Unit, which was under the direct command of Chief
of Department IV, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, sent from Berlin
to Copenhagen.”

Witness, would you state whether you sent such a operations
unit to Copenhagen, or had been there yourself, and who had
given the order?

Presiding Judge: It further says here: “This operations
unit chartered two ships in which to deport the Jews.”

Dr. Servatius: Witness, would you state your position?

Accused: Yes. That is correct. Sturmbannfuehrer
Guenther, with some men from the Section, was dispatched to
Copenhagen. They were dispatched at the order of the Chief
of Department IV, Group Leader Mueller. I very much doubt
that this operations unit was called Eichmann Special
Operations Unit at that time, because that term came up in
Hungary for the first time. However, in the year 1945
several members of the Security Police and the Security
Service for some reason or other had got into the habit of
frequently calling these matters of IVB4 Special Operations
Units. I am not aware that at that time it was called
Eichmann Special Operations Unit. It is also correct that
it was Guenther’s task to make the transportation
arrangements, and it is correct that according to orders he
chartered, I am not sure whether two or three, steamers for
this purpose, and it is also correct that the timetable on
the mainland was worked out by IVB4. It is not correct,
however, that Guenther was responsible for the entire
operation. This is proved by Prosecution document No. 757,
T/586, where it says: “The operation against the Jews in
Denmark was uniformly under the command of the Commander of
the Security Police and SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mildner,
who gave all the orders for its implementation.” That is my
reply to this question. I forgot to answer the other part
of the question. I, too, was ordered to travel to
Copenhagen. That took place after the operation, and the
order I was given in that respect will appear from documents
that will be dealt with later on.

Judge Halevi: There is one more sentence in this document.
It says: “Eichmann told me that Hitler and Himmler were
absolutely furious about the failure of the operation.”

Accused: Please, was this in Mildner’s statement or in
the document?

Judge Halevi: Yes, in Mildner’s statement, at the top,
written by hand and difficult to read.

Accused: My last page, number 7, ends with the sentence,
“because the operation against the Jews in Denmark was a
complete failure” and is not continuing.

Judge Halevi: Please continue there and go on reading.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09