Session 084-06, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: In the first declaration, dated 12 June
1947, at the bottom, it says:

“In December 1943, Veesenmayer came to see me at the
legation and notified me that, by special order of the
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, he was asked to
visit the President of the Slovak State and negotiate
with him on further deportations of Slovak Jews.”

It then says that Tiso agreed. On page 2, first paragraph
at the top, it says:

“In the summer of 1944, as I remember – after having
been reminded of it – Veesenmayer asked me in writing
to make representations to the Slovak Government, in
order to prevent Hungarian Jews from entering Slovak

The second declaration is dated 6 October 1947. On the
fifth page, in the middle, it says:

“I can state that deportations of Jews in 1942 took
place by order of the Foreign Ministry. I myself
received the relevant assignment in 1942. I remember
that in the relevant instructions it said that the
Slovak Government was being required to deport the Jews
found on its territory. I transmitted this wish to
Tuka. At the beginning of 1942, some sixty thousand
Jews were deported from Slovakia to Poland.”

He continues:

“After the 1944 revolt, a further, larger number of
Jews was also deported. At that time there were still
some thirty thousand Jews here, as I discovered from
statistics. This latter expulsion of Jews went through
the Commander of the Security Police.”

Judge Raveh: Perhaps the Accused can tell us what was his
reply to von Thadden’s query in January 1945 about the
setting up of a refuge for children and the aged under the
protection of the Red Cross?

Accused: Your Honour, I no longer remember what my reply
was. I could not give an answer on my own initiative; I had
to obtain instructions from my Chief of Department. But
since – as the text here says – the German legation in
Slovakia had already adopted a definitive position, I can
well imagine that the instructions I received said “no
action to be taken”; that is what today I would imagine to
have been the case.

Dr. Servatius: I turn now to the chapter on Hungary. I
would first like to submit another diagram.

Witness, was this diagram drawn up in accordance with the
information you supplied, and is it accurate?

Accused: Yes, this diagram was also drawn up in
accordance with the information I supplied, and it is

Presiding Judge: I mark this diagram exhibit N/68.

Dr. Servatius: I would first submit document No. 563 – a
document not yet presented. It is a communication from the
Foreign Ministry, Luther, to the German legation in
Budapest, dated August 1942. Re: Treatment of Hungarian
Jews in the Reich and in the occupied territories.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/69.

Dr. Servatius: At the beginning it says:

“On the basis of notification from your end to the
effect that Hungary, according to a statement by an
influential source, has shown itself to have no
interest in Hungarian Jews living abroad, Jews of
Hungarian nationality in the Reich and in the occupied
territories are included in the anti-Jewish measures
decreed in the meanwhile.”

The Hungarian envoy makes a protest, and on page 2 it says:

“I explained to the Hungarian envoy that I would find
it difficult to accept his communication, since, in
accordance with the wishes of the Fuehrer, it was
crucial that we solve the Jewish Question in Europe as
soon as possible. I said that, as he no doubt knew, a
number of states, such as Slovakia and Croatia, had
indicated their agreement to the evacuation of all
Jews, and even the French Ggovernment was considering
implementation of appropriate measures in the
unoccupied zone.”

On page 2, point 3, in respect of a statement by Hungary, it

“If, however, Hungary were to create problems about
including its Jews in the German anti-Jewish measures,
it would thereby prevent the German authorities from
cleaning up German or occupied areas from elements who,
as things stand, must be considered to be wholly
unreliable and possessing extremely hostile attitudes.”

I shall skip the next passage; at the end it says:

“In this respect the Reich Government, which has in any
case accepted the entire burden of implementing all
measures as well as their psychological repercussions
in the areas concerned, considers that it is entitled
to some co-operation.”

Attorney General: Without wishing to detract from the guilt
of the Foreign Ministry in the annihilation of Jews, I must
nevertheless call the Court’s attention to the fact that
this is a draft – at least, that is what it says on the
document – and there is no indication that the document was
ever dispatched or received.

Dr. Servatius: That is quite correct. It is true that it
bears Luther’s signature, that is at the bottom, and there
is also an initial with a date, but whether the draft was
actually sent in this form is not clear to me.

Next exhibit – T/1137, document No. 1242. This is a
communication from the Foreign Ministry to the envoy in
Budapest, dated 14 October 1942. It concerns the Jewish
Question in Hungary. In the introduction it reads:

“In the meanwhile, I have made an oral presentation to
the Hungarian envoy of the points of view contained in
the communication of 8 October. The envoy asked that
we outline our wishes and proposals in this area
without delay, as he was leaving for Budapest on 18

Further down it says:

“I announced that an official demarche would be
instituted by us with his government, and for this
purpose I would ask for the Hungarian Government to be
notified that it is no longer possible to treat
Hungarian Jews in the Reich by way of exception.”

In the middle of page 2 it says:

“The problem of treatment of the Jews in Hungary itself
appears to be more difficult, but also more urgent. I
therefore request that the Hungarian Government be
informed of the reasons which motivate us, in
accordance with the wishes of the Fuehrer, to strive
towards an early and complete solution of the Jewish
Question in Europe, and that the Hungarian Government
be asked to proceed, for its part, with the requisite

On page 3 it says: “The goal in Hungary must therefore be:
1. To exclude Jews from economic life; 2. Marking; 3. To
prepare the expulsion and the deportation to the East.”

Next exhibit – T/1139, document No. 972. The Foreign
Ministry – Klingenfuss – informs Eichmann on 7 December 1942
on the situation of Jewish affairs in Hungary: legislation
and current status.

The next exhibit I would like to discuss is T/1145, document
No. 1021. This is a communication from Ambassador
Veesenmayer to the Foreign Ministry, dated 19 March 1944.
In it he reports that he has been instructed to replace
Ambassador von Jagow in Budapest. Jagow has been recalled,
and has taken his leave of the Regent “after informing him
of my appointment as Reich Plenipotentiary and Ambassador.”

Under 3 it says:

“I subsequently spent three quarters of an hour on my
own with the Regent, to whom I introduced myself and
whom I informed, that I had been instructed to set up
the new government with him. The general atmosphere of
this conversation with the Regent was a positive one.”

Next exhibit – T/1155, document No. 813, dated 20 March
1944. This is headed “Attendance List”; it is the outcome
of a consultation, and the names of those present are not
given. It says here “that Security Police IVB4 is
provisionally installed in the Hotel Astoria,” and then at
the end it says, “for reassurance it had been stated to the
Central Jewish Council in Budapest – everything is to remain
calm,” and at the end, there is the main point which leads
me to refer to this document: “Authority over the Jewish
Religious Community of Pest is to be wielded exclusively by
the Commander of Security Police IVB4, SS Sturmbannfuehrer
and Oberregierungsrat Trenker.” Before that it says: “In
case of complaints, refer to Krumey and Wisliceny.”

Witness, can you explain why you are not listed in this

Accused: The Senior Commander of the Security Police and
the Security Service had under his authority various
Commanders of the Security Police and the Security Service.
In the case of Budapest, the responsible commander was the
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service,
Obersturmbannfuehrer and Oberregierungsrat Trenker. I was
not a commander in Hungary; I had a operations unit, and so
I had no authority in the various areas of command, unless
authorization was granted by the Commander of the Security
Police and the Security Service.

Presiding Judge: And why is this reference made here to IVB4
for Trenker?

Accused: Because both the Commanders of the State Police
and the regional headquarters of the State Police had a
section with a corresponding department, or Section IVB4.
It all corresponded. That is to say, the Head Office for
Reich Security and the subordinate institutions. These
sections were not directly under the control of the Head
Office for Reich Security: They were under the independent
chiefs of the departments – in this case, the Commander of
the Security Police and the Security Service.

Presiding Judge: Was that also true of Hungary, that after
you made your appearance there, in addition to your
operations unit, there was another department there – a
Section IVB4 under the Commander of the Security Service?

Accused: Yes, indeed. This IVB4 existed not only under
the Commander, making it his office, his, but also under the
Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in

Dr. Servatius: I submit as evidence document No. 1124 –
communication from the office of the Reich Minister for
Foreign Affairs, signed by Envoy Ritter – or Ambassador
Ritter – to Reich Plenipotentiary Veesenmayer, dated 31
March 1944.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/70.

Dr. Servatius: This reads:

“For the Reich Plenipotentiary only: The Reich Minister
has learned that Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner
intends to be in Budapest within the next two weeks.
The Reich Minister would ask you in this connection to
report confidentially to the Reich Minister personally
on the assignments which Mr. Kaltenbrunner has been
given and carries out, apart from General Winkelmann
who is subordinate to you.” (General Winkelmann is the
Higher SS and Police Leader.) “Is he personally
dealing with arrangements for the Jewish Question, or
with other special matters? As previously, the Reich
Minister is still concerned that the Security Service
might try to interfere with the duties for which you
are responsible and with your authority, and would ask
you to pay particular attention to ensuring that this
does not happen.” Signed: Ritter.

I would like to submit another exhibit – document No. 372.
This is a communication from Veesenmayer to Ambassador
Ritter, that is, for the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
dated 14 April 1944. In the introduction it says:

“In a discussion yesterday, Sztojay gave me a firm
promise that by the end of April Hungary would make at
least fifty thousand able-bodied Jews available to the
Reich. Practical measures have already been started by
the action initiated on the part of the Security
Service and the Hungarian police.”

In the last sentence it says:

“As a result of these arrangements and other actions
already planned, it should be possible in May to make a
further fifty thousand labour Jews available to the
Reich, and at the same time to increase to 100,000, up
to 150,000, the number of Jews concentrated in labour
batallions in Hungary.” Signed: Veesenmayer.

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/71.

Dr. Servatius: I submit a further exhibit, document No.
216, not yet submitted. This is a notification by the
Foreign Ministry, von Thadden, to Veesenmayer, dated 20
April 1944. Contents: “Ordering of railway carriages and
timetable to be arranged by Eichmann’s Section – as soon as
final instructions are received from Obergruppenfuehrer

Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/72.

Accused: May I add some additional clarification?

Dr. Servatius: Please do.

Accused: This exhibit N/72 is dated 20 April 1944. It is
preceded by a communication from Veesenmayer to Ambassador
Ritter, to Ribbentrop’s office, document No. 675, dated 15
April 1944. There, in the last paragraph, it says:

“Shall agree on deportation details with
Obergruppenfuehrer Winkelmann, and may make another
report on this. However, request immdediatly urgent
instructions as to where in the Reich transport is to
be sent. Veesenmayer.”

Dr. Servatius: The exhibit to which the Accused is
referring is document No. 675. I now submit it as evidence.
It is a communication from Veesenmayer, dated 15 April, to
Ambassador Ritter, that is, to Ribbentrop’s office.

The next section reads:

“In reply to my demand made to Premier Sztojay, and
accepted by him, that by the end of this month fifty
thousand Jews be made available for labour in Germany,
today I received notification from the Honved Ministry
that five thousand Jews will be made available
immediately, and then every three to four days a
further five thousand will be provided, until the
figure of fifty thousand is attained.”

The last paragraph reads:

“Shall agree on deportation details with
Obergruppenfuehrer Winkelmann, and may make another
report on this. However, request as of now urgent
instructions as to where in the Reich transport is to
be sent.” Signed: Veesenmayer.

Presiding Judge: This exhibit is marked N/73.

Dr. Servatius: Next exhibit – T/1182, document No. 366. A
communication from the Foreign Ministry, von Thadden, to the
office of Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop,
dated 22 April 1944. It reads as follows:

“Finalized information from the Head Office for Reich
Security to the effect that the fifty thousand Jews
will be deported from Hungary for labour in closed
camps. Deportation, particularly timetable and
ordering of railway carriages, will be dealt with by
the Head Office for Reich Security.
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, who is himself in
Hungary, is receiving all the necessary instructions
today from the Head Office for Reich Security. Written
notification to the Foreign Ministry will be dispatched

The next exhibit…

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, could we interrupt the
proceedings here and adjourn?

Dr. Servatius: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Tomorrow the Session will start with the
submission of the depositions received from abroad, insofar
as these are testimonies of witnesses who are to be
considered as Prosecution witnesses. We shall then continue
with the examination-in-chief of the Accused.

The next Session will be tomorrow morning at 8.30.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09