Session 085-03, Eichmann Adolf

“As for the words I used in testifying about Eichmann’s
statement that he was wanted as a war criminal, I
should like to add the following explanation: It was
said that at that time the BBC was already reporting
who on the German side was considered by the Allies as
a war criminal; a list of these persons was being drawn
up and constantly updated, for use in later criminal
proceedings against such war criminals. Dr.
Kaltenbrunner had also once made the same sort of
comment, i.e., that he was considered as a war criminal
by the Allies. I do not know where Eichmann found out
that he was on such a list of top war criminals.”

Page 62:

“This conversation, including the first part where I
informed Eichmann about the situation at the front,
went on probably, as far as I remember, for more than
an hour, during which Eichmann drank at least four or
five large brandies, if not more. The reason why I
remember this fact so precisely is that, when I said
goodbye to Eichmann, I asked him expressly not to drive
his car himself. However, he did not give the
impression of being drunk. In fact, I believe that at
this time Eichmann was drinking a great deal all the
time; in any case, there was quite open talk about that
in German police circles in Budapest.

“I cannot give any details as to where Eichmann was
going on his journey, or what his assignment was; I can
only repeat that he said to me that he was leaving for
Romania, which seemed to be confirmed by the fact that
he was in battledress. I cannot state exactly when
Eichmann’s visit took place – at least not to the day.

“Despite the fact that when we were having this
conversation Eichmann was in a very bad psychical state
and drank a fair amount of alcohol in a short time, I
did not have the impression that the figures Eichmann
gave me were the result of something he had suddenly
invented, but that he himself was, subjectively
speaking, convinced that the figures were correct.

“In reply to a question as to whether in this context I
heard Eichmann use the term ‘six million murdered
Jews,’ I should like to state that this term ‘murdered’
was one which I used, while, as far as I remember,
Eichmann used an expression such as ‘exterminated’ or
‘liquidated’ Jews.

“I have no way of knowing how Eichmann arrived at these
figures of Jews murdered, and he also gave me no
indications whatsoever about this.

“Then, on Question 26: These are the concluding
sentences of a television interview which, as far as I
remember, I gave in March of this year to the North
German Radio. I therefore answer in the affirmative.”

“On 27 and 28: I answer both questions in the

Attorney General: Perhaps I might request, in order to
clarify things, that the questions be read out?

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could quickly read them out?

Attorney General: [Reads ]: “Did you recently say the
following about Eichmann: `I met him’ (Adolf Eichmann)
`again in Budapest in 1944. He was that Eichmann who sent
hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews to the extermination
camps, following orders without scruples, just as he had
done previously in Vienna in 1938-1939. I think the best
way of describing Eichmann’s role would be to call him the
Big Forwarding Agent of Death’?”

Judge Halevi: And what was his reply?

Attorney General: That that was correct.

Presiding Judge: He said this in a broadcast interview.

Attorney General: In a television interview.

Presiding Judge: Recently?

Attorney General: Yes. And then Question 27: “Do the
affidavits you made on 5 November 1945 and 25 November 1945
to the American authorities conform to the truth?” The
reply is in the affirmative.

Interpreter: [continues Hoettl’s statement]:

“As to Questions 27 and 28: I answer both questions in
the affirmative.

“As to whether the last sentence, quoted in the request
for legal assistance of the District Court of
Jerusalem, of your affidavit applies to Eichmann’s
activities generally or only to his activities in
Hungary specifically, I have the following to say:…”

Page 65:

“As can be seen from my statement so far, it was only
in Hungary that I was able to observe deportations of
Jews with my own eyes, and to ascertain who was
responsible for them. My statement at Nuremberg at the
time is therefore primarily based on Eichmann’s
activities in Hungary, but in the first months of
captivity I discovered in the meantime that Eichmann
had been active in other occupied countries in a
similar manner.”

Attorney General: I should be grateful to the Court if the
questionnaire could also be attached to the record of the
examination and be made a part of it, because otherwise it
is often difficult to understand the answers.

Presiding Judge: Yes, of course, the questionnaire which was
dispatched by this Court, and is therefore part of the
record. That is clear.

I suggest that we now turn to Huppenkothen’s testimony. Dr.
Servatius, is there anything in this statement you wish to

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I was only able to glance
through it yesterday evening. I would ask the Court to
allow me, if it should prove necessary – just with regard to
the credibility of the witness – to raise some further
points. I have not so far managed to examine it from this
point of view. While it was being read out now, I did not
have this document in front of me. I have only read it
through, and my impression was that there is nothing I need
to bring up, but possibly, when I read it carefully…

Presiding Judge: You are speaking about Hoettl, are you not?
Very well, if you wish to add anything, you are at liberty
to do so. There will not be any problem.

I was referring to Huppenkothen, Dr. Servatius. Have you
read it yet?

Dr. Servatius: As far as the other documents are concerned,
there is no such objection. I have read them thoroughly.

Presiding Judge: What I was asking was whether you wish to
emphasize anything in particular in Huppenkothen’s
statement? Do you want to read anything out for the record?
Once again, I would stress that the entire statement is an
integral part of the record of these proceedings, and I now
mark this statement II.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, perhaps I could just indicate
the passages which appear to be of importance for the

Presiding Judge: Certainly. Please proceed.

Dr. Servatius: The record dated 19 June 1961. Court of
First Instance, Cologne.

Presiding Judge: If you could give the first words of the
passage in question?

Dr. Servatius: Certainly.

On page 3:

“On 3: It is true that the Chief of Department IV,
Mueller, saw to it that the provisions on preserving
secrecy be strictly observed” – to the end of the page.
Then on page 6: “On 8: It is true that generally
Mueller dealt directly with the Heads of Sections.”

Presiding Judge: The whole of this paragraph?

Dr. Servatius: Almost to the bottom of page 6, with the
last line: “for nobody at all to be in an intermediate
position between him and the Section Heads.”

On the next page:

“On 9: When in the affidavit I made at the time I said that”
to “particular position.” And at the bottom of the same
page, “On being questioned by the prosecution: If it is
true” until the next page.

“If it is true” and on page 8, to the end of the first
paragraph: “I can even state positively that he was not in
fact in an exceptional position.”

Then page 8, on 10, the first sentence: “It is true” to
“without the knowledge of the specialist officer

Then page 9, on 12: “Mueller often insisted on deciding
himself” to the middle of the following paragraph: “The
result of his behaviour was a considerable restraint on the
departments under his control” – up to there.

Then page 10, on 13, the last paragraph: “The individual
Section Heads were not permitted” to ” would have been
required for that.”

Then the last passage, page 15: “On 15: in Lublin” to “as
his own preserve” – the first sentence.

The Defence does not wish to refer to any other passages.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, what do you have to say to

Attorney General: We have marked the passages in red.

Presiding Judge: [To the interpreter] Translate, please.


“Walter Huppenkothen, employee, 53 years of age, Koeln-
Weidenpesch, Theklastr. 14.” Negative reply to the
other questions. “I worked in the Head Office for
Reich Security. The Head Office for Reich Security was
the highest authority of the Security Police. The
original Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security
was Heydrich, followed by Kaltenbrunner.”

On page 2:

“I myself was the Chief of Group IVE, which continued
after 1944 as Section IVA3. When I took over the Group
in January 1941, I was State Counsellor and SS
Sturmbannfuehrer. At the end I was Regierungsdirektor
(Directing State Counsellor) and SS Standartenfuehrer.
My Group was the central authority for police

On page 3:

“From 1941 to 1945 I worked exclusively at the Head
Office for Reich Security. My Group was also in charge
of the duties of the Inspector General for the

On page 4:

“Together with all its personnel, the Head Office for
Reich Security was subject to military jurisdiction, on
the basis of a special ordinance enacted in 1939.”

Page 5:

“The supreme judicial authority was the Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service, i.e., the
Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security. The
competent court was subject to his jurisdiction. The
applicable code was the Code of Military Criminal
Procedure. The supreme judicial authority had to issue
orders for an investigation when notified of a case, to
rule as to whether proceedings were to be quashed or
charges preferred, and to confirm or not to confirm
judgments. In addition, he appointed the members of
the court. He could also quash proceedings in minor
cases and impose a disciplinary sanction instead of a
judicial one. Thus, supreme judicial authorities were
in such a strong position that very much depended on
their influence on a case. Through his discretion by
virtue of his office, he enjoyed wide powers of
decision, as detailed in the Code of Military Criminal
Procedure. In terms of substantive law, the Military
Penal Code applied alongside the general criminal law.”

Page 6:

“It is true that Mueller generally dealt directly with
the Heads of Sections – in other words, without the
participation of the Group or Department Chief – so
that, in such cases, the Group or Department Chief
concerned would only be able to find out from the
Section Heads concerned what Mueller had decided, or
what was involved at all. It was Mueller’s opinion
that the intermediate appointment of Group or
Department Chiefs between him and the Section Heads –
this had been done without his agreement – impeded the
proper running of official business. On various
occasions, he said that he would have preferred for
nobody at all to be in an intermediate position between
him and the Section Heads. It was his nature to do
everything himself wherever possible. This was
particularly true of his special field of interest. As
far as I was aware, this field was combatting
Communism. He worked in this field in the Bavarian
criminal investigation service from the time after the
First World War.”

On page 7, in reply to Question 9:

“When in the affidavit I made at the time, Prosecution
document No. 874, I said that the Accused’s Section in
Department IV was in a special position. I say by way
of explanation that I would rather speak of a
particular position. Unlike most of the other Section
Heads, the Accused was not a civil servant, but was
attached to the Department only as a member of the SS.
That was probably because the Security Service was an
SS organization and not part of the Civil Service.

“In fact, the Accused was only part of Group IVB in
formal terms. He had a special position in it, insofar
as he had no dealings with the Group Leader, but
reported directly to the Department Chief, Mueller. I
am unable to state whether he also reported directly to
the Chief of the Head Office or to Himmler himself. I
assume, however, that thereby Mueller was not passed
over. It seems to me that he was in this particular
position only with regard to Mueller. However, I
cannot say anything certain on this matter.”
Page 8, Question 10.

“It is true that Mueller repeatedly assigned work on
specific cases to sections which functionally were not
competent for them, or to individuals without the
knowledge of the specialist officer responsible. This
occurred in my Group as well as in others. The group
leaders found such practices unpleasant, and they made
representations to him about it. Such instances
normally involved his particular hobbyhorse of fighting
Communism, but not only that.”

Page 9:

“I do not know whether the Accused was also passed over
as Specialist Officer in this fashion.”

Last-Modified: 1999/06/09