Session 097-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 97
1 Av 5721 (14 July 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the ninety-seventh Session of the
trial open. The Accused will continue with his testimony in
cross-examination. I remind the Accused that he is still
testifying under oath.

Accused: Yes, I am aware of that.

Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Hausner.

Attorney General: Yesterday we stopped on the subject of the
meetings held with the officials-in-charge of Jewish Affairs
in the various occupied territories. When did you first
inform them what the fate of the Jews sent to deportation

Accused: Officially no information was provided about

Q. And unofficially?

A. I did not tell them, but I assume that in the course of
time, that was being talked about. That is really quite

Q. So they knew, in other words, they were aware of it?

A. I do not know whether everyone knew – there may have been
people who may not have believed it, I do not know.
Officially it was not known; obviously the officials-in-
charge in the Section knew of it. That is clear. By
officials-in-charge I mean people like Guenther, Suhr.

Q. Wisliceny?

A. Yes. According to their work, they did not belong to the
Section, but Wisliceny of course knew it, he even says so.

Q. Novak?

A. Novak was a minor official-in-charge, I do not know
…basically he only…almost only dealt with timetable
matters. I do not even know what else he worked on.

Q. Zoepf?

A. I assume so.

Q. At these consultations there were various participants,
and they presented their problems and questions, and they
received directives from you. You were the person who took
the decisions about the matters brought to your notice. Is
that correct?

A. That is all correct, except for the term that I was “the
person who took the decisions” about these matters.

Q. Now look: When, for example, Dannecker says in T/404 that
a certain problem has been brought up for discussion at his
request, and “SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann determined
the following.” On the first page. Look at this, please,
on the first page. Is that not correct?

A. That is correct. One has to know the prior history, and
then this minute can be understood as well.

Q. But it is correct, is it not?

A. Yes, it is correct, but I did not decide about this. It
is a result of the whole prior history. I can indicate in a
moment what this was, but I assume that it is actually
known, the prior history of these matters.

Q. All right. You instructed people when they were to
report back to you, for summaries, etc., didn’t you?

A. I could not arrange for these consultations, the
Department Chief had to arrange them, but I had collected
the material for everything which was on the agenda, that is
quite clear.

Q. Now, when Dannecker says in T/419, document No. 585, on
the second page, in the last paragraph: “Section IVB4 of the
Head Office for Reich Security – SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann has decided that the participant officials-in-
charge are to report again to Berlin on 2 July 1942 for a
final consultation” – is that correct or not?

A. That is indeed correct. That is quite clear.

Q. And the Section gave these people final and binding
instructions and directives. Is that true or not?

A. Yes, it is. Once the Section had received instructions
about this from Chief of Department IV, had itself received

Q. Did Mueller not take part in one or several of these

A. I am not aware of Mueller having taken part in one of
these so-called “small” consultations. He did once take
part in an evening where official business was also
discussed. I remember that one occasion.

Q. The Section also determined which Jews were meanwhile, or
temporarily, to remain behind in assembly camps and which
were not, or rather which categories of Jews were for the
time being to remain behind in assembly camps and which were
not. Is that correct or not?

A. I would like to outline this more precisely: The
conditions for exemption laid down in the directives were
notified to other offices by Section IVB4 and then
implemented. That is how it was. They included
provisions…but I do not believe that these stated that
they had to be kept together in camps. I do not think that
the directive went that far. But I do not know this
precisely from memory.

Q. Do you remember that once the problem arose of the Jews
in the Vught Camp in Holland who worked in the German
armament industry there. It was proposed that they should
remain behind. Do you remember the answer given by the

A. Yes, I know something about that. The documents about
this are here.

Q. So what was the answer? Leave the documents! What was
the answer?

A. I cannot say off-hand. I do not know. But I did read it
here. It is just that at the moment I cannot comment on
this, because I do not know…

Q. Is it true that the answer was “that it was out of
question, that it was quite out of question”?

A. I seem to remember it involved diamond workers or
something along those lines. If these are the diamond

Q. No, no, the armaments industry!

A. In any case, what it says in this document is correct.

Q. The document is here: Exhibit T/554, document No. 591 –
these men, the representatives in countries abroad, worked
on the basis of your directives and also had contacts with
each other in order to co-ordinate implementation. Is that

A. Had contacts with each other – I think that that could
only apply to the Western Territories: Holland, Belgium,
France – otherwise I believe these men only met in Berlin
from time to time, and…

Q. Holland, Belgium, France – contacts with each other.

A. I gathered this from the documents here. Because
otherwise I would no longer have known about this as well.
And they did not work exclusively according to the
directives which they received from the Head Office for
Reich Security. They also worked in accordance with the
directives which they received from their own Higher SS and
Police Leaders in conjunction with the appropriate
governmental authority.

Q. Did we not hear from you only yesterday that, for
example, regarding the marking of the Jews, they had to
introduce this simultaneously in all the countries where
they were operating, on the basis of the orders and
instructions from your Section?

A. Yes, I did say that yesterday…at least I think that is
correct, but I am not certain of that, as there are also
documents here which show that somehow Higher SS and Police
Leaders gave orders about this. I get confused about these
matters…there is just too much material for me to be able
to give detailed information about all subjects on the basis
of what I remembered. But I believe that in France the
regulation was issued by the Higher SS and Police Leader,
because not everything which happened in connection with
Jewish measures in the occupied territories came about by
order of the Reichsfuehrer’s Head Office, nor even on the
instructions of Department IV.

Q. But these directives also laid down the penalties and
sanctions to be applied to persons who refused to wear or
refrained from wearing the Jewish badge, did they not?

A. The directives which applied to the occupied territories
or to Reich territory?

Q. I am referring to the directives for the occupied

A. Directives for marking in the occupied territories were
never, as far as I know, issued by the Head Office for Reich
Security. This was done by the relevant Higher SS and
Police Leaders. In any case, I have not found anything to
contradict this in my study of the documents.

Q. I am talking about penalties – the penalties which were
laid down in the consultations. It was laid down, for
example, that a Jew who did not wear the badge would be
punished in this or that fashion. That was laid down, was
it not?

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, I naturally do not wish to
interfere in the form taken by the cross-examination, but
perhaps it might sometimes be simpler to present the
document first. After all, there are no surprises here; the
Accused is familiar with these documents. Sometimes this
would keep things shorter. Perhaps sometimes you have a
special reason for not showing the document to the Accused,
but in a case such as this one, for example, why not show
him the document?

Attorney General: In this instance, there is perhaps a
special reason, Your Honour. I am really trying to do so.
[To the Accused] You have heard the question – answer it.

Presiding Judge: So what is the Accused’s reply on the
penalties for Jews who did not wear the badge?

Attorney General: What is the Accused’s answer about
sanctions for not wearing the Jewish Star? Is that correct
or not? Is it true that this sanction was laid down in
Section IVB4 and issued from there? In the consultations
you had, were penalties discussed for Jews who did not wear
the Jewish badge?

Accused: I do not know; if that appears in the documents
or in the record of the consultations, then that is true
also. After such a long time, I cannot say anything more
about this.

Q. You were in constant contact with these men about
official business, both by telephone and by telegraph, and
also by letter? Is that true or not?

A. Yes, that is so.

Q. And from time to time you also travelled and visited them
and inspected their work on the spot. Is that correct?

A. In accordance with my superior’s orders I also travelled
from time to time to the various places, yes.

Q. How often were you in France?

A. Today, I cannot possibly say – I simply have to take a
number out of thin air.

Q. Roughly?

A. It makes no difference whether I say five or ten times –
I do not know.

Q. Oh no, that is important – that is very important.

A. Ten times is of course an exaggeration. This is
impossible after all this time.

Q. Why?

A. Because I am someone who is supposed to make a statement
about something after twenty years, and whose brain has in
the interim absorbed many thousands of other impressions and
cannot remember details. I did not sit down and
recapitulate every single official journey immediately after
1945. Even then it would probably not have been possible,
in 1945, even if I had started to do so. It…I do not wish
to make a secret out of it, so I will take a figure – it
might have been five times, it might have been ten times,
but I do not believe that it was ten times.

Q. Let us say between five and ten, all right?

A. If I have to give a figure, then I am prepared to accept
this figure, although I cannot swear to this figure either.

Q. You were also in Holland, were you not?

A. Yes, but when I say I was in France, that applies at the
same time to Holland, too, because in general that was done
at the same time.

Q. You were also in Belgium, is that correct?

A. As far as I know, I was there only once. I travelled
through it more often, but I only went to Belgium once on
official business. And that was…I can say fairly
accurately, that was…that was shortly after a Spitfire had
strafed the official headquarters, the headquarters of the
Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security

Q. You were also in Slovakia; is that true?

A. Yes, I was also in Slovakia.

Q. How many times were you there?

A. As far as I know I was in Slovakia twice, once with the
Slovak Minister of the Interior, Mach.

Q. If you are talking about visits, did you also visit Tuka,

A. No, I was supposed to visit Tuka, I believe, or there was
a letter for Tuka, but in any case at that time I…I also
only remembered this when I saw Wisliceny’s statement; I
myself thought – I thought that I had talked to Tiso as well
as to Tuka and Mach, but what happened was that I wanted to
give Heydrich’s letter to the envoy, and then I had to go
and see Mach. I did not want to make the visits to these
ministers, and Wisliceny says as much at one point, and that
is also true. At that time the legation asked me to do it.
I also know exactly when that was…that was the day when
the attack was made on Heydrich.

Q. While you were playing skittles?

A. Yes, during a game of skittles, yes in the evening.

Q. Were you in Romania?

A. I was not in Romania during the War, as I was only there
in 1937, and not at any other time. Apart from Neu-Arad and
the area of Gross-Nikolsburg, where I was in 1944, but at
that time Hungary had occupied this area and the…

Q. I am not talking about these areas; I am talking about
those areas which were under Romanian rule. So you were not
in Romania during the War?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Lecca wanted you to come, but you preferred not to go
there, is that right?

A. Yes, I gathered that from the documents; otherwise I
would no longer have been able to remember that.

Q. Were you in Italy?

A. During the War I was not in Italy – if one excludes the
part of southern France occupied by the Italians – I was not
in Italy during the War.

Q. And you were in the part occupied by the Italians?

A. Yes, I was there in…I think it was the autumn…it must
have been the autumn of 1943. I went there on Mueller’s
orders, so to speak, as a continuation of his own journey to Rome.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13