Session 097-05, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: The negotiations between Richter and
Antonescu about deportation of Jews, and the letter which
Richter received from Antonescu were also concealed from the
Foreign Ministry. Is that correct?

Accused: I gathered that from the files, but on the
orders of his immediate superior, Killinger, as Killinger
confirmed personally that Richter, on his orders, initiated
the – I do not know what the literal expression is – the
preliminary work or something similar.

Q. Is that how it is phrased? Is that what it says there?

A. Yes, I believe that it is in the same document, where
Killinger is complaining about the methods of the SS. It is
one of the first points, and it says more or less what I
have just said.

Q. It is correct that Killinger did not wish the great
praise for obtaining the letter from Antonescu to be put to
your credit, and he wanted to share in this. But the fact
of the matter is that Richter did this without Killinger’s
knowledge, as it says in the document, is it not?

A. I have no way of knowing that, since Richter normally did
not deal even with Mueller, but with the Chief of the
Security Police directly, and if he was not there, and only
then, with my Department Chief. Richter himself had almost
no dealings with me – he also dealt with Schellenberg.

Q. I thought we had already covered this point and that you
told me that what you said in your Statement to the police
about Richter, that he was one of your men and that he acted
on your instructions in Romania – you said that that was
correct. You did in fact say, “Richter was one of my people
down there” – page 1777.

A. But in the same Statement of mine to Bureau 06 here, I
also said that I know that Richter was the only Adviser on
Jewish Affairs abroad who went regularly to the Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service.

Q. Did you receive reports from Richter about his actions?

A. Yes, regularly.

Q. Also about his consultations with Mihai Antonescu?

A. Yes, that too.

Q. Also about the letter he received from him, from

A. I do not have the letter before me, but I believe even
about that too, yes.

Q. Was Richter in touch with you both directly and also
through Killinger? Look at T/1038, T/1019, T/1025 – they
all attest to direct contact.

A. That is also true and that is correct, but on basic
matters Richter always, and all the time, found a way to the
top. This was also in his nature, because he was
independent down there, under Killinger, and he would not
have wanted to allow himself to be patronized by a Section
Head of the Head Office for Reich Security. The result did
not fail to come about – he did in fact become a Police

Q. Was Richter not obliged to report to you?

A. Yes, nor did I deny that.

Q. Yes, that is also on page 3524 of your Statement. And he
received instructions not only from you, but even from your
assistants? From Suhr, T/1020, document No. 574, for

A. Yes, I do not even need to look at this document, Mr.
Attorney General, that is also correct. Not only Richter
received this, but all persons stationed abroad, whether the
posts were with the Commander of the Security Police and the
Security Service, and there they were section heads, or
whether they were advisers with the German missions.

Q. Correct. Now, after all this, look at the bottom of
T/1023 again, and you will see that Richter approached
Antonescu on the strength of an order from the Head Office
for Reich Security, in order to obtain this letter.

A. That is an extract. The original letter – Richter’s
original report – has been presented, where he writes
explicitly “on the order of the Chief of the Security Police
and the Security Service” – directly or indirectly, I do not
know what it actually says.

Q. Very well. Neither my colleagues nor I are familiar with
any such document. If you could find it, I should be

A. There are two reports presented here: These are Richter’s
reports about the talks he had with Mihai Antonescu. In the
first report here he writes that it was a question of
stopping emigration, and here he also refers to the Chief of
the Security Police and the Security Service. And in the
second report he again refers to the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service. I do not now know what was
the subject here. As far as I remember, I read it just a
few weeks ago – I read the documents. I believe it is on
the first or second page of these reports.

Q. All right, in any case you will agree with me that
Richter did not approach Antonescu on the basis of
instructions from the envoy.

A. As to the power balance between the top people, I know
nothing about this. But it says that he did not discuss
matters of principle with the adviser, but…

Q. All right, but that is what it says here.

A. This is an extract prepared by the Foreign Ministry. I
must here refer to Richter’s original report, this puts it
rather more precisely. Because it happened repeatedly that
in a communication extracted from some other report, instead
of “Reichsfuehrer-SS” it says “Head Office for Reich
Security,” or some such phrase, or SS Main Office. That is
not precise. In this instance, in this case what is precise
are the reports issued by Richter.

Presiding Judge: Is there a report by Richter available?

Attorney General: Yes, but not about this matter.

Presiding Judge: [to the Accused] You may look for these
documents in time for the next session, the documents you
have mentioned, so that we will know what you are referring

Accused: Certainly, Your Honour, there are two of them.

Presiding Judge: All right.

Attorney General: But not about this matter. You have
received a copy of every report Richter sent about his
activities, irrespective of whether it was addressed to you
or to the Foreign Ministry. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now tell us, why is Killinger so angry with you in the
eighth paragraph of T/1029, in the last paragraph there. A.
I am familiar with this matter. I myself was surprised, Mr.
Attorney General, and have made this matter the subject of
an intensive enquiry. Reitlinger gives here what seems to
me to be an excellent and well-documented summary, with
relevant sources, of the cause behind this matter.

Q. Let us stop referring to Reitlinger, let us for once
refer to your memory and your knowledge. Now, Reitlinger
can always be read, but you are not on the witness stand
every day giving testimony – so tell us what you know about
this matter.

A. From memory I actually do not know anything, because at
that time this document did not reach me at all – the
Foreign Ministry buried it in its files.

Q. Explanations by Reitlinger or other researchers – if the
Court needs them, it can find them or refer to them.

Presiding Judge: In any case, if the Accused adopts
Reitlinger’s explanation as his, then I should like to hear

Attorney General: As Your Honour pleases.

Accused: Yes. Your Honour, if I might be allowed to look
up this passage in Reitlinger and then indicate it at the
next Session together with the two documents.

Presiding Judge: Yes, by all means.

Attorney General: Tell me please, why does the Foreign
Ministry have to apologize to you for taking steps or
measures related to Jewish matters without your
participation, because you were not in Berlin at the time?
Look at the document, No. 965, T/465 – in the last
paragraph. Why is that the case?

Accused: That is connected with the reciprocal signing –
mandatory signing – which existed both in the Head Office
for Reich Security with regard to files or to matters in
which the Foreign Ministry was involved, and vice versa in
the Foreign Ministry for the Head Office for Security, where
the Head Office for Reich Security was also marginally
involved – as is the practice for all authorities.

Q. That is not the answer to my question – why does there
have to be this apology to you yourself about this?
Guenther could have done it! Mueller could have done it!
Why does there have to be this apology to little Eichmann?

A. That was the official channel. It is well known that von
Thadden sent all his correspondence via Section IVB4…

Q. But it is you personally to whom the reference is made –
why you yourself?

A. It says: “For the attention of Obersturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann or his official deputy.”

Q. Yes, that is correct.

A. That is the official form of address.

Q. Yes, and what does it say there, what is the content?

Presiding Judge: What number was this, please?

Attorney General: Prosecution document No. 965.

Presiding Judge: That is T/469.

Attorney General: Yes; would you now answer me?

Accused: This is a perfectly normal official matter and
the letterhead is perfectly normal in official terms – what
is unusual is the “Heil Hitler” at the end instead of “by
order.” I do not know who wrote this – it cannot have been
von Thadden, it must have been some other official in
charge. Apart from that, there is nothing striking in the
letter, which is a normal ordinary official letter. Because
those were the rules and that is how things usually were.
The other way round, I would – if things had been the other
way round – I would have had to do exactly the same thing.

Q. So it is usual and normal for the Foreign Ministry, for
Department DIII, to apologize to you for having taken some
measure in unoccupied France without first contacting you.
You are saying that that is how things must have been! Is
that so?

A. This is not an apology on the part of the Foreign
Ministry – this is a statement by the Foreign Ministry that
it was not possible for this reason to observe the
reciprocal agreement reached by the Chiefs. And finally, I
would like to add that I am not absolutely certain whether
this letter was actually sent – it is possible, but it is
also possible that it was not sent, because it is not

But I would nevertheless like to comment…I do not wish to
attach any importance at all to my last-mentioned
observation; rather I would again like to state that there
is nothing at all exceptional in this letter. Nor is it an
apology – it is a formal, bureaucratic…formal,
bureaucratic usage.

Q. Did you not say in direct examination in reply to a
question by your Counsel that it was extremely unusual and
impossible, and that you really did not understand why and
for what reason the Foreign Ministry had written such a
letter? Is my memory misleading me here?

A. It is in fact unusual, because normally these customs
were always respected, as the files do in fact show, since
at the end of the document the distribution list has to give
the order of co-signatories, split up according to sections
and the central body. For example, there is by chance a
document here – I believe it is number 9 or 10 – where there
is the opposite situation, where my Section shows such a
distribution list, and on the left…

Q. Forget about the distribution list, forget about the
sections – we are now talking about the content of the
document. Is it correct that in direct examination you said
precisely the opposite of what you are now claiming, that it
is something totally unusual, something impossible, for you
to be addressed in this way in terms of content?

A. That is also correct, because in practice something else

Q. Are both black and white correct?

A. No, Mr. Attorney General, but in practice matters look
different from the impression given, if I single out just
one case. The usage in all central bodies was as I have
indicated. It was the rule, not only in the Head Office for
Reich Security and the Foreign Ministry.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, please continue.

Attorney General: The agreement between Belev and Dannecker
to deport Bulgarian Jews, came about after Dannecker
received your agreement or approval to draw up such an
agreement. Is that correct?

Accused: The details should be clear from the documents.
What the documents say is correct. I myself do not know
this offhand. I only know what I have read here in the
files about this case…Bulgaria, and it was in fact the
upshot of a consultation between Mueller and Luther. This
can be seen in this document.

Q. Very well, but Dannecker consulted with you, did he not?
And you gave him permission to reach this agreement with
Belev. That was after all not a daily occurrence, reaching
agreement about deporting Jews, that was something special.
How can you not remember that?

A. I also cannot remember the Antonescu agreement, accord,
for example. I came across this here when studying the

Q. Does an Adolf Eichmann without documents exist at all, or
is Adolf Eichmann just a collection of the 1,600 documents
which Bureau 06 managed to collect?

A. If I have to give accurate information…

Dr. Servatius: These questions are really not relevant
questions to clarify the facts, so I would request that the
Prosecutor be instructed to ask relevant questions and not
bring in things which are really only marginal, and should
be used later for evaluation in the closing speeches.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, we do not consider that
these questions exceed the framework of a normal cross-

Accused: I am compelled here to give precise and truthful
information. That is also what I wish to do. If I were to
present things from my memory, what would happen is what is
in the six volumes of my interrogation; to a large extent
this is totally accurate, but I tried here to reconstruct
things. Today, after studying the files, I am naturally
able to depict things differently, and I myself am surprised
when I read a passage in this interrogation how clumsy and
stammered together it is – you yourself said this once, Mr.
Attorney General – and I entirely agree with you, how I
expressed myself then as a result of my lack of factual
knowledge, because of absence of recollection… it is very
difficult to find one’s way around all this vast body of
material, and I would like to say once again – given this
vast body of material, I really would not dare even to try
to come up with any deliberate falsehood, I would
immediately trip myself up.

Attorney General: So you do not remember the agreement
between your subordinate Dannecker in Bulgaria and Belev?
You did after all send Dannecker off there, didn’t you?

Accused: But that is just it. I did not send him there;
Dannecker went to Bulgaria on the basis of an agreement
between Mueller and Luther – this is in the correspondence
here. And it is clear that Dannecker obtained his basic
instructions before he left for Bulgaria, and acted
according to these instructions in Bulgaria, and finally an
agreement existed between him and the Jewish Affairs
Commissioner Belev. That is factually true.

Q. But he received his instructions from you, did he not?

A. It is not at all clear, Mr. Attorney General, whether he
received them from me, whether I received them in fact from
Mueller for transmission, or whether Dannecker did not
receive them directly.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13