Session 098-02, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: T/361 only contains deportations from the
Warthegau and does not contain deportations from the Zamosc
area, does it? If you would look at this, please.

Accused: The first two pages definitely deal with the
Warthegau, while the last one only shows the towns listed
here, and I am unable to say whether all these towns are in
the Warthegau. But that could be checked very easily.

Q. We have checked this, and I am telling you that all of
these places are in the Warthegau. At that time Theodor
Dannecker was already one of your subordinates in IVD4, was
he not?

A. Yes, Dannecker was repeatedly…at least I think it was
repeatedly…once, in any case…in Section IVD4 or IVB4
…no, I do not think he was in IVB4, he was in IVD4 until
he was transferred abroad.

Q. Look, for example, at one of your recommendations for his
promotion in rank, with your signature.

A. Yes, there is in fact no date there, but in any case it
can easily be worked out, because it says he is in Section
IVD4, as I said. I believe he was not under me in IVB4, but
in IVD4 he was definitely with me. This confirms what I
have stated.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/1425.

Attorney General: In your activities in IVD4, did you work
with a body known as Treuhandstelle Ost (Trustee Office

Accused: I would not necessarily stress that I worked
with the Treuhandstelle Ost office, because “working with”
something implies a continuous close link. But in his
decree issued as Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of
German Folkdom, Himmler designated the Main Trustee Office
East as the body to receive the assets of those who were
evacuated, and it is therefore quite possible that there was
a link here during bureaucratic operations.
Q. They had to take possession of all the property of the
persons who were evacuated or deported, or to take it into
their safekeeping. That was the function of the Trustee
Office East. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that was the function of the Trustee Office East.

Q. And at the meeting in January 1940, which you chaired,
these people participated in the consultation about
deportations in the East – they took part in the
consultations, did they not? The representative of the
Trustee Office East, as you can see in this document, took
part in the meeting which you chaired, did he not? It took
place in Gdansk, did it not?

Presiding Judge: I believe it was Berlin, not Gdansk. Is it
T/171? “Fand in Berlin eine Vorbesprechung statt” (A
preliminary consultation took place in Berlin).

Accused: Yes, T/171.

Attorney General: I believe so, Your Honour. I remember now
that, while the document bears the indication Danzig, it
refers to a meeting in Berlin. Thank you for the

[To the Accused] Now, in this meeting, which was chaired by
you, the arrangements relative to the property the deportees
were allowed to take with them were fixed. That is to say,
they had to leave everything behind and were entitled to
take only one hundred zlotys with them. Is that correct?

Accused: Yes, in accordance with Himmler’s orders as
Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom.

Q. Are you aware that these deportees had to suffer dreadful
torments, the most appalling torments?

A. I am aware that until I took over the Section, in fact –
and I have also said this, and the reports say the same
thing, and there are documents – the disorder and the
confusion were absolutely appalling. Often people remained
in the railway trucks – I have read in the reports here –
for eight days, and that is the reason why a section of this
type was set up in Berlin. As far as I know, this sort of
thing never happened again. It is possible that, as a
result of local shortcomings, there was the odd case where
there was inadequacy, but as far as possible every effort
was made to put an end to and avoid these things.

Q. Look at T/210, for example. This is dated March 1940, in
other words several months after you started working in this
field. Did such dreadful circumstances come to your

A. Yes, this is the Lublin affair. Heydrich himself ordered
the deportation of, I believe, one thousand Jews from Lublin
– this can be seen in the minutes of the meeting on 30
January 1940.

Q. But you carried this out, IVD4 was responsible for
carrying this out. You carried this out, didn’t you?

A. No, not with rounding-up; that can also be seen from the
whole matter. The Stettin affair was a local one. I would
ask for the relevant minutes of the meeting to be read. At
that time it was demanded, I think – there was even a
deadline – that this matter be disposed of within two weeks.
But the orders did not come from me.

Q. But you carried this out? That is my question.

A. I did not carry out the Stettin deportation.

Q. So who did carry it out?

A. The local authorities responsible took part in the
consultation on 30 January, did they not? And this was
carried out by the local authorities; I do not even know
whether I had to draw up the timetable for this. I would
not necessarily question the latter, although I do think it
quite likely that it was not even necessary for this one
transport train to involve the Reich Ministry of Transport.
It might well have been the case that this was also dealt
with locally. I cannot remember exactly what happened here.
However, I do believe that the guidelines were generally
applicable to all these instances. I am not able to say
anything more about this. Also, at the moment I do not
remember the relevant documents.

Q. Here you are, this is the record of the meeting. It
states here that from now on and in the future IVD4, and
only IVD4, is to carry out deportations.

A. I am familiar with this passage; I cannot find it right
now, but I know that it is in there somewhere.

Q. Very well, I shall hand the document back to you, and you
can look for it there.

Judge Halevi: But you can see it at once on page 7. About

Accused: I only have up to number 5 here.

Attorney General: I shall give the Accused my copy.

Accused: This is more complete. On page 3, second
paragraph, it says here explicitly:

“IVD4 is to collect this statistical material and to
draw up the evacuation plan.”

Then, on page 7, in the second paragraph, it says:

“SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich stated that after the three
indicated mass movements” and so on, “part of the

Next paragraph:

“In the middle of February 1940, one thousand Jews from
Stettin, whose apartments are required urgently for war
economy reasons, are to be evacuated and also deported
to the Generalgouvernement.”

And then, in the last paragraph, it reads:

“Following this meeting, the officials-in-charge at the
Inspectors for the New Eastern Territories (Ostgaue),
and of the Commander of the Security Police and the
Security Service in the Generalgouvernement met with
III ES and IVD4 to discuss the specific questions.”

What happened was this: IVD4 had here to deal with matters
involving technical timetable aspects, while matters
involving rounding-up and technical aspects of evacuation
were dealt with by the precursor of the Central Resettlement
Offices, III ES, and IVD4 had nothing at all to do with the
local matters. Rather, there was central control of
technical timetable matters from Berlin, by the Reich
Ministry of Transport, and that was in fact the reason why
the Section, this special Section, which in fact originally
was known as Special Section, was actually set up.

I had missed that – on page 1 it says what I have just said
– in the last paragraph: “The previous complaints simply
related to the fact that in prior evacuations ” – in other
words, before my Section became involved – “the figures
originally set were not respected, but were exceeded. The
establishment of Section IVD4 to provide central control of
evacuation assignments does away with the misgivings
expressed.” If I might, in conclusion, make a statement,
the matter will, I believe become quite clear.

Presiding Judge: Very well, but you must remember that you
are being cross-examined, and that you have to answer
questions, not make statements. However, this time I will
allow you to do so.

Accused: Thank you very much. When Himmler issued the
evacuation order, all the authorities proceeded on a local
basis and simply deported on their own initiative to the
Generalgouvernement. It is quite obvious that there were
major unpleasantnesses; to put an end to them, the Chief of
the Security Police and the Security Service, Heydrich,
intervened and set up a Division IVR or IVB4 in Bureau
III3ES; the function of these bodies was to arrange things
properly. It was my assignment to control technical
transport matters, so as to ensure that deadlines were
respected, and so that figures would not be exceeded.

Attorney General: But your Section also handled such things
as petitions from Poles who wanted to remain where they were
and not be evacuated. Is that correct?

Accused: I do not know about that.

Q. No? Then look at exhibit T/172 – I am showing you T/172:
What do you have to say about that?

A. What I have to say about this is that this is a category
of persons which was evacuated – it was not determined by
IVB4 but by Department III – the document shows this. But
if, in the case of Seidl…definitely from a Central
Resettlement Office, I would imagine, or an Inspector in
Posen, is enquiring about the category of persons, this
enquiry would basically involve ascertaining the total
number of those to be deported, because in my Section I had
primarily to receive the total figures of those to be
deported: only on the basis of these figures was it possible
to draw up the timetable.

Q. But you can see that applications are dealt with from
those who want to be included in the list of the German
people. There are seven thousand such applicants, are there

A. Yes, but these seven thousand applicants…

Q. For once say “yes” without “but.”

A. Yes, there are seven thousand applicants, only…

Q. Then there is the third paragraph there, is there not?
The third paragraph, which starts “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Eichmann.” Perhaps you would read out this sentence.

A. “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann referred to the express
order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, according to which for the
interim plan only Jews and Congress Poles may be evacuated.”

Q. What is a Zwischenplan (interim plan)?

A. At the end of 1939, Heydrich divided this entire project
up into a short-term plan and long-term plan, and each plan
was then further subdivided into sub-plans. Therefore, an
interim plan is a part of either a short-term plan or of a
long-term plan.

Q. I am not asking you about definitions; what did you mean
when you spoke here about an interim plan?

A. Either the interim plan for achieving the first short-
term plan – I gather that there are three short-term plans
here – because a long-term plan must also be broken down in
turn into short-term plans, after all.
Q. So what was the long-term plan?

A. The long-term plan was the result, I believe, of the
discussion of the central plan changes in Cracow, or on 30
January 1940. I do not know in detail…

Q. So what is it? What was discussed there? What does it

A. The total number of those to be evacuated within a
certain period of time. This is shown precisely by the
minutes. Yes, it was on 30 January 1940, that is when this
figure was laid down, and I believe that these minutes state
what had to be deported by the end of 1940, and the order
was also issued as to what had to be deported by the end of
1941. And so, in accordance with these figures, the short-
term plans were therefore drawn up – the first, second,
third short-term plans, and the long-term plan. The latter
can be gathered from two telegrams by Heydrich at the end of

Q. You took part in the meeting on 30 January 1940, together
with the personnel of your Department: Guenther, Dannecker
and Rajakowitsch?

A. Yes, this is shown by the list of those present.

Q. And apart from Minister Seyss-Inquart, the participants
were also Mr. Heydrich himself, Globocnik, Katzmann,
Meisinger, Ohlendorf – a distinguished gathering, was it

A. All of the leaders mentioned attended.

Q. It says here specifically that the deportation from
Stettin must be carried out according to this decision, that
is to say by IVD4 – is that correct?

A. If that is in there, then it is also correct, because, as
is shown by the entire set of minutes, it was up to me to
deal with timetable matters. That is correct.

Q. Very well, so that is how it was. And you therefore
carried out the deportation from Stettin.

A. No – again, that is not correct, not in such an absolute

Q. It says that you had to carry out this matter. The
matter was carried out, the decision was taken in the
presence of the elite of the Reich, you were given the
assignment – so what happened then? Are you saying that
someone else carried this out, not you?

A. A deportation operation consists after all of several
parts; it is not one single independent item, and there are
various bodies involved in it; insofar as I was competent,
naturally I had to handle the work, also for the deportation
of Jews from Stettin.

Q. Well, there you have it, that is it.

A. But I did not carry it out, this cannot be said in this
absolute form, because it is not true.

Q. But when you were approached and asked for your
permission for money or parcels to be sent to those deported
from the Reich to the Generalgouvernement, were you the one
who refused such permission?

A. It was not up to me to refuse or to allow something. I
had to convey what I myself received as an instruction.

Q. Just a moment. The Jews who were deported from the Reich
and who remained alive in distress – relatives wanted to
help them, they approached you in writing and asked in
certain circumstances for your approval for parcels to be
sent, and you replied “no,” the Jewish institutions in the
Generalgouvernement were to take care of that, and you would
not permit money or parcels to be sent from the Reich. Is
that correct?

A. Yes, I wrote that, but what else could I do, if I myself
was instructed to write like that and give that answer.
After all, I cannot of my own initiative approve something
which I have been told not to do. That is how things are in
any office, and that is exactly how things were then.

Q. Would you explain, why does it concern you whether Jews
from the Reich send some money or parcels to their relatives
in the Generalgouvernement?

A. A central authority – any central authority receives a
great number of applications. These applications fall into
those which are immediately identified as not belonging to
the authority addressed, and are rejected as being of that
nature. Others, where the word “Jews” appears, for example,
and where I would say to myself Generalgouvernement,
resettlement – the resettlements were under way – for these
Heydrich himself, my Chief or Mueller would be directly
involved. I would not dare here to take any decision
myself; I would obtain instructions, and that is how things
would be.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13