Session 100-03, Eichmann Adolf

Q. And what was the content of this operation?

A. This I have discovered from the books – the liquidation
of Polish Jewry.

Q. And the theft or plunder of their property?

A. I read the specifications of this in the books as well.
That is so.

Q. And at the time, in 1942 or 1943, when the operation was
carried out to immortalize the name of your beloved Chief,
you knew nothing at all of the content of the operation?

A. I have already said once that I did not bother about it,
because I was not responsible. Had I been resonsible in any
way whatsoever, IVB4 would have definitely had something to
do with this in terms of the technical timetabling aspects,
but IVB4 did not have to do that either – the order was not
issued, so we had nothing to do with it, and we did not
bother about it.

Q. Well, we shall see. Here is exhibit T/1248, a meeting in
Berlin about the expulsion or deportation of Jews in the
Generalgouvernement. This is the document signed by Klemm.
Do you remember this?

A. Yes, at the end of my interrogation here I was shown some
such matter.

Q. And on page 3545 you said about this document “that it
was technically just as possible that Novak, for example,
could have taken part in it.” So did Novak take part in it?

A. Since Novak took part in so many timetable conferences, I
tried to reconstruct this matter, but I also said – as far
as I remember – in the same interrogation and in the same
passage, that I knew nothing whatsoever about IVB4 having
had anything whatsoever to do with Generalgouvernement
matters. And Wolff’s letter to Ganzenmueller proves that,
firstly, this Generalgouvernement matter was handled on a
high level, and secondly, that the local authorities
arranged directly with the local Reich Railway

Q. So why did you bring Novak in here – Novak is one of your
men, why is he listed here?

Presiding Judge: Would you please show him the passage?

Accused: Because I considered all possibilities. If you
read this properly, it is an attempt to reconstruct things.
Attorney General: So it is possible that Novak might have
taken part in this meeting?

Accused: Having read the documents now, it is impossible
for Novak to have taken part in this meeting. I consider it
to be out of the question.

Q. And this is despite the fact that you yourself said that
“if I am to stick to the truth, and that is what I wish to
do, then technically it is just as possible that Novak, for
example, could have taken part in it.” It is now a few
months after you said that in your interrogation in Bureau

A. But Mr. Attorney General, the entire passage has to be
read, and then it can be seen how I tried to reconstruct
this matter. I was asked:

“So the conference cannot possibly have been held
without the participation of your Section or
representatives from your Section?”

In reply I said:

“For the Generalgouvernement that was…and the trains
which went from Romania to the
Generalgouvernement…that would have been perfectly
feasible. Naturally for me, if I am to stick to the
truth, and that is what I wish to do, then technically
it is just as possible that Novak, for example, could
have taken part in it, but I do not believe that,
because these names were in fact always referred to.
And also a record of those present was always taken, so
that here I believe that this is a matter which was
proposed at high level; that this is large-scale
planning as well; that IVB4 was not even engaged or
taking part in this.”

I said that as well.

Q. Very well, but if one looks at a report on such a
conference and sees a precise timetable, showing for example
from Warsaw to Treblinka, from Radom to Treblinka, from
Cracow to Belzec, from Lvov to Belzec, from Radom to Sobibor
and they are precise details: from Warsaw to Treblinka, two
trains a day; from Radom to Treblinka, one train a day; from
Cracow to Belzec, one train a day; from Lvov to Belzec, one
train a day; from Radom to Sobibor, one train a day; and
from the Lublin North station to Belzec, one train a day,
and from Lublin to Sobibor, another train a day – if there
is such a precise listing here, and you go and claim that
your Department, your Section, had nothing to do with the
whole business, then why should Novak have taken part in
such a meeting?

A. Because the timetable conferences were generally dealt
with together with IVB4, but not the Generalgouvernement.
In the statement here I have…

Q. But this concerns the Generalgouvernement – that is what
you were shown, not other matters.

A. In the same statement I discussed all possibilities, but
I also said that I thought it impossible for IVB4 to have
been involved here, because IVB4 was not involved.

Q. So why do you refer to Novak?

A. Because in my entire statement in all the six volumes,
you will see, Mr. Attorney General, that I always mentioned
all the possibilities.

Q. Including the impossible possibilities?

A. Including the impossible possibilities, simply so that
the reconstruction…

Q. If you talk about the impossible possibilities as well, I
accept it.

A. This is proved by the six volumes, Mr. Attorney General.
I received [through the simultaneous translation] this term
“impossible possibilities” only after a delay…naturally it
was not impossible: It is impossible, it is not possible,
not an impossible possibility…

Presiding Judge: Please continue.

Attorney General: It says here that this conference was
proposed by the Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security,
when Heydrich was no longer amongst the living; it was
therefore on 26 or 28 September 1942, so at that time who
was there from the Head Office for Reich Security who would
have been considered for participating in or being involved
in such a conference, if not your Section?

A. At that time, Himmler was Chief of the Security Police;
this is also shown by documents Nos. 1253 and 1537 dated
July 1942 and August 1942. This also referred to enormous
transports of hundreds and thousands, transports which were
agreed upon between Wolff and Ganzenmueller.

Q. Are you, therefore, saying that Himmler himself took part
in this?

A. Not “took part” – ordered.

Q. So who – so who, who is the Section Head who can take
part in conferences where timetable planning is dealt with?
From 1939 and onwards you were the expert for this.

A. But not on internal Generalgouvernement business; this is
proved by the documents. I cannot say anything other than
as expressed by the facts. Because in these documents, too,
where vast movements are laid down, the locations are given
and the figures are given, the places of departure…

Q. Why should it take place in Berlin, why not in Cracow?

A. Ganzenmueller is also involved here, and from Berlin he

Q. Why did this conference take place in Berlin?

A. I do not know; I am not, after all, from the Reich
Transport Ministry. I do not know, Mr. Attorney General.

Q. So who were the people of the Head Office for Reich
Security who at that time were available to the Head Office
for Reich Security to participate in such a conference?

A. I assume that no one took part in this conference, but
that this conference was dealt with in writing on a high
level with the Reich Transport Ministry. If I knew anything
else, I would…

Q. But it says here specifically that this meeting took
place in Berlin from 26 to 28 September, and also that it
was held at the initiative of the Head Office for Reich
Security. Let us, therefore, base ourselves on what appears
in the document: Who, if not you, was the expert in the Head
Office for Reich Security on timetable planning?

A. Not for the Generalgouvernement, as the facts prove. If
I had had anything to do with that, nothing would prevent me
from stating this and accepting responsibility for this now.

Q. And I am telling you that if it were not possible that
Novak took part in this conference, then you would not have
mentioned him or his name in your interrogation in Bureau 06
at all.

A. That was my attempt to somehow investigate and cope with
the matter. I could have said at once: “No, I know nothing
whatsoever.” I tried instead – and this can be seen
throughout all six volumes – to revive the whole thing, in
order – how can I put it? – to bring what happened back to
life again. And that is how this must be understood, too.
But look, Novak is in custody, he is the best person to ask
about this. And that will make things very clear.

Judge Raveh: Have you finished with this exhibit?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Raveh: Transports from Romania were also dealt with
here, were they not?

Accused: I do not know, Your Honour.

Judge Raveh: Can you read this document?

Accused: I do not have the document here.

Attorney General: This is in the Statement. Various
sections were read out to him.

Judge Raveh: Everything? Including the Romanian part?

Attorney General: Yes. It was quoted from page 3540 on, or
thereabouts. It was read out to him in German from page
3539 and following, the whole document. It says here: “In
the minutes of the meeting held in Berlin on 26 and 28
September 1942…”

Judge Raveh: So perhaps you would read that part which
refers to transports from Romania. Have you read that?
That does go beyond the bounds of the Generalgouvernement,
does it not?

Accused: Yes, it does go beyond those bounds.

Q. So perhaps we can nevertheless assume that it falls
within the sphere of influence, the competence of your

A. Already during my Statement, I would in fact have been
prepared to say “yes,” Your Honour, but when I saw that such
a defective set of minutes – once again contrary to all the
directives and rules – a set of minutes had been drawn up by
a central body, like this – normally the names of those
present were always listed – then I said to myself, well, it
is just as possible that such a matter was dealt with on a
higher level, and that would be in the Reich Transport
Ministry…that this timetable was drawn up by them in
conjunction with their Reich Rail Directorates, the local
Reich Rail Directorates. And for final clarification of the
question, I would venture once again to propose asking
Novak, who was always present at such timetable conferences
where IVB4 was competent, because it would be very easy for
him, as he always attended these timetable conferences in
accordance with orders. I myself never took part in a
timetable conference.

Q. Is that a reply to the question as to whether timetable
drafting for transports from Romania fell under the
responsibility of Section IVB4?

A. I do not know, Your Honour, how things were for Romania,
whether for Romania – since evacuations also took place from
Romania – whether there the Reich Transport Ministry drew up
the timetable, or whether that was drawn up in Romania. I
cannot give any clear-cut or binding answer in this respect;
I do not know this now. It is possible here that the
Romanian Railway Administration agreed on all the details
about this with the Plenipotentiaries of the German
Railways, who were in fact present in all these countries,
including in France, in Holland, and so on. The Romanian
authorities for Romanian sovereign territory, and the
representative of the German Reich Railway for extra-
Romanian sovereign territory.

Q. And why do you assume that precisely in Romania your
Section possibly had no part in this?

A. I would conclude that, Your Honour, because I know that
IVB4 had nothing to do with the Generalgouvernement, and I
am strengthened in this opinion of mine by the two letters
which I have already mentioned several times, between
Ganzenmueller and Wolff. That is my proof, I would say;
memory on its own is no longer of any help to me here,
except for the fact that I know that we had nothing to do
with the Generalgouvernement.

Presiding Judge: [To the Attorney General]Please proceed.

Attorney General: As you said yesterday, Auschwitz lay
outside the borders of the Generalgouvernement?

Accused: Yes.

Q. So, as you said yesterday in reply to a question from
Judge Halevi, resettlement from the Generalgouvernement
required co-ordination between two different railway

A. Yes, that relates to the resettlement of Poles from
Zamosc and…

Q. No, no – do not run away to Zamosc as long as we are at
Auschwitz. I am talking about deportations from the
Generalgouvernement to Auschwitz, and about Jews, not about
Poles. In this Court we have here the statement of a Pole
called Rajewski who gave testimony in the proceedings
against Hoess, and that was someone who had worked in the
Political Section in Auschwitz as an inmate, and there he
says point-blank that all the Jewish prisoners sent to
Auschwitz, including those from the Generalgouvernement,
came with assignment documents from your Section, Section

A. I consider that to be totally impossible and quite out of
the question. Yesterday, I said that in the area of the
Generalgouvernement bordering on Auschwitz, here the trains
doubtless were dealt with in timetable terms by direct local
agreement with the Reich Railway Directorates responsible.

Q. Yes, but the assigning authority, or in other words, the
authority which ordered transfer to Auschwitz, was Section

A. But in the Generalgouvernement there was no IVB4 office

Presiding Judge: It is difficult to talk about a document
without seeing it. Mr. Attorney General, can we have the
number of the exhibit?

Attorney General: T/1356.

Presiding Judge: Yes, and what is the page reference?

Home · Site Map · What’s New? · Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13