Session 100-06, Eichmann Adolf

Attorney General: But just look at this: T/526, that is a
memo drawn up at the time when the matter was being dealt
with, and there Loesener’s position at that time is given,
not Loesener’s post-war attitude.

Accused: I do not have the document with me at the

Q. Very well, you can look at it, you will get it in a

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, you can submit the document at
some other time; that would considerably shorten the

Accused: This document – I am familiar with it, I have
already studied it exactly. This is the document about
which I was saying that I am really very surprised. First
of all, I was taken aback that a Higher SS and Police
Fuehrer, Rauter, the State Secretary for Security in
Holland, has, according to orders, to get together with a
Section Head in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. And
this is dated 19 September 1941, and here there is reference
to some working group…

Presiding Judge: Do not tell us what it is about; please
answer the question. Very well, so what was the question?

Attorney General: The question was this: This is a document
written during the War, and it indicates Loesener’s
attitude, and here Loesener’s comments are recorded, at that
time, what the attitude or position of the Accused was, as
well as what Reischauer’s position on the matter in question
was. So this was recorded during the War, not after the War
– it is a Reich document.

What do you have to say about this?

Accused: The date is correct, but there is no signature
or heading, and that is why I rejected this document, and I
cannot acknowledge this document, as it is not part of a

Judge Halevi: What does it say there in handwriting,
perhaps you can make that out?

Accused: Mr. so-and-so – it could read “for information,”
I cannot say for sure…

Judge Halevi: Perhaps “Standartenfuehrer Dr. Knochen”?

Accused: I cannot say what it means – presented on 23
September 1941.

Judge Halevi: But there is something after that. Was the
Prosecution able to make out to whom it went?

Attorney General: Do you know who Wimmer is?

Accused: No.

Q. Have you never heard the name?

A. No, I have never heard the name Wimmer.

Q. How is that possible? You did visit the Reich
Commissioner in Holland, didn’t you? You met Seyss-Inquart
in Holland; did you not meet Wimmer there?

A. I met Seyss-Inquart in Holland? That is new to me. I
met Rauter, but Seyss-Inquart – that is new to me. In any
case, I did not meet anyone called Wimmer.

Q. In your Statement to the police, on page 690, you said
that in the matter referred to here, of mixed marriages, you
had to co-ordinate the activities of various Reich
Chancelleries. Here you are talking about yourself and not
about anyone else. Just look at document No. 690, at the

A. 690?

Q. At the top, please.

A. Yes, indeed, this is clearly shown by this memo – this
being an enquiry from Paris as to what is to be done about
the mixed marriages, and I replied here that I could not
decide on that but had to contact the responsible authority
and check with them what was to be done.

Q. And that you co-ordinated all these activities. A. Co-
ordinated is not the right term here, Mr. Attorney General.
I had to obtain the instructions from the responsible
authorities who had to decide on this, and I had to pass
these on. The police did not decide on their own…the
decision was taken by the various central authorities…the
police were the implementing body.

Q. All right, that is known, but the co-ordination of the
implementation was in your hands. Is that correct or not?

A. No, Mr. Attorney General, the little word “co-ordination”
is not correct here; as I have just said, I obtained
instructions, so that I could myself provide information, as
I was ordered to do, but that is not co-ordination.

Q. So what is recorded on paper here as coming from your
lips, is this correct or not?

A. What it says here – for this particular case in point –
that is correct, yes.

Q. All right. A few minutes ago you told us that you were
in Holland, that you met Rauter there – I believe that you
visited the Vught camp…

A. No, I did not visit the Vught camp. No.

Q. Westerbork?

A. I did not visit any camps in Holland whatsoever.

Q. Did you see Lages?

A. Lages? Perhaps Klages?

Q. Lages, Lages in Holland?

A. I do not know, I cannot remember…

Q. Aus der Fuenten, did you meet him?

A. I did meet Aus der Fuenten in Holland.

Q. Why did you send Brunner to France?

A. I do not know…there were orders…do not even know when
Brunner was sent to France.

Q. Dannecker was already there – why was Brunner also

A. I remember now, in general terms. Colonel-General
Daluege was sent by Himmler to Western France, in order to
settle the problems on the spot, so to speak. He was the
first person who had to clear up the difficulties with
regard to the attitude of the Italians. Shortly after that,
Brunner was ordered to that part of France, so that I can
now make the causal link with the result of the journey of
Colonel-General of Police Daluege and his report.

Q. Did you ever meet or see Brunner in France?

A. Yes, I met him – in fact, when I was making the journey,
the official journey I was ordered to make, and to which I
have already referred.

Q. In Drancy, right?

A. No, it was on the Cote d’Azur.

Q. But you did know that Brunner was commander of the Drancy

A. According… according to my information, Brunner was not
commander of the Drancy camp, but Brunner was in Western
France and South-West France… I never visited him at
Drancy, either. To the best of my knowledge I never even
went to Drancy.

Q. He organized the transports and deportations from Drancy,
did he not?

A. That is also new to me, that Brunner is supposed to have
done that. I thought that Drancy was under the French police
and that these transports were carried out by Roethke –
Dannecker in conjunction with the French police. That is
also what I gathered here from my researches. I cannot say
anything else about this. If there are documents showing
this is not the case, I will have to acknowledge them.

Q. This is the same Brunner who dealt afterwards with the
Sered camp in Slovakia, is he not?

A. This Brunner, who was in Slovakia in 1944, was called
Alois Brunner. And the Brunner whom I met on the Cote
d’Azur was also Alois Brunner. Whether Anton Brunner …now
I remember the name, the first name, Anton Brunner…was in
France, whether he was even with IVB4, or was transferred to
someone by IVB4, to some senior commander or other, I do not
know. I think in this case it is a question of first names.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps some agreement can be reached on
the question as to which Brunner this was. It is a pity to
waste time. Do you mean Alois Brunner, Mr. Hausner?

Attorney General: I mean Alois Brunner. Alois Brunner was a
member of Section IVB4 throughout the entire period you
worked there, was he not?

Accused: Except for the periods when he was transferred
to the senior commanders or to other authorities abroad.

Q. During one of your visits to Holland you heard that the
Reich Commissioner wanted to take Jewish Affairs away from
Zoepf. Do you remember something like that?

A. Yes, I have read such documents, yes, but I do not know
whether it was the Reich Commissioner or some other
authority – I do not remember at the moment.

Presiding Judge: Which exhibit number is that?

Attorney General: T/562.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, a few days ago I
suggested to you that if there is a document, you should
show it to the Accused, of course, unless there is some
particular intention. Then we shall make more rapid
progress, so that he can be examined on the basis of such

Attorney General: Certainly, but sometimes I do have to ask
a question or two before I show him the document.

Presiding Judge: Yes, of course, sometimes.

Attorney General: After all, this is cross-examination. I
do realize it is somewhat time-consuming, and I regret that
just as much as the Court, but I have to do my duty.

Presiding Judge: Definitely. You will perhaps have noticed
that I have not made any such comments before today, but
when I see that we have already been in France and Holland
and we are now back to France and Holland, I tell myself
that this examination could continue without difficulty for
days on end, and this worries me.

Attorney General: We have not yet been in Holland, but I
promise, Your Honour, I shall speedily conclude with the
West – just some extra odds and ends which I shall finish
without taking up time.

Presiding Judge: Because the examination is so protracted,
there are always additions, and this of course takes a great
deal of time.

Attorney General: We finished with the West last week, and
this week I began with the East, but there are a few items
from the West which I could not dispose of last week, and
with the permission of the Court, I shall try and dispose of

Presiding Judge: Very well.

Attorney General: [To the Accused] So you resisted that and
said there was no point in it? Please look at this. You
insisted that Holland’s Jewish affairs remain in your hands?

Accused: Yes, here, as the text also indicates, during
this official visit to The Hague, I ascertained that this
arrangement was contrary to the order of the Reichsfuehrer-
SS, and therefore it would be senseless if at this advanced
stage the Jewish Question, which had been confirmed by the
Reich Commissioner himself as a Security Police matter, was
now to be dealt with by other authorities. This concerned
Diamantenjuden (diamond Jews) in particular.

Attorney General: All right.

Presiding Judge: Is this 652?

Attorney General: No, 562.

Presiding Judge: I also see the word Diamantenjuden in this

Attorney General: [To the Accused] No – the reference to the
diamond people is elsewhere. We are referring to T/561,
when Hahnemann wanted to release the diamond people and you
objected to that.

Presiding Judge: But I also see Diamantenjuden here.

Attorney General: This is something else, Your Honour. The
Accused considered the entire complex of removing Jewish
Affairs from Zoepf’s sphere to be preposterous.

Accused: This document just put before me shows that on
the official journey I was ordered to make…and in fact
ordered to make in respect of this matter only, as the memos
show…it is here made clear that “moreover, the decision
lies solely with the Reichsfuehrer-SS about releasing the
Jewish diamond workers from the Hertogenbosch Concentration
Camp, as requested by Assessor Hahnemann.”

Q. That is because you objected to this and resisted it, and
because of your insistence and proposal the decision was
left to Himmler himself.

A. No, it was the other way round; that was the assignment
which I was given, and so I went to Holland in order to
clarify this assignment there and to announce it. That was
the actual reason for my being sent to Holland in the first

Q. Just look at the document.

A. I am sorry, which document am I to look at?

Q. Your meeting with several other people in Holland. I
believe it is T/563.

A. All three concern the same meeting.

Q. And you will see there that various matters concerning
Jews are discussed, and inter alia there is also a paragraph
about the diamond Jews. Is that not so?

A. Yes. What is embodied in these documents is correct and

Q. All right, now we can make progress. When you were asked
to do something exceptional for these few Jew in Holland who
were members of the NSB, did you refuse that?

A. I could not refuse that – I had to announce what had been
decided, what I was enjoined to do, I can remember this …I
read it: They were, as a favour, to be evacuated last, and
then they went to Theresienstadt.

Q. Now look, in T/528 it says that you were consulted and
that for reasons of principle you said it was impossible to
comply with their requests.

A. Yes, this document is also correct, and it indicates what
I have just said – that they were to be transported last.

Q. Very well.

Presiding Judge: Can we make a break here?

Attorney General: As you please.

Presiding Judge: The proceedings are adjourned until 3.30
this afternoon.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13