Session 101-04, Eichmann Adolf

Q. Very well, the book does in fact speak for itself – it
speaks volumes, in fact. And it really needs no further

Simply in order to summarize this matter, you will admit
that Krumey knew perfectly well that you and your Section
had nothing to do with those who were suitable for
Germanization, and those who were not suitable for

A. But Krumey…

Q. “Yes” or “no”?

A. I do not know, Mr. Attorney General. But as for Krumey as
the Head of the Central Migration Office in Litzmannstadt
being concerned with these forms of words, that is evident.

Q. Did he know that you had nothing to do with
Germanization, and with those suitable for Germanization,
that there was a special Department or a special Section for
that? Krumey did know that, did he not?

A. Yes, but he knew just as well that I was responsible for
transport affairs, since I had in fact…the Section had in
fact worked for a long time together with the Central Office
for Migration and Resettlement.

Q. Precisely, and so when he wrote to you
“Sonderbehandlung,” he knew exactly what sort of
Sonderbehandlung you dealt with.

A. No, I cannot admit that, Mr. Attorney General.

Q. As in T/200, for example – just look at that. Look at the
type of special treatment you dealt with.
A. Yes.

Q. Your special treatment is in fact what it says there, is
it not?

A. No, this is the same teletype to which I referred in my
Statement a few weeks ago.

Q. But here it says quite simply “Sonderbehandlung,” and
what that meant: Sending people off to their deaths, with no
further additions.

A. But here it says explicitly: “On the orders of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police – the
special treatment of the Jews…so-and-so…proposed at your
end…is to be carried out.”

Q. And that is the special treatment you dealt with?

A. I have already…with regard to the various
possibilities, I have in fact – said everything. In this
case I could here…

Q. Yes, yes that is quite clear, you have said everything.

Let us now turn to a different chapter. Do you remember the
chapter of the skeletons in Strasbourg? Do you remember that
Sievers approached you, and that you wanted him to provide
you with the Reichsfuehrer’s order?

A. Mr. Attorney General, I do not remember this, but I have
read about it.

Q. But that was also not a normal daily duty, providing
several hundred skeletons for anatomical experimental
purposes, and not animal skeletons but human ones. You have
no recollection of this?

A. Oh yes. About this, I stated that I remembered it, of
course, I said that…

Q. Well, then, tell us what you remember; tell us what you

A. But I did not say that I have any particular recollection
of Sievers coming to me; it is possible that he came to see
me, but I am not sure about this…

Q. Very well, so what can you remember? What has remained in
your memory?

A. That someone came to see me and wanted to get skeletons
or skulls from me – I do not remember…And there is one
thing I do remember, that I said to him, “I am not a dealer
in skulls.” That is what I know. And strangely in this case
again, there is apart from that also nothing at all which
refers to me personally. And this case shows once more very
clearly that I immediately took my fingers out of matters in
which I was not competent, and I did not leave them in. That
is proved by this entire case.

Q. Who approached you?

A. I do not remember – I have some vague memory of someone
coming to see me. I do not even know if I am imagining this
as I have already heard it so often, or I have been told
this so often, that I am no longer capable of distinguishing
between what happened and what I have been told. But I am
quite prepared to accept that it might have been Sievers,
although I am not sure about this. But I do know one thing,
that I had nothing to do with this matter, and cannot be
connected with it. And the documents also prove this.

Q. Very well. So if you believe that it probably was
Sievers, who was this Sievers?

A. Naturally I can ascertain this today most precisely,
because I have read so much literature about him.

Q. So who was he?

A. He was in some way the head of the Ahnenerbe, the
Ancestral Heritage Society.

Q. What was his rank?

A. SS Standartenfuehrer.

Q. Standartenfuehrer. This office was under Himmler’s direct
command, was it not? Under Himmler’s direct orders?

A. That is possible, I do not know; I never visited the
Ahnenerbe, nor do I have any idea about this office’s
organizational composition.

Q. Can you tell us what reason Sievers, a Standartenfuehrer
in the SS who knew perfectly well how things worked, had to
approach you of all people and demand that you provide him
with skulls or skeletons?

Accused Certainly. Because the Chief of the Personal Staff –
not the Chief, the administrative head or chief staff
officer or Himmler’s Personal Staff – sent me a letter which
said that Himmler intended to support Hirt in his research
and that there…I cannot quote this by heart, the letter is
available for reference. In any case, he approached me to
assist him in obtaining these materials – meaning the Jews.
At least I believe that that is how it reads: I do not
remember exactly.

And, moreover, in reply to your question, Mr. Attorney
General, therefore Sievers must…because there is another
letter, and he refers to a letter from IVB4 that he has had
a conversation – so he must have been to see IVB4. As to
whether he talked to me, whether he talked to Guenther, I
cannot say. And I do not know anything more about this
matter either, other than that I cannot have had anything to
do with these matters, if only for reasons of my…my
competence, as I was not competent in such matters: It was
the Economic-Administrative Head Office, that is the
Inspectorate of the Concentrations Camp. Only those were

Q. So assuming that the Court has already heard several
dozen times that only the Economic-Administrative Head
Office was competent, I repeat my question: Why did Sievers
approach you, IVB4, in order to obtain the skeletons or
skulls of Jews for these purposes? Can you explain that?

A. I cannot explain that to myself: I can only explain that
it was because Brandt from Himmler’s Staff wrote to Section
IVB4, to me.

Q. Why? Why to you?

A. I myself do not know why, as the matter, in fact, shows
that it was not dealt with further by myself, either.

Q. Oh yes, it was.

A. No, it was not dealt with by me further. In no shape or

Q. Yes, it was – by IVB4.

A. By IVB4? No, it was not dealt with further.

Q. No?

A. That is in fact shown by a reference in Sievers’ diary,
which I have also studied, in which it says, “Investigation
could not be carried out.” That was six months later. I have
no knowledge as to what Mueller did with this matter.

Q. Mueller again?

A. Well, if I had been involved, my name would have been
there, and in all these things – whether it was the Wetzel
affair, or whether it is some other affair, that is in fact
the strange thing, that my name does not appear. So there
must be some truth in my statement that I kept my finger out
of this pie when I was not competent, and not ordered
directly to deal with it. Because if I had received orders,
then I must state frankly that then I would have had in fact
to do it and carry out orders. But definitely, as Mueller
knew me, he spared me this order; I cannot imagine any other
possibility, since this is in fact what the documents and
files show.

Q. I do not believe the Court wishes me to examine you once
again, and I would for the moment like to remain with the
matter of the skeletons in Strasbourg. A letter to you is
drafted. It is even proposed that a draft be sent to you
from the highest levels of the SS High Command about the
skeletons. You indicate that you insist on a letter from the
Reichsfuehrer. Whereupon, there is a note in Sievers’ diary
that he has visited IVB4 and then the skeletons are
delivered to Strasbourg.

Presiding Judge: What is the number of the document?

Attorney General: T/1362 and following. I do not have the
document at the moment.

Accused I did not insist on any letter from Himmler’s
headquarters. That is not true.

Q. You did not demand a confirmation of this from the

A. I did not insist on anything; I received it, but I did
not insist on it.

Q. So what did you do with it? The application was to you,
what did you do then?

A. If I had been competent, then you can count on my having
followed that up immediately, and having carried out this
order; but I was not competent for that.

Q. I am not asking about “if,” if it had been…You admit
that you were approached. What did you do?

A. Such cases where I was not competent – this was not in
fact the only case – I always consistently passed over to
Chief of Department IV.

Q. What did you do in this particular instance? Not in other

A. I passed it on to Mueller, as IVB4 was not competent for

Q. To whom did you hand it over?

So you are now trying to tell us once again what you tried
to tell us about the Lidice children? You are the person who
is approached. You pass this on to Mueller and then Mueller
behind your back turns this into a secret matter and then,
behind your back and circumventing you, assigns this to your
deputy Guether? Is that what you are now saying?

A. To this, all I have to say is… Why, tell me, does my
name appear there? That should be very significant.

Presiding Judge: That was not an answer to the question.
That may be an explanation, but it is not a reply to the
question. Mueller approached Guenther behind your back.

Accused: Behind my back – my Department Chief had no need
whatsoever to do anything at all behind my back.

Presiding Judge: Without your knowledge?

Accused: Yes, without my knowledge. Because otherwise he
could have given me orders about it, then I would have
appeared here. So he did not give me orders about it, but –
as Sievers’ diary shows – evidently ordered Guenther to deal
with it. As to whether he did give him orders about it, I do
not know either. I have been wondering about that. But then
my name would, in any case, have been in the diary or have
been referred to elsewhere in some fashion. There would be
letters and so on. But there is nothing here, and this
proves that I as Section IVB4 was not responsible for this
matter and that I was right, at least on a personal level.

Attorney General: But Sievers gave evidence, you are also
aware of that?

Accused Yes, I have of course read the entire matter

Q. And there something is said about you yourself, is it

A. Yes, I have read that also.

Q. So your name appears somewhere else as well in connection
with this matter?

A. Yes, but only for the purpose of Sievers’ defence before
the Court. But even before the Court someone…I am not sure
who it was, the prosecutor or someone else…immediately
found out that in fact Gluecks was responsible for this, and
that was my version too.

Q. Just forget about the other people for the moment. I am
asking about Sievers’ statement. Let us forget about the
prosecutor, let us forget about all these things. I am
talking about Sievers’ statement. Sievers says something
about you.

Presiding Judge: Very well, show the document to the

Attorney General: The collection of documents is T/1362 and

Presiding Judge: Yes, we know that. Would you please give
all of this to the Attorney General.

Attorney General: Would you please look at this. Sievers’
statements in the proceedings against Karl Brandt and
others. He says that he was told to see you. Gluecks sent
him to you.

A. Yes, I am familiar with these passages. I have studied

Q. So why does he say these things about you?

A. That is quite clear. Sievers is highly incriminated in
this matter, because he was continuously dealing with these
matters, and endeavoured to distance himself from this
affair before the Court. That I understand to have been
Sievers’ attitude. But he…

Q. But why did he choose you, why not Guenther, if Guenther
actually handled the matter, why you in particular? Why not
place the guilt on the person who really dealt with it –
Guenther? If he really wanted to find a scapegoat, and a
scapegoat who was not there, to whom nothing would happen,
then he could have chosen Guenther as this scapegoat.
Guenther is not there either. Why should Sievers ascribe
such things to you?

A. This was evidently an error, because he had in fact
written his diary, and the diary has been found, and that is
available, it is in there.

Q. And in the diary it says Guenther, does it not? So it
would after all be a good idea, if he wanted to ascribe
something, to ascribe it to Guenther and not to you, would
it not?

A. Yes, but what is definite in this case is the diary,
because there it is in black and white, and here is a
statement which says wrongly that he dealt with these
matters with me, and this is once again corroborated by the
fact that I no longer appear in the arrangements.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, the time has come to adjourn.
If you wish to add anything tomorrow, feel free to do so.

Judge Halevi: Is this diary an exhibit in these proceedings?

Attorney General: Yes it is.

Presiding Judge: The Court will recess until 8.30 tomorrow

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14