Session 105-03, Eichmann Adolf

Dr. Servatius: No, there is no misunderstanding; the only
matter that might still arise is the statement of van
Taalingen, the Dutch witness, which may still arrive. In
the meanwhile, I have received the book which contains a
considerable amount of documentation; perhaps I shall also
receive the affidavit.

Presiding Judge: All right, we shall talk about this later.
I was only referring to this judgment for the moment, and I
should like to take this opportunity to stress that it is
not possible to submit new documents at the time of the
summing-up. I assume that you are fully aware of this, but
I wished to say that ex abundanti cantela.

Dr. Servatius: I do not believe that I shall submit any
further evidence during the summing-up.

Presiding Judge: Very well, I simply wanted to make the

Attorney General: I gather, therefore, that the complete
judgment in the Wilhelmstrasse Case will be submitted as

Presiding Judge: That is how I understand it.

Attorney General: Thank you very much.

Presiding Judge: Very well. Dr. Servatius, will you please
read out that part which you wished to read from the

Dr. Servatius: It says here, “Lastly” – the reference is to
a telegram of 10 September, the telegram with the entry
“Eichmann proposes shooting” is dated the 12th – it says
here: “Lastly, Rademacher was sent to Belgrade to ascertain
whether these Jews cannot be disposed of on the spot.” The
assignment can be seen here.

Witness, you have stated that you had nothing to do with
deportations of Jews from the Generalgouvernement. You were
then confronted with a statement by witness Rajewski, which
shows that persons from Poland were delivered from Warsaw
with an assignment from IVB4. You – this would in fact
indicate that you carried out this delivery from the
Generalgouvernement to Auschwitz. The question is: If it is
shown that these persons were subsequently further
transported from Auschwitz to the Reich, is it conceivable
that you gave instructions for such further transport, or
for the previous delivery?

Accused: No, that is entirely inconceivable, because
transports from Auschwitz to some other destination were
never, and could never, be processed by Section IVB4; such
matters had to be dealt with by the Economic-Administrative
Head Office.

Q.Then let me just get your reaction to what the witness
Rajewski said in the proceedings against Hoess. On page 19
there is a description of the individual transports which
arrived with the assignment from IVB4, from Germany, from
Greece, and so on, and there it says at the bottom: “Jews
from the Generalgouvernement and Bialystok, and finally
Poland.” And at the end of the statement it then says:
“Were these Polish transports, which were marked Head Office
for Reich Security, sent to the gas chambers?”

“`Witness, as far as the district of Zamosc was concerned –
yes. And the transports from Warsaw?; from Warsaw – no.’
The transports from Warsaw were sent to the Reich. So that
perhaps here there is an explanation. The witness does not

Presiding Judge: Very well, let the Accused say what he has
to say about this.

Accused: Section IVB4 of Department IV cannot have had
anything to do with this.

Dr. Servatius: Now I come to the gas business, these
discussions you had with Guenther. You said you had
remonstrated with him that he was concerning himself with an
order which had nothing to do with your Section. And then,
finally, you said that since you could not give a
satisfactory description, you would rather take
responsibility for this matter.

Do you wish by this to admit, contrary to your convictions,
that you were involved with these gas matters?

Accused: No, by this I wanted to prove precisely the
opposite. That I would say…well, then in that case I must
in fact take it upon myself that I said this and knew this,
rather than giving the impression here of being a liar or
someone who wants to evade something.

Q. So you still wish to contest this?

A. Yes, indeed.

Q. Then the statement by SS Judge Dr. Morgen was read out
here. He says – in cross-examination it was put to him that
he had asked for a warrant to be issued for your arrest, in
order to remove you as one of the principal participants in
the exterminations.

Do you know anything about such an arrest warrant?

A. I do know something about an arrest warrant, but this is
something completely different, which has nothing to do with
this, but I can talk about it, if it is of any interest.

Q. At one point in his solemn declaration, this Dr. Morgen
said that he had only been able to act indirectly against
these principal persons, on criminal charges, because of
bribery, theft, embezzlement, and similar matters. Is the
arrest warrant connected with any such indirect proceeding?

A. Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, the charge or the arrest
warrant against me?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, because of ignorance of the facts a warrant for my
arrest was applied for on such grounds.

Q. Would you describe what these grounds were, what the
procedure was?

A. Certainly. The whole thing occurred not in 1944, but in
1943. In 1943 two men of the Criminal Police came to see me
at my Section. They asked about a pouch with diamonds or
other precious stones, and I told them, yes, I did know
something about this, but I said I do not know how and what,
I cannot remember. And then the policemen left. Months
later I was informed that I had to report to the SS and
Police Court in Berlin. I went there late one afternoon and
reported, because I assumed that they wanted some
information or something, but instead I was examined by a
judge called Baumann or Baumgarten. This was about what had
happened to the pouch with the precious stones. And after I
made a statement there to the effect that I did know
something, but I could not remember any of this business, I
was questioned, and a record was made by a sergeant of the
Order Police who was present.

Q. And the result was that this charge turned out to be

A. The result was that when I came back, I put my head of
registry to work, and he and his staff spent the whole night
going through the files, and then they found a communication
between Mueller and Gluecks where…I forget today…Mueller
informed Gluecks that there was a pouch with precious stones
in the safe of the Berlin Secret Police Headquarters. And
this letter, which dates back to my predecessor’s time –
Lischka – must somehow have got to me when I took over the
Section; so I remembered such a matter of precious stones
and a pouch with diamonds, I had said I did, and that was

I took this letter to my superior – Gruppenfuehrer Mueller –
informed him of the proceedings on the previous day, and
then later I heard that Judge Baumann had made an
application for my arrest to my judicial superior,
Kaltenbrunner, and had been turned down there. I myself was
dealt with very harshly by the police court authorities.
For my staff, as long as…for my staff in the Section, as
long as this letter had not been found, there remained a bad
taste, because it was after all a criminal matter, and
therefore I asked for this Judge Baumann or Baumgarten to
apologize to me in the presence of the members of my
Section. And the man came and apologized to me for the
treatment I had received.

Q. Witness, in cross-examination, when you were accused of
having caused only evil, you pointed out that you had also
engaged in beneficial activity – apart from the task of
deportation. Were you here referring to emigration
activities in Vienna, settlement in Nisko, the Madagascar

A. I do not want to give myself credit for anything – but if
I am asked such a question, I must say that I regret that
this activity at that time was only very brief, and I also
regret that I did not do more for the matter than I actually

Q. Witness,if one looks at this matter retrospectively,

in terms of the extermination, then those were lighter
matters which appear to be more favourable; but looking at
it at the time when orders were given for these measures,
one may see things differently.

What, in your view, is the favourable side of these various
matters, for example in Vienna, relative to what you did
there? In your view, what was the advantageous aspect of
this for the Jews?

A. I can only say here that in fact it was also in line with
the wishes of the Jewish political functionaries, this
forcing of emigration. If one bears in mind that, after the
so-called reunification of Austria with the German Reich,
extremely hard-line and severe anti-Jewish legislation came
into force, and considering what the State Police methods
were at that time, when the reintegration was completed in
the first days, then one must in fact acknowledge that for
the individual Jew it was definitely better – he emigrated,
particularly since at that time the Jew who wanted to
emigrate could take his household effects – furniture – with
him; naturally, as far as property was concerned, laws and
ordinances had been issued. But then he could have peace
and quiet abroad. Otherwise the rush and the efforts to
emigrate would not have been so great. And in fact my
efforts were designed precisely – inter alia – to follow
bureaucratic procedure and to agree on bureaucratic
procedure, which up until then had been so complicated…

Q. And what is your view of the resettlement operation –
what did you see as the advantage of the Nisko resettlement
project, the advantage for the Jews?

A. Just like emigration, it was the least of all the evils –
the advantage, if this Nisko project had come off, then the
advantage would have been that albeit not a large territory,
but still a territory, would have been available where
Jewish self-administration could have been put into
practice. Briefly, that is what I wish to say about this.

Q. Then there is still a question to be cleared up about the
Brand operation. You have said that you did not promise
that the deportations would be stopped until the
negotiations were completed. Rather, you said the
deportations would continue and they would be stopped as
soon as the contract was agreed to. You commented in the
Sassen Memoirs on this matter. The second volume, at the
bottom of page 86. I shall read the passage out to you,
and I would ask you then to indicate whether this was what
you said at the time.

“Question: Do you think that at any time during the
negotiations with Jews, with Jewish leaders, somehow in
the excitement or in order to add pressure to the
argument, that the word ‘to gas’ was used here, by you
or by your subordinates?

“Answer: Yes – I am only saying what I know. For the
first time between Kasztner and myself. Kasztner was
the one who said to me, `I ask you to stop the
extermination machinery in Auschwitz.’ Whereupon I
said to Kasztner – my secretary was present: `Kasztner,
I would just like to say something to you. You know it
just as well as I do. Neither I nor the Chief of the
Security Police has the authority for the extermination
machinery in Auschwitz. You know just as well as I do
that it is a matter of the SS and the Economic-
Administrative Head Office’.”

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, in the transcript here there
is no text between “SS and the VWAH” (Verwaltungs- und
Wirtschaftshauptamt – Economic-Administrative Head Office).
Everything is crossed out.

Dr. Servatius: This is a typing mistake. In the original
here it reads “the SS and the VWHA.”
Presiding Judge: All right.

Dr. Servatius: (Continues reading):

“The extermination machinery can be stopped only by the
Reichsfuehrer. If the ten thousand trucks with
trailers arrive, then the extermination machinery in
Auschwitz will be stopped.”

Is this the explanation which you gave at that time?

Accused: I must also say about this that I cannot give
any guarantee for the literal wording. The last sentence,
“If the ten thousand trucks with trailers arrive, then the
extermination machinery in Auschwitz will be stopped,” is
factually incorrect. It would be correct if it read, “if
Brand or the agreement are there.” Besides, I did in fact
also somehow refer to this matter in my Statement here, as
well as during my interrogation, I believe.

Presiding Judge: I mark this passage N/101.

Dr. Servatius: The Attorney General then explained that
Chaim Weizmann’s so-called declaration of war on Nazi
Germany was a propaganda lie.

Did you know that, or did you believe in the truth of this

Accused: I did not believe that it was a propaganda lie.
Although I must admit – and have in fact done so – compared
with the initial weeks, when this, together with the reading
material, kept landing all the time on desks in all the
offices, later in the War I did not hear of this matter, I
must admit.

Q. Witness, in cross-examination you then also relied on
Theodor Herzl. Did Dr. Loewenherz have any misgivings about
approaching you about the transfer of Herzl’s remains? And
what was the reason for his approaching you?

A. Dr. Loewenherz never had any fears about coming to me
with all sorts of things which occupied his mind. So he
came to me with many, many things which were in no way
within my competence. But still I talked about them with
the appropriate office heads, or I passed them on through my
Chief, if I could not do it directly. That is the only
explanation I can give why Dr. Loewenherz came to me one day
to see me about this matter.

Q. Was there not a special reason for his approaching you at
that particular time?

A. I do not know, nor do I know whether at that time Dr.
Loewenherz somehow had some special impulse or other –
perhaps financial supporters abroad called his attention to
this. I cannot say, I do not know.

Q. In the so-called Sassen Memoirs many passages have been
read out here which show a marked anti-Jewish attitude. Are
there also contrary passages in the memoirs, where you adopt
a different attitude?

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14