Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, you now have the Defence
witnesses whose statements were taken abroad, and we shall
once again follow the order which we followed with the
submission of the Prosecution witnesses, i.e., which we
followed when the statements made abroad were submitted. In
what order or sequence do you wish to submit these
statements?
Dr. Servatius: The best way is to follow the order of the
applications.
Presiding Judge: Very well. I thought that we should first
concentrate on those which have nothing at all to do with
Hungary, and then those which concern Hungary, but I leave
that up to you, Dr. Servatius.
Dr. Servatius: Often in the documents, several topics are
mentioned in the documents, so that it is difficult to
separate them.
Presiding Judge: Very well. With what would you like to
start?
Dr. Servatius: I would like to start with Witness for the
Defence Six.
Presiding Judge: Alright. I would stress once again that
the statements in their entirety are part of the record of
these proceedings, but you may now read out or translate
those parts from the statements to which the parties wish to
refer particularly. Let us therefore take Six’ statement.
To what would you like to draw our attention here?
Dr. Servatius: This is the examination of witness Six on 24
May ’61 before the Tettnang Court of First Instance. I
would refer in particular to page three, at the end of the
first paragraph. This reads:
“In order to be able to conduct negotiations abroad
with representatives of the foreign state, it was first
necessary to obtain approval of the Minister
responsible, and the German envoy in the state
concerned had to be present. From my own knowledge I
am unable to say whether Eichmann had wider or less
wide powers than other section heads.”
Then the last paragraph starts on the same page:
“The so-called Final Solution of the Jewish Question
was based on a decision by Hitler which was announced
to a certain circle at the Wannsee Conference in 1942,
and then turned into a conclusion by this circle.” I
now omit a sentence. “During 1943, I did receive
reports at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs from the
foreign press for my information, about concentration
camps, gassings and other measures against the Jews.
These reports were so concrete that from 1943 on I no
longer had any doubts that persecution measures were
being carried out against the Jews. From the end of
1943 onwards, most of the highest-level ministerial
civil servants must also have been aware of such press
reports.”
The same page, at the bottom:
“Given the structure of the Head Office for Reich
Security, it was impossible for a section head to grant
exemptions from the orders of his superior, on his own
authority or above the head of his superior. Very many
members of the Head Office for Reich Security were
removed from their posts, and this was certainly one of
the reasons why all were very careful not to exceed
their authority. There were no instructions giving
section heads prior permission for making exceptions.
This applies to the Head Office for Reich Security
generally, and not specifically to the Eichmann
section. I am not familiar with Eichmann’s various
powers.”
In the middle of page five:
“I went to see Heydrich every three or four weeks at
the conferences of department chiefs. Eichmann did not
take part in these conferences.”
On the next page, six, in the middle:
“His whole attitude meant that Eichmann would not
exceed the limits of the instructions he received. I
would have noticed if Eichmann had exceeded his
instructions when I was working in the Secret Service
Head Office. I am not, however, able to remember
anything of the kind.”
At the bottom of the same page, at the end of the paragraph:
“As long as Eichmann was subordinate to me, I do not
remember him making any anti-Jewish statements or
proposals. It was not in his nature to make proposals
which went further than the anti-Jewish measures
envisaged at that time.”
Page seven, lower part:
“Eichmann did not make his journey to Palestine on his
own; he went with Hagen. I must have read the
Palestine report, I suppose. However, I no longer
remember the contents of this report. When Eichmann
was no longer subordinate to me, I ceased to receive
any reports from him. From Document No. 2, which has
been shown to me, I see from the reference Hg, and also
from the title, that the report was in fact written by
Hagen.”
At the bottom of page ten:
“I know nothing about any connection or organizational
co-operation between Eichmann and the Operations
Groups.”
A last comment on the conference in Krummhuebel, page
twelve:
“I believe that, apart from Schleyer and von Thadden,
the participants in the meeting did not have
information about the current situation of the Final
Solution.”
These are the passages I wished to read out.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Attorney General, do you wish to stress
anything?
Attorney General: We have given the passages to Mr. Dayan to
be translated directly.
Interpreter: Shall I read out everything which has been
marked or underlined?
Attorney General: Yes. At the bottom of page two. In order
to avoid misunderstandings, hand it back to me.
The passage marked in the margin in ink:
“The Eichmann section occupied a special position.
More people were employed in this section than in the
other sections.”
Now, at the bottom, on page three:
“If Eichmann was able to sign correspondence with
outside bodies, particularly ministries, on his own,
without any counter-signature (something which I am not
aware of according to my own recollection), then this
was definitely an extension of his powers as a section
head.”
Page four:
“Had I wished to obtain an exemption or something
similar for a Jew, I would not have gone to Eichmann,
as he was an exponent of the other side.”
Now on page five, the bottom of page four:
“I am not familiar with Eichmann’s various powers.
However, there is no doubt that he had wider powers
than other section heads. This was the general view in
the Head Office for Reich Security. The general
impression was that Eichmann was not only under
Mueller’s orders, but that he was somewhat on the same
level as Mueller. Mueller was known as one of the
worst instigators, and I would say that the two were
very well matched. Under a different superior than
Mueller, Eichmann’s powers would probably not have been
as extensive as they actually were. It was known that
Eichmann had access to Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner,
although I cannot now give any actual facts to attest
to that. I also saw Eichmann in Heydrich’s antechamber
– as far as I remember, definitely once or twice.”
Now further down on the same page:
“In my view that was another reason why Eichmann’s
superior considered Eichmann to be particularly suited
for his job, as he was a National Socialist of long
standing. I believe that Heydrich in particular
attached value to the Eichmann section being in the
hands of a National Socialist of long standing. In my
opinion, Mueller and Eichmann teamed up fairly well.”
In the middle of page six:
“Eichmann believed absolutely in National Socialism.
Essentially, the world was fulfilled for him by means
of the Nazi outlook on life.”
And further down on the same page:
“I believe that, when in doubt, Eichmann always acted
in accordance with Party doctrine in its most extreme
interpretation.”
Bottom of page eight:
“During the war it was at least possible to try and be
transferred away from an Operations Group. I myself
made such a successful attempt. It was also possible
in some other cases which were referred to at
Nuremberg.”
Presiding Judge: Is that everything?
Consecutive Interpreter: Yes.
Presiding Judge: I designate this statement VII. Dr.
Servatius, who is next?
Dr. Servatius: The next witness is advocate Dr. Merten. the
examination of 29, 30 and 31 May 1961 before the Berlin-
Tiergarten Court of First Instance.
I would refer to page nine. He says here:
“It is correct that in the criminal proceedings
instituted against me in Greece I did not mention this
visit of the Accused before Christmas 1942. This was
on the advice of counsel for my defence, who advised me
to say as little as possible about any personal contact
with the Accused, as otherwise it was to be feared that
this circumstance would be considered to incriminate
me. I also at the time remembered the “major”
discussion of January 1943 as having taken place in
December 1942.”
Then, page twelve, at the top:
“What is, however, correct is that, in substance, what
I am saying to-day does not entirely coincide in every
detail with what I said in my defence speech before the
Greek court.” Then, in the middle: “I would say about
this that the reasons for the discrepancy are not only
the lack of documents, but more particularly the fact
that in the Greek proceedings I was the accused and
was making a speech for the defence, where the main
object was to incriminate myself as little as possible.
Moreover, my counsel was most insistent in his
recommendation that I dissociate by every possible
allegation the Wehrmacht from the Head Office for Reich
Security; I was told that I should bear in mind the
fact that senior professional army officers were
judging me, and I had to address them in `military’
terms. To-day I am in a different situation, since to-
day I am a witness and have to give testimony on oath.
The reason why in the speech in my defence I moreover
spoke only of Eichmann and did not refer to Guenther,
too, in this respect, was also because of the emphatic
recommendations of my defence counsel that in my
argument I should avoid a wealth of names which would
confuse the court. It can be seen that I did at that
point think of Guenther, because on page 43 of the
shorthand record about 17 February, 1959, I refer to
`Eichmann’s SS adjutant'”.
These are the passages to which I wished to refer.
Presiding Judge: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Hausner.
Attorney General: We have no passages from Merten’s
statement on which we wish to comment.
Presiding Judge: I designate the first part of this
statement VIII (1) and the addition of 7 June 1961 – VIII
(2). Dr. Servatius, who comes next? The Attorney General
has nothing to read out from Merten.
Dr. Servatius: The statement by witness Krumey of 6 June
1961 before the Frankfurt am Main Court of First Instance.
Presiding Judge: Did you also receive copies of the
documents which were shown to Krumey during his examination?
Dr. Servatius: No, I did not receive any separate copies.
Presiding Judge: Nor have you looked at these documents?
Dr. Servatius: I cannot say for the moment, I –
Presiding Judge: I gave instructions that both parties
should have these documents brought to their notice. There
was some difficulty here. If you remember, these documents
reached the Court indirectly, and I therefore gave
instructions that both parties should have these documents
brought to their notice.
The Secretary, Mr. Bodenheimer, maintains that he showed you
the documents and that you said that you wished to refer
only to the first document. Do you remember something like
that?
Dr. Servatius: I do remember these documents now. There was
the first one and the – except the first one, there were no
objections to any of them. At the top of the first one it
said “Copy”, so that here there was no photocopy of the
original, and the second thing to which there was an
objection was the last sentence of this teletype. This
sentence was even underlined; it read: “No special care for
them is required.” I would have liked to see the original,
since it is strange that this sentence is underlined, and it
is possible that it was a later addition made by someone.
There – the reason why it attracts attention is because all
the other photocopies are photocopies of the original; it is
only this essential document which is just a photocopy of a
copy.
Presiding Judge: Alright. In any case, this is what was
sent to us, and we shall pay due attention to this. We
shall bear in mind that it was a photocopy of a copy.
Dr. Servatius, what do you wish to read out from this
statement?
Last-Modified: 1999/06/14
