Presiding Judge: There are various documents appended.
Attorney General: Thank you very much. I do not wish the
document to be read out; I would simply wish the document to
be before the Court, because it is referred to in the
passage which I wish to quote.
Interpreter: I have no material attached.
Attorney General: For the sake of brevity, we will do
Presiding Judge: This was the same telegram which you later
wanted to show to the witness Kappler.
Attorney General: Yes.
Judge Raveh: Does it start with the word
Attorney General: Yes, that is the telegram I am referring
to. “Instructions for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Kappler.”
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the translation with which I
have been provided does not show which appendices are
referred to. I have not seen them.
Attorney General: To clarify things, perhaps we shall also
re-examine the exhibits, in order to avoid any confusion.
Presiding Judge: We have received a number of appended
documents from the court in Rome, and we had them translated
into Hebrew. Apparently only the testimony was translated
into German, but Counsel for the Defence did not receive the
telegram when we sent it – apparently he did not receive it
when we got the documents back from the court in Rome.
Presiding Judge: This set of documents is not properly
organized, and I see that Dr. Servatius has not been able to
look at these documents at all.
Attorney General: We have not had a look at this, since the
documents were returned.
Presiding Judge: As usual, I gave instructions to show you
everything which reached us. I do not intend to ascertain
just now what has happened here. In any case I shall mark
Kappler’s statement as XV. Now Dr. Servatius has the
further problem of Slawik’s testimony.
Attorney General: I am informed by my colleague Wechtenbruch
that he has not received Slawik’s statement. So there must
be some mistake on the part of the office.
Presiding Judge: I, therefore, suggest that we try to finish
as much as possible today, and that these two matters – the
Slawik statement and the documents appended to the Kappler
statement – subject to both parties’ consent be dealt with
after the recess which is to take place shortly. I do not
believe that it is worthwhile having a special Session
tomorrow to deal with these matters. I trust that both
parties agree to this.
Attorney General: Yes, of course.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, if I might – if I can just look
at this quickly, I can comment after 15 minutes.
Presiding Judge: Apart from these two matters, Dr.
Servatius, does the Accused have any other witnesses for the
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, we have received this sworn
affidavit by a lady lawyer called van Taalingen-Dols, who
has also sent the book belonging to it, which contains
reproductions of the documents. I consider this to be most
important and informative with regard to the events in
Holland, and the involvement of Department IV and Himmler in
authorizing emigration in special cases; here this concerns
Professor Meyers, an expert in constitutional and
international law who wished to leave the country, and here
we can see all of the difficulties which are dealt with in
the book. And then I also wished to…
Meanwhile I have had investigations carried out regarding
the deponent and her character, and I would like that
arrangements be made for the cross-examination of this
witness. I realize that, at this stage, such an application
would lead to a considerable delay in the proceedings, and I
would like to emphasize that it is only because of this fact
that I am waiving the cross-examination.
Presiding Judge: And what about the book?
Attorney General: There is no problem whatsoever in
referring to the corresponding passages in the book.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is this lady’s name?
Dr. Servatius: Dr. Luise Isabelle Lucie van Taalingen-Dols,
domiciled in Erdenhaut-Blumendahl, Holland.
Presiding Judge: The book is written by the same lady, is it
Dr. Servatius: Yes, she is the author.
Decision No. 961
We authorize the submission of the sworn affidavit by Mrs.
van Taalingen-Dols and the book by her as evidence in these
proceedings. The Attorney General has no objections on this
score, and his statement in this respect has been noted in
the record of the proceedings.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, you see the sworn affidavit,
together with a large number of enclosures – translations
from the book – which are necessary because reference is
made to these pages in the sworn affidavit.
Presiding Judge: The sworn affidavit has been marked
Judge Raveh: We already have that.
Presiding Judge: I am sorry – not N/103, but N/104, and I
mark the book N/105. Please proceed!
Dr. Servatius: The sworn affidavit was given on 17 July
1961 before District Notary Mink at Karlsheim in
Wuerttemberg, Baden. The witness is on holiday there.
The statement runs as follows:
“During the 1940-1945 War I was a lawyer in Haarlem,
Holland, and the lawyer of my former chief university
teacher, Professor E.M. Meyers. This professor was
Jewish. On 28 August 1942, I personally submitted an
application, dated 27 August 1942, and addressed to the
Senior Commander of the Security Police IVB4 in The
Hague for the emigration of this professor with his
spouse and daughter – I submitted this to the woman
civil servant whose task it was to pre-process
emigration applications for her chief, who was resident
in Holland. This woman was known to have quite a lot
of influence over her chief, who trusted her as a
result of her efficiency and expertise. She promised
me that the application would be submitted to Berlin
soon with a recommendation. See page 95, the end – 98,
the middle, and 99, middle of my book, The Struggle for
a Man’s Life (Osterban and Lekinter, Geiss, Holland,
1960). In this application I offered 150,000 Swiss
francs for the permit. “When I asked who was the
person in Berlin who took decisions about emigration
applications, she replied: Mueller. Eichmann was never
indicated to me as being responsible for decisions on
applications for emigration, although I did talk about
this very often with several Security Service and SS
officials. He was always indicated to me as the top
chief in Group IVB – the Jewish department complex in
the Head Office for Reich Security, Berlin.”
Presiding Judge: Who is “he”? Mueller or Eichmann?
Dr. Servatius: I imagine this should be Eichmann.
“As such, he was depicted to me as being extremely
important and influential. Consequently, I was
extremely set on talking to him when the decision on
Professor Meyers’ application was delayed for a long
time, and the offer of 150,000 Swiss francs made in it
had to be withdrawn because of certain circumstances.
See pp. 169-175, 206-208.
“It is essential to peruse these passages which show
that the Swiss banks – although initially authorization
had been granted – blocked the payment, without giving
any further details. I was told that the application
was being examined at the Head Office for Reich
Security in Berlin. Therefore, it was clear to me that
if this examination was to be carried out by one of the
Sections of Group IVB – as I was told – (which I
thought quite likely, because basically it was a Jewish
matter, even if finally such an application would come
for a decision to Mueller in Department IV of the
Secret State Police), the application could not fail to
come to the attention of the head of the Eichmann
group, on its way from the examining department to the
decision-making authority. See the book, on page 207.
“In addition, the possibility of the emigration
application being rejected had increased, since the
offer of free foreign currency had had to be withdrawn.
As a result of this, I had to ask for other favours,
but no one was able to indicate any other relevant
decision-making authority. I, therefore, wanted to
submit this, too, to Eichmann. Even if he himself was
not responsible, he would know the right way, if I
could win him over for our case.
“On 22 July, 1943, the meeting I had asked for took
place at the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin,
not with Eichmann himself, since, according to his
deputy Guenther, he had gone on an official journey,
but with Guenther, who had previously been informed
accordingly. There, I learned that the Head Office for
Reich Security was not competent for decisions on
emigration matters, and that the only person competent
in matters of emigration was Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler,
but that an application to him would be futile, as
recently all similar applications had been rejected.
Guenther indicated comparable cases, all of which had
been refused, although the highest diplomatic
authorities had advocated them. However, a promise was
given that my application for the Meyers family not to
be sent to the East would be granted. Precisely who
was responsible for approving this favour requested, or
who approved it, I do not know. The main thing for me
was that it was approved and that I knew exactly how to
get this. See the book, pages 214-220 and 252.
“As a result of this meeting I gained a better
understanding of the report which was sent to me
previously, on 14 July 1943, by the Amsterdam Security
Service branch office, indicating that the office of
the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler was asking for references
for Professor Meyers, which it would take into account
regarding emigration. See the book, page 210.
“In view of what I heard from Guenther about the
likelihood of an application to Himmler for emigration
being successful, and in the light of the initial
submission and subsequent withdrawal of the offer of
free foreign currency, and the doubts I began to have
as to the acceptability to Himmler of the names and
addresses of references in Germany with which Professor
Meyers had provided me, I decided to wait first for an
examination of the references before I would initiate
anything further with Himmler. I was notified that the
references had to be not only racially, but also
politically, totally impeccable. In addition, there
was the fact that in those confused times it was
extremely difficult, if not impossible, for non-
initiates to carry out any political checks. Moreover,
in view of the danger facing those who made positive
statements about Jews, we were not at all sure that we
would be able to obtain favourable statements for our
purposes. This was particularly true in the light of
the fact that the references required by Himmler’s
office had to be domiciled in Germany. This had
already taken me aback and made me twice as cautious.
When, in fact, it became clear that it was just not
feasible to carry out these checks, I decided not to
jeopardize the favour obtained from the Head Office for
Reich Security that they would not be deported, by
having emigration rejected by the supreme ruler,
Himmler. Consequently, I did not follow up the 14 July
request from Himmler’s office. I was familiar with the
inter-office rivalry, which also existed between
persons in one and the same office, as well as the
resultant dangers for people concerned.”
I would, in this connection, point out that the documents
show that this Professor Meyers then went to Theresienstadt;
he could, in fact, I believe, have remained in Holland, but
he preferred to go to Theresienstadt, and then he returned
after the War. The book shows all of this.
Presiding Judge: Thank you. Dr. Servatius, how much more
time do you need at this stage? I should like to find out
whether we can finish today, apart from those matters we
mentioned previously, or whether we have to arrange for
another Session tomorrow.
Dr. Servatius: I believe that we can conclude things today,
after a short recess. I still have to look at this Slawik
Presiding Judge: I am not referring to that; we can leave
that until the beginning of the next stage, that is to say,
after the recess. But apart from that, what else do you
Dr. Servatius: I still have here the documents to which
Eichmann referred, which I wanted to submit, on the “special
treatment”; he indicated here various documents from
Reitlinger, and I have had them photocopied and wanted to
submit them now.
Presiding Judge: Yes, Mr. Hausner.
Attorney General: First of all, with the Court’s permission,
so that this statement does not appear onesided, I should
like to read out two quotations, and I also have various
short matters which would not take the Court longer than
twenty minutes to deal with.
Presiding Judge: You may mention the quotations, and
tomorrow morning we shall arrange for a short session. In
the meanwhile, Dr. Servatius can look at the Slawik
statement and also the Kappler documents, and then we shall
know that we have more or less finished.
Dr. Servatius: Yes, I agree.
Attorney General: Just two short passages on page 214. I am
referring to the transcript appended by Counsel for the
Defence. The first eight lines from the word “Besprechung”
(conference) on page 214.
Attorney General: 22 July, at the top it reads:
“Conference in the Head Office for Reich Security at 10
a.m., inter alia re Meyers.”
“Eichmann who, as Himmler’s representative, is the
supreme authority on all Jewish matters throughout
Europe, is in Czechoslovakia. His deputy, Guenther,
appears to be well-informed and, as he has indicated,
is authorized to take binding decisions. The
participants in the conference were SS Sturmbannfuehrer
Guenther, his secretary, Dr. Geusmann, Mrs. Kanne and
Just to clarify matters: As appears in the book, Mrs. Kanne
was the wife of Dr. Kanne, who was a physician in the Dutch
navy. Her brother, Dr. Geusmann, was an SS Legal Officer in
the Head Office for Reich Security.
Presiding Judge: We know about Mrs. Slottke, the secretary.
Attorney General: We know about Mrs. Slottke.
Presiding Judge: Apparently another woman was present.
Attorney General: The next quotation is on page 218. I
would ask to read out the first three lines and the
beginning of the fourth line, and then to finish in the
middle of the quotation – the lines I have marked:
“The conference is now over, Guenther shakes hands with
me, and says that I can rely on everything being
carried out as promised. Outside, Dr. Geusmann
congratulates me on the major success I have achieved,”
and then, in the middle: “he states that the fact that
I was actually allowed to appear in person at the Head
Office for Reich Security, the `Holiest of Holies’ (as
it says here), and that I was allowed there to talk to
the representative of the Supreme Commander for Jewish
Matters, that in itself is a major exception to the
principles that an outsider has absolutely no access at
all to this office.”
In my submissions in my summing-up, I shall draw the Court’s
attention to other passages in the book, but at this stage
these two quotations will suffice.
Perhaps I might request a further decision, because on that
will depend whether a certain person has to stay in
Jerusalem tonight, someone who has been sitting here all
day, in connection with a rebutting testimony which I intend
to ask for.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, it is already 6.20, and we
have extended the session, in the hope that we would finish
altogether. I am sorry, but he will have to spend another
night in Jerusalem.
The Court will adjourn until 8.30 tomorrow morning.