Walter Huppenkothen-02, Eichmann Adolf

(7): As far as I know, the only reason why the offices were
so scattered was that there was no possibility of housing
them all together. I cannot confirm that there was any
connection between the accommodation of Section IVB4 and its

(8): It is true that Mueller generally dealt directly with
the Heads of Sections – in other words without the
participation of the Group or Department Chief, so that in
such cases the Group or Department Chief concerned would
only be able to find out from the Section Heads concerned
what Mueller had decided, or what was involved at all. It
was Mueller’s opinion that the intermediate appointments of
Group or Department Heads between him and the Section Heads
– this had been done without his agreement – impeded the
proper running of official business. On various occasions,
he said that he would have preferred for nobody at all to be
in an intermediate position between him and the Section
Heads. It was his nature to do everything himself wherever
possible. This was particularly true of his special field
of interest. As far as I was aware, this field was
combatting Communism. He had worked in this field in the
Bavarian criminal investigation service already after the
First World War.

(9) When in the affidavit I made at the time, Prosecution
Document 874, I said that the Accused’s Section in
Department IV was in a special position (Sonderstellung), I
said by way of explanation that I would rather speak of a
particular position (besondere Stellung). Unlike most of
the other Section Heads, the Accused was not a civil
servant, but was attached to the Department only as a member
of the SS. That was probably because the Security Service
was an SS organization and not part of the civil service.

In fact, the Accused was only part of Group IVB in formal
terms. He had a special position in it, insofar as he had
no dealings with the Group Leader but reported directly to
the Department Chief, Mueller. I am unable to state whether
he also reported directly to the Chief of the Head Office or
to Himmler himself. I assume, however, that Mueller was
thus not passed over. It seems to me that he was in this
particular position only with regard to Mueller. However, I
cannot say anything certain on this matter.

On being questioned by the Prosecution:

If it is true that the Accused had the right to report
directly to Heydrich or Kaltenbrunner or to Himmler, thereby
passing over Mueller, I would certainly deduce from that
that he was in an extraordinary position

I cannot say that I have any basis for concluding that the
Accused’s position was equivalent to that of Mueller. I saw
him sitting in Mueller’s anteroom far too often, when I
appeared there in order to report, to be able to assume that
he had any such position. I did not notice his having any
special rights of reporting, as against the other section
heads – for instance, a right of urgent admission. People
were allowed to see Mueller in their order of appearance. I
did not see the Accused to be in an exceptional position
(Ausnahmestellung) in this respect. I can even state
positively that he was not in fact in an exceptional
position. Neither can I state whether, because he was a
member of the SS and because of his career in this
organization, the Accused had particularly favourable
opportunities for access to his superiors. I know nothing
about this. I am also not familiar with his career in the
SS. I myself received my rank in the SS as an equivalent to
that I held as a civil servant. Until then I had only been
a member of the ranks or with the rank of non-commissioned
officer (Unterscharfuehrer).

(10): It is true that Mueller repeatedly assigned work on
specific cases to Sections which functionally were not
competent for them, or to individuals without the knowledge
of the Specialist Officer responsible. This occurred in my
Group as well as in others. The group leaders found such
practices unpleasant, and they made representations to him
about it. Such instances normally concerned his particular
hobbyhorse of fighting Communism, but not only that. I do
not know whether the Accused was also passed over as
Specialist Officer in this fashion.

(11): In particular, I am not aware of any special
assignments which Mueller gave to the Accused’s deputy, SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther.

(12): Mueller often insisted on deciding himself on matters
of varying degrees of importance. Sometimes they were
inconsequential routine matters. This would interfere time
and again with the proper running of departments, and other
Group Leaders also complained about this.

I also found that he was not particularly keen on taking
decisions himself, and in non-routine matters would often
obtain instructions for himself from his superiors in many
cases. He was exaggeratedly cautious vis-a-vis his
superiors. You could say he was over-anxious. The result
of his behaviour was a considerable fettering of the
departments under his control. Until I became aware of this
idiosyncrasy of his, it also happened that when I had taken
decisions on my own he would remonstrate with me. He would
reproach me for having decided on my own initiative, rather
than criticizing the substance of my decision.

I do not know whether – and if so to what extent – this
behaviour was true of his attitude to the Accused’s Section
as well. There were general complaints about it, but I
cannot remember whether the Accused also complained.

Frequently Mueller would not accept the decisions submitted
to him as they stood, but would modify them or refer to a
higher authority.

Mueller was extremely hard-working; he spent long hours in
his office and also took large numbers of files home with
him. He could also work very efficiently. It was difficult
to get to him in order to report.

(13): It is true that the tasks of the Gestapo were laid
down by law, and that there was a large number of ordinances
and decrees describing with great accuracy the manner and
form of its activities. The decrees in particular went into
very great detail. It took a lot of time to become familiar
with all these provisions, but, on the other hand, these led
to a considerable degree of specialization. I am unable to
say whether there were special decrees for the Accused’s

The individual section heads were not permitted to exceed
the limits set by the decrees. At least the permission of
the department chief would have been required for that.

(14): If in my affidavit, document No. 874, page 6, I said
that, apart from his Section, the Accused was in charge of
an office in Prague, the only thing I remember today is that
I know that he often had business in Prague. I am unable to
say whether the Accused had this position at the same time
as his Section, or whether he was in charge of this office
earlier. I cannot today say whether the office in Prague
was the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. I know there
was such an office. I know that the Accused was often away.
However, I know nothing about this having been in connection
with any business in branch offices.

(15): I know nothing as to whether the Accused received any
orders from Himmler himself. The same applies also to
Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner.

The witness was then asked the questions relating to the
specific subject of proof, on page one of the request for
legal assistance. In this connection he stated:

(1): On this question I can only state what appears in my
testimony so far and my sworn affidavit No. 874, and I am
unable to give any further details.

(2): I was not particularly familiar with the conditions
existing in the Accused’s Section. In this respect I am
only able to draw conclusions from the conditions existing
in Department IV, about which I heard in my own Group, and
from the conversations of other group leaders and heads of
sections. I was not in any way close to the Accused, and I
also hardly had any official contacts with him. The only
time I remember getting to know him slightly better was when
we travelled together – I believe to Prague. If I am not
mistaken, we were going to Heydrich’s funeral. I travelled
in the Accused’s official car, because I had no car of my

The witness was then shown the questions of the Prosecution
on page three of the request for legal assistance.

In this connection he stated:

(1): It was not customary for members of Department IV to
live in their office buildings. This must have occurred
after bombing raids on Berlin, with the consequent
destruction of dwellings.

(2): I believe I remember that the Accused lived in the
office building of Group IVB, and that at least part of his
staff also lived there. I am unable to say what was the
particular reason for that. I remember that the family of
the Accused lived in Vienna or in Prague.

(3): There were no actual social gatherings of the personnel
of Department IV in the residence of the department chief.
However, on rare occasions Mueller invited the group leaders
and some heads of sections to his residence for
consultation and also entertained them there.

(4): This has already been answered. It is possible that
the Accused also participated in such gatherings. He
certainly did not attend every such gathering. I took part
in such gatherings something like half a dozen times.
However, I really only vaguely remember the precise figure.

(5): Mostly organizational questions were discussed.

(6): I am unable to say whether there were any special
regulations for secrecy about the activities of the
Accused’s Section, since I myself did not work in that
Section. I do not remember there being any special
regulations for the other members of the Head Office with
regard to maintaining secrecy about this Section. I can
only add as an example that in the Research Office, which
inter alia listened to foreign news, there were special
provisions on secrecy, which all staff of this office had to
observe. I do not know whether there were similar
conditions in the Accused’s Section.

I am unable to say why, unlike other personnel of the
Security Service, the Accused was assigned specifically to
Department IV.

(8): I cannot say anything about this. The only thing I
seem to remember is the Accused holding the rank of
Obersturmbannfuehrer. I am not aware of his being promoted
to this rank when I was already with the Head Office. As
far as I remember, Hartel and Roth were Sturmbannfuehrer.
It was not at all unusual for a head of section holding a
higher rank to be subordinate to a group leader of lower
rank. Hartel was not a civil servant either, but Roth was.

(9): Today, I am unable to say who were the Accused’s
predecessors. I seem to remember that they were civil
servants. I also no longer remember exactly what the duties
of these predecessors were. I also can no longer remember
when the Accused was transferred to the office.

(10): This has already been answered.

(11): The only reasons for the Accused’s Section being
transferred to Group IVA were organizational measures. The
external reason was that to some extent the Security Police
took over military counter-espionage.

The incorporation took place as from 1 April or 1 May 1944
and was due to the replacement of Admiral Canaris. The
group leader of IVA was SS Oberfuehrer and Police Colonel
Panzinger. I do not believe that the Accused was
functionally subordinate to Panziger. I assume that nothing
at all changed as far as his position vis-a-vis the group
leader was concerned.

(12): In February 1940 I was appointed Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in the Lublin
District, a post which I held until July 1941, i.e., when I
was transferred to the Head Office for Reich Security.

(13): The structure of this office was somewhat analogous to
that of the Head Office for Security. Thus it also had its
equivalent Department IV. Its head was Detective
Superintendent Schmeer.

(14): Who was the head of Group IVB, I cannot say right now.
I assume that it was a Commissioner of Police

(15): In Lublin there was no actual Jewish Affairs section
as such, as the SS and Police Leader Globotschnik* {*The
reference is to Odilo Globocnik} considered dealing with
these matters as his own preserve. It is true that in my
office there was an official whose duties were to deal with
Jewish affairs. However, there was no section as such.
When I was there, it was not called IVB4 either.

This official in question dealt with very minor matters,
certainly not with such matters as are relevant to this
trial. For example, he had to maintain contact with the
Judenrat, which existed by virtue of Jewish self-government.
He also had to deal with, or pass on, any notices received
in this context. He had nothing to do with resettlement.
As long as I was in Lublin, at least, there was no ghetto

(16): I do not remember specific instructions from the Head
Office for Reich Security with reference to Jewish affairs.
At that time, resettlement and employment of labour were
dealt with solely by the SS and Police Leader, who had set
up a special office to deal with them. I am unable to say
what orders he received, if any, from the Head Office for
Reich Security.

(17): The replies to 15 and 16 make this inapplicable.

My transfer from Lublin to the Head Office for Reich
Security was not due to any initiative of mine. It is true
that I had been very interested in counter-espionage
matters, and Berlin was also aware of this interest.

The background had been a certain amount of tension between
Globotschnik and myself which resulted, inter alia, from the
treatment of Jews.

I had objected to Globotschnik’s extending his competence
and encroaching on mine. I also disagreed with his measures
in substance, particularly those measures for dealing with

I first went to see him in person, and when I was not
successful, I submitted a report to my superiors.

When Heydrich came to Lublin, he had a discussion with
Globotschnik. I was not present for most of this
discussion. The discussion concerned the tension between
us. I made my complaints to Heydrich in person, and I also
gave him documents.

My transfer cannot have been directly related to this, as it
did not come about for a year. However, my relationship
with Globotschnik remained strained. Heydrich had decided
in favour of Globotschnik. So I was unable to do anything

My representations about Globotschnik’s behaviour did not do
me any harm professionally.

My transfer to the Head Office for Reich Security was
probably not as a direct result of this state of affairs.

The witness was also shown his affidavit, Document No. 874,
for further perusal. He declared:

“The statements contained in this document are correct,
together with the additions and explanations contained in my
testimony today. I reconfirm their correctness.”

Read out, approved, signed
(-) Walter Huppenkothen

The witness took the oath.

One copy each of the Record was handed over to Advocate
Wechtenbruck and Mr. Shimron

(-) Stamp of the Court of First Instance, Cologne
(-) (Meller) Amtsgerichtsrat (Judge of First Instance)
(-) (Weise) Justizangestellte (Court Official)

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14