Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-085-03
Last-Modified: 1999/06/09

     "As for the words I used in testifying about Eichmann's
     statement that he was wanted as a war criminal, I
     should like to add the following explanation: It was
     said that at that time the BBC was already reporting
     who on the German side was considered by the Allies as
     a war criminal; a list of these persons was being drawn
     up and constantly updated, for use in later criminal
     proceedings against such war criminals.  Dr.
     Kaltenbrunner had also once made the same sort of
     comment, i.e., that he was considered as a war criminal
     by the Allies.  I do not know where Eichmann found out
     that he was on such a list of top war criminals."

Page 62:

     "This conversation, including the first part where I
     informed Eichmann about the situation at the front,
     went on probably, as far as I remember, for more than
     an hour, during which Eichmann drank at least four or
     five large brandies, if not more.  The reason why I
     remember this fact so precisely is that, when I said
     goodbye to Eichmann, I asked him expressly not to drive
     his car himself.  However, he did not give the
     impression of being drunk.  In fact, I believe that at
     this time Eichmann was drinking a great deal all the
     time; in any case, there was quite open talk about that
     in German police circles in Budapest.
     
     "I cannot give any details as to where Eichmann was
     going on his journey, or what his assignment was; I can
     only repeat that he said to me that he was leaving for
     Romania, which seemed to be confirmed by the fact that
     he was in battledress.  I cannot state exactly when
     Eichmann's visit took place - at least not to the day.
     
     "Despite the fact that when we were having this
     conversation Eichmann was in a very bad psychical state
     and drank a fair amount of alcohol in a short time, I
     did not have the impression that the figures Eichmann
     gave me were the result of something he had suddenly
     invented, but that he himself was, subjectively
     speaking, convinced that the figures were correct.
     
     "In reply to a question as to whether in this context I
     heard Eichmann use the term 'six million murdered
     Jews,' I should like to state that this term 'murdered'
     was one which I used, while, as far as I remember,
     Eichmann used an expression such as 'exterminated' or
     'liquidated' Jews.
     
     "I have no way of knowing how Eichmann arrived at these
     figures of Jews murdered, and he also gave me no
     indications whatsoever about this.
     
     "Then, on Question 26: These are the concluding
     sentences of a television interview which, as far as I
     remember, I gave in March of this year to the North
     German Radio.  I therefore answer in the affirmative."

     "On 27 and 28: I answer both questions in the
     affirmative."

Attorney General: Perhaps I might request, in order to
clarify things, that the questions be read out?

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could quickly read them out?

Attorney General: [Reads ]: "Did you recently say the
following about Eichmann: `I met him' (Adolf Eichmann)
`again in Budapest in 1944.  He was that Eichmann who sent
hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews to the extermination
camps, following orders without scruples, just as he had
done previously in Vienna in 1938-1939.  I think the best
way of describing Eichmann's role would be to call him the
Big Forwarding Agent of Death'?"

Judge Halevi:  And what was his reply?

Attorney General: That that was correct.

Presiding Judge: He said this in a broadcast interview.

Attorney General: In a television interview.

Presiding Judge: Recently?

Attorney General: Yes.  And then Question 27: "Do the
affidavits you made on 5 November 1945 and 25 November 1945
to the American authorities conform to the truth?"  The
reply is in the affirmative.

Interpreter: [continues Hoettl's statement]:
     
     "As to Questions 27 and 28: I answer both questions in
     the affirmative.
     
     "As to whether the last sentence, quoted in the request
     for legal assistance of the District Court of
     Jerusalem, of your affidavit applies to Eichmann's
     activities generally or only to his activities in
     Hungary specifically, I have the following to say:..."

Page 65:

     "As can be seen from my statement so far, it was only
     in Hungary that I was able to observe deportations of
     Jews with my own eyes, and to ascertain who was
     responsible for them.  My statement at Nuremberg at the
     time is therefore primarily based on Eichmann's
     activities in Hungary, but in the first months of
     captivity I discovered in the meantime that Eichmann
     had been active in other occupied countries in a
     similar manner."

Attorney General: I should be grateful to the Court if the
questionnaire could also be attached to the record of the
examination and be made a part of it, because otherwise it
is often difficult to understand the answers.

Presiding Judge: Yes, of course, the questionnaire which was
dispatched by this Court, and is therefore part of the
record.  That is clear.

I suggest that we now turn to Huppenkothen's testimony.  Dr.
Servatius, is there anything in this statement you wish to
emphasize?

Dr. Servatius:  Your Honour, I was only able to glance
through it yesterday evening.  I would ask the Court to
allow me, if it should prove necessary - just with regard to
the credibility of the witness - to raise some further
points.  I have not so far managed to examine it from this
point of view.  While it was being read out now, I did not
have this document in front of me.  I have only read it
through, and my impression was that there is nothing I need
to bring up, but possibly, when I read it carefully...

Presiding Judge: You are speaking about Hoettl, are you not?
Very well, if you wish to add anything, you are at liberty
to do so.  There will not be any problem.

I was referring to Huppenkothen, Dr. Servatius.  Have you
read it yet?

Dr. Servatius:  As far as the other documents are concerned,
there is no such objection.  I have read them  thoroughly.

Presiding Judge: What I was asking was whether you wish to
emphasize anything in particular in Huppenkothen's
statement?  Do you want to read anything out for the record?
Once again, I would stress that the entire statement is an
integral part of the record of these proceedings, and I now
mark this statement II.

Dr. Servatius:  Your Honour, perhaps I could just indicate
the passages which appear to be of importance for the
Defence.

Presiding Judge: Certainly.  Please proceed.

Dr. Servatius:  The record dated 19 June 1961.  Court of
First Instance, Cologne.

Presiding Judge: If you could give the first words of the
passage in question?

Dr. Servatius:  Certainly.

On page 3:

     "On 3: It is true that the Chief of Department IV,
     Mueller, saw to it that the provisions on preserving
     secrecy be strictly observed" - to the end of the page.
     Then on page 6: "On 8: It is true that generally
     Mueller dealt directly with the Heads of Sections."

Presiding Judge: The whole of this paragraph?

Dr. Servatius:  Almost to the bottom of page 6, with the
last line: "for nobody at all to be in an intermediate
position between him and the Section Heads."

On the next page:

"On 9: When in the affidavit I made at the time I said that"
to "particular position."  And at the bottom of the same
page, "On being questioned by the prosecution: If it is
true" until the next page.

"If it is true" and on page 8, to the end of the first
paragraph: "I can even state positively that he was not in
fact in an exceptional position."

Then page 8, on 10, the first sentence: "It is true" to
"without the knowledge of the specialist officer
responsible."

Then page 9, on 12: "Mueller often insisted on deciding
himself" to the middle of the following paragraph: "The
result of his behaviour was a considerable restraint on the
departments under his control" - up to there.

Then page 10, on 13, the last paragraph: "The individual
Section Heads were not permitted" to " would have been
required for that."

Then the last passage, page 15: "On 15: in Lublin" to "as
his own preserve" - the first sentence.

The Defence does not wish to refer to any other passages.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, what do you have to say to
this?

Attorney General: We have marked the passages in red.

Presiding Judge: [To the interpreter] Translate, please.

Interpreter:

     "Walter Huppenkothen, employee, 53 years of age, Koeln-
     Weidenpesch, Theklastr. 14."  Negative reply to the
     other questions.  "I worked in the Head Office for
     Reich Security.  The Head Office for Reich Security was
     the highest authority of the Security Police.  The
     original Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security
     was Heydrich, followed by Kaltenbrunner."

On page 2:

     "I myself was the Chief of Group IVE, which continued
     after 1944 as Section IVA3.  When I took over the Group
     in January 1941, I was State Counsellor and SS
     Sturmbannfuehrer.  At the end I was Regierungsdirektor
     (Directing State Counsellor) and SS Standartenfuehrer.
     My Group was the central authority for police
     counterespionage."

On page 3:

     "From 1941 to 1945 I worked exclusively at the Head
     Office for Reich Security.  My Group was also in charge
     of the duties of the Inspector General for the
     Frontiers."

On page 4:

     "Together with all its personnel, the Head Office for
     Reich Security was subject to military jurisdiction, on
     the basis of a special ordinance enacted in 1939."

Page 5:

     "The supreme judicial authority was the Chief of the
     Security Police and the Security Service, i.e., the
     Chief of the Head Office for Reich Security.  The
     competent court was subject to his jurisdiction.  The
     applicable code was the Code of Military Criminal
     Procedure.  The supreme judicial authority had to issue
     orders for an investigation when notified of a case, to
     rule as to whether proceedings were to be quashed or
     charges preferred, and to confirm or not to confirm
     judgments.  In addition, he appointed the members of
     the court.  He could also quash proceedings in minor
     cases and impose a disciplinary sanction instead of a
     judicial one.  Thus, supreme judicial authorities were
     in such a strong position that very much depended on
     their influence on a case.  Through his discretion by
     virtue of his office, he enjoyed wide powers of
     decision, as detailed in the Code of Military Criminal
     Procedure.  In terms of substantive law, the Military
     Penal Code applied alongside the general criminal law."

Page 6:

     "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 appointment of Group or
     Department Chiefs 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 worked in this field in the Bavarian
     criminal investigation service from the time after the
     First World War."

On page 7, in reply to Question 9:

     "When in the affidavit I made at the time, Prosecution
     document No. 874, I said that the Accused's Section in
     Department IV was in a special position. I say by way
     of explanation that I would rather speak of a
     particular position.  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 thereby Mueller was 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."
     Page 8, Question 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 involved his particular hobbyhorse of fighting
     Communism, but not only that."

Page 9:

     "I do not know whether the Accused was also passed over
     as Specialist Officer in this fashion."

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor