The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 12
(Part 2 of 7)

Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann trial, holocaust, Jewish holocaust
Presiding Judge: Is this the organization of the Accused's Department?

Witness Less: The organization of the Department for Jewish Affairs and its extensions as we saw them according to the documents. For example at RSHA Headquarters, the head of the Security Police and the SD, Office IV and thereafter Referat IVB4, which by 1 April 1944 had received a new name and was converted into Department IVA4, and this Department as well as the "Referat" dealt with various matters as are indicated here:

I shall read them out in German:

Juden-Angelegenheiten; Regierungsangelegenheiten; Einziehung volks- und staatsfeindlichen Vermoegens; Aberkennung der deutschen Reichangehoerigkeit; and beginning from the year 1944 - the exact date is not known to us - Politisierende Kirchen, and Eichmann was at the head of the Department. Directions and instructions were given from here through the BdS Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei and the S.D., and Eichmann's officials, people who were employed in this Department, and there were also concentration camps, such as the Drancy Concentration Camp in France or Malines in Belgium, or Westerbork in Holland. Indirectly, he also had an influence, as we saw, on these concentration camps, from where people were sent to the East. As regards Germany itself, Austria and the Protectorate, the channels led by way of "Judenreferenten" who were in all the "Stapostellen" in the various districts. In "Eingegliederten Ostgebieten" (incorporated Eastern Areas) such as Warthegau, almost the same situation prevailed, since they had been, so to speak, returned to the Reich, and consequently they had the same structure as in the Reich. They were exactly in the same position.

Presiding Judge: Which were the "Eingegliederte Ostgebiete" apart from Warthegau?

Witness Less: In the North there was one in Zichenau, I think in the environs of Zichenau.

Attorney General: Ciecanow, in Polish.

Presiding Judge: Were these areas that had been annexed to the Nazi Reich?

Attorney General: Upper Silesia.

Witness Less: In the Generalgouvernement matters were referred - orders and directives, instructions were sent by means of the BdS which was situated in Cracow in the Generalgouvernement and from there they went to the five provinces in each of which the SS and a "Polizeifuehrer" were situated.

Attorney General: One moment, please, before you continue. You are talking of five provinces. Since when were there five provinces?

Witness Less: I am unable to tell you this.

Q. The province of Galicia - when was it annexed? Do you not know that?

A. No.

Q. Alright, let us go on; and we shall clarify this to the Court later.

A. And in Russia, there it went via the BdS in Riga, the BdS in Kiev and also through the Einsatzgruppe B and the Einsatzgruppe D. Here perhaps it should be pointed out that in fact there were Einsatzgruppen in the Riga district before as well, but at the end of 1941 and in 1942, the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe became the BdS on the spot. The same thing happened in Kiev. There remained only Einsatzgruppe B and D.

Presiding Judge: Which areas were these?

Witness Less: At the moment I don't remember, but it appears in document No. 5.

Q. Was all this in Russia, from North to South?

A. Yes. I should point out further that this chart does not apply to a particular date, but this was since the period when branches were established outside the boundaries of the Reich. For example here [pointing to the chart] this line leads to four places where there was the Judenberater Wisliceny in the German Embassy in Pressburg in Slovakia, the Judenberater Abromeit in the German Embassy in Agram [Zagreb], in Croatia, the Judenberater Richter in Bucharest, in the German Embassy, and Dannecker, at a certain stage, I think it was in 1942 or 1943, I believe in 1942, was sent to Sofia and was also attached to the Embassy there.

Q. From France?

A. From France. Dannecker appears several times - he also appears in Italy, after Italy's surrender. On the left-hand side there are shown the operations of the Sonder-Einsatz- Kommando which, in our opinion, were conducted by the Department. The first was the Sonder-Einsatz-Kommando of Hungary, headed by Eichmann himself, which operated in the year 1944, there was a Sonder-Einsatz-Kommando in France which was active in the year 1943-1944. To some extent they also operated in Belgium.

In Denmark, there was a Sonder- Einsatz-Kommando, the head of which was Guenther, Eichmann's assistant - they operated there in 1943. Here [he points to the chart] we were not sure if this was a Sonder-Einsatz- Kommando and therefore we wrote the Einsatzkommando of Brunner. Brunner was sent to Slovakia in 1944 in order to complete the expulsion of the Jews from Slovakia. And here he points to the chart is the Einsatzkommand of Burger which was active in Athens in the year 1944. Then the Emigration Centres of the Jews of Vienna, Prague and Berlin were attached.

In Prague the name was changed beginning in 1943, when evidently there was no longer anyone to deport. It was called the Zentralamt fuer Regelung der Judenfrage in Boehmen und Maehren (Central Office for Regulation of the Jewish Question in Bohemia and Moravia). There was also, in our opinion, a direct connection with the Ghetto of Theresienstadt and also with the Austauschlager Bergen- Belsen (Exchange Camp Bergen-Belsen).

Presiding Judge: What is the meaning of ""Austauschlager Bergen-Belsen"?

Witness Less: This was evidently a special camp where they detained Jews and all kinds of well-known personalities for all sorts of purposes.

Q. On the basis of what material did you prepare this?

A. On the basis of research which we, I and my colleagues, conducted; we conducted the research in all these areas and on the basis of the actual documents we discovered. And in this way we reached the conclusion that this was the picture.

Q. Does this match the Accused's statement?

A. I don't think so.

Q. To make this matter clear, this is not, in fact, a document in the sense of the documents submitted so far.

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: But this is a sort of survey as contended by the Prosecution which will have to be proved.

Attorney General: This will be the Prosecution's contention.

Presiding Judge: This still has to be proved.

Attorney General: This we must prove.

Presiding Judge: This is merely to facilitate the Prosecution's presentation?

Attorney General: Yes, for the orientation of the Court. We submit this in graphic form so that it may be easier.

Presiding Judge: It follows that we shall not mark this with the number of a documentary exhibit, but merely with the initials you have mentioned.

Attorney General: Very well, Your Honour.

[To witness] Before we pass to the next chart were you also helped in preparing the material by the Accused's own statement?

Witness Less: Clearly I used it as well.

Q. What is the second chart you are holding?

A. This is a chart showing the development of the Department.

Presiding Judge: Of the Department or of the entire office?

Witness Less: Of the department for Jewish Affairs. In practice, according to the material which Bureau 06 had and according to our investigation, there was a time before 1935, when it was in the SD Hauptamt. On 1 July 1935 a Department for the Jews, JI6, was established. The Accused joined this Department in 1935, according to his own words, but in fact this Department began by dealing with intelligence matters.

Attorney General: With collecting information.

Witness Less: Yes. The operational side was in the hands of the Gestapo (Geheimes Staatspolizeiamt).

Attorney General: And was there also a Jewish Department?

Witness Less: There was also a Department IIB4. IIB generally speaking, so I believe, dealt with Jewish affairs. There they had Referenten (officials in charge). In every Staatspolizeistelle (Headquarters of the State Police) in the Reich and later in Austria and the Protectorate. On the other hand, we notice that the SD had its own set-up until the date of the unification. There, too, there were Referenten in the "SD Unterabschnitte [subdivisions], and this is how it developed, that it became Department II 112. This was at the time of the Austrian surrender.

Presiding Judge: That is to say, this is a chart which refers to various periods.

Witness Less: Definitely.

Attorney General: This shows the development of the Jewish Department starting with the SD and the Gestapo, and later on as the RSHA.

Witness Less: Until the unification which took effect on 27 September 1939. Then the "SD Hauptamt" and the Gestapo became the RSHA.

Q. And what happened then to the Intelligence Department?

A. This in fact went over here he points to the chart - firstly to Office II - the Gegnererforschung (investigation of opponents) which, at a later stage [in 1941] changed to "Weltanschauliche Forschung und Auswertung" (Investigation and Evaluation of Ideologies).

Q. What happened to the operational Department IIB4?

A. The whole thing passed to office IV and this, in fact, afterwards became the Gestapo.

Q. The Gestapo as they call it?

A. Yes, as they call it generally, the Gestapo.

Q. This was office IV - what was its function?

A. Fighting the enemy. Gegnerbekaempfung.

Q. And as part of it, Department IVB4.

A. It was created here [he points it out on the chart.] This was, at certain stages until October 1939, this was 4 (IIRZ). This related to the Reichszentrale fuer Juedische Auswanderung. Thereafter, in December 1939, there was a Referat IVD4 which dealt with Raeumungsangelegenheiten (Matters of Evacuation) the Reichszentrale fuer Juedische Auswanderung. Then the Accused was appointed Head of this Referat. Subsequently this was changed, about 1 March 1941.

Then it was the Referat IVB4 that dealt with Juden- angelegenheiten (Matters concerning Jews and evacuation) - between this date and 1 April 1943. Later on, they added Einziehung von volks-und staatsfeindlichenm Vermoegen (Sequestration of Property Inimical to the People and the State) and so forth, and commencing on 1 April 1944, the name was altered and it was called IVA4, with the same functions but with the addition of the Churches.

Q. The Politisierenden Kirchen?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this chart also prepared on the basis of the same material as with the other charts?

A. Definitely.

Q. In Bureau 06?

A. In Bureau 06.

[The chart is handed to the Presiding Judge for marking.]

Presiding Judge: I have marked this chart, too, with initials.

Attorney General: Just one more question. [to witness] Do you have the Accused's replies to questionnaires which were referred to the Bureau and with which this Bureau was required to deal?

Witness Less: Yes, 16 questionnaires. I wrote down the questions which were referred to Bureau 06, and I asked the Accused to reply to them in writing. But this was not actually within the framework of the interrogation. These were questions which were directed to the Bureau from all kinds of sources, from people who wanted to know details about the fate of someone or other.

Q. On matters of property as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And the Accused replied?

A. Yes, definitely.

Presiding Judge: Does all this concern the case before us?

Attorney General: Not everything. But there are parts that relate to the trial. And I do not want to extract only those, and hence I prefer to submit all the material even though I shall not refer to all of it. But if I have 16 questionnaires, and I refer to one or two - it would be better for me to submit them all. And I would like to request the Court to accept the charts.

Presiding Judge: Sixteen, you say?

Witness Less: Yes, 16, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: Do you have a printed copy of this?

Witness Less: No.

Presiding Judge: If you want to use this, you will have to make a printed copy, for it is rather difficult to read the handwriting.

Attorney General: We shall ask the secretariat to release it for the purpose of making printed copies.

Presiding Judge: Those parts to which you wish to refer?

Attorney General: Certainly.

Presiding Judge: These questionnaires have been marked T/54. Is that all, Mr. Hausner?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour, that is all.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions to put to this witness?

Dr. Servatius: I have a number of questions. The Witness, Sir, in addition to the recordings on tape, were conversations held on aspects of the interrogation to be recorded later on?

Witness Less: I don't understand this question exactly. There were various things that were said...

Presiding Judge: I think the question was clear. The question was: were there preliminary talks between you before the statements that were recorded in T/37?

Witness Less: There was the caution administered by Mr. Hofstaedter?

Presiding Judge: Before that, this is how I understand the question.

Witness Less: I am not aware of this, for I saw the Accused for the first time on 29 May 1960.

Dr. Servatius: I presume I did not express myself with sufficient clarity. I intended to ask - did they prepare the Accused, did they submit queries to him, was there gentle, or not so gentle pressure, to testify or not to testify, and was it only afterwards that they proceeded with the recording?

Judge Halevi: The translation was not accurate. The question was: were requests placed before him to testify or not to testify on certain matters?

Witness Less: Before I began recording, I explained to the Accused that I wanted to switch on the machine, and I told him that, to the extent that he would tell the story, only part of it interested us, his activities in the Third Reich, beginning 1933 and up to the end of the War in May 1945, and nothing else.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, are you referring in your questions to matters that happened before the recordings, or also to matters that occurred during the time of the recording?

Dr. Servatius: First of all I referred, of course, to the period before the recordings began, but also to the period after they began. But I have already understood from the remarks of the witness that this was not so, that such matters were not put, but that he was cautioned that everything he would say could be used against him, and that he should state anything that was of interest in relation to the matters with which he has been charged.

[ Previous | Index | Next ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]