The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 18
(Part 2 of 6)

Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann trial, holocaust, Jewish holocaust
Presiding Judge: Why do you say page 7? There are not seven pages here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It appears in the margin. This is not an original document. We base ourselves here on the document from the Chief Counsel Office in Nuremberg.

"(b) The Commanders of the concentration camps report on all special occurrences, such as mass breakouts, escapes by individual prisoners, executions, suicides - first by cable to the SS-Administrator. The latter will submit the information immediately to the Higher SS-and Police Leader.

This instruction does not invalidate the obligation to report to the SS Head Office for Economy and Administration (Division D0), to the Head Office for the Security of the Reich in Berlin. Personnel Command RF-SS and to the delivering office.

Presiding Judge: Delivering?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Notwithstanding the same office that sent the persons to the concentration camp was to continue to receive a copy of the reports of these occurrences. I do not think it is necessary to read the other parts of these instructions.

I proceed to Prosecution document No. 51:

"Outline of the composition of the Head Office for the Security of the Reich, status as of 1 October 1943."
This was document No. L-219 before the International Military Tribunal and was published also in volume 38 in the German edition, on pages 60-85.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/104.

State Attorney Bar-Or: As to this long document, that covers all the departments of the Head Office for the Security of the Reich, I draw attention only to Division IVB4, We have here the status as of 1 October 1943. Division IVB - Political Church, Sects and Jews, and further down IVB4 - Jewish matters, evacuation matters, expropriation of assets of enemies of the people and the state, deprivation of citizenship of the German Reich, - SS- Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: There was there some Regierungsrat SS- Sturmbannfuehrer Roth.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, we encountered him already.

Presiding Judge: I don't remember.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I assume that was the same Roth.

Presiding Judge: Was he at that time also the Superior of the Accused?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

We come now to Prosecution document No. 542.

"Secret Reich matter, List of Police Attaches, Police Liaison Officers, SD-Commissionars and their male co- workers." This is a document of 16 October 1943, originating in the German Foreign Ministry. This was document No. 4852, it appears also on the reel, the microfilm from Alexandria, details of which Mr. Bar-Shalom gave. I wish to submit it.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/105.

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are several names here I would like to point out. First - Bulgaria. Here appears Adolf Hoffmann, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer and under the heading "co- workers" we find "Dannecker, Theodor; Andernach, Otto; Scwenzfeier, Otto; Mayr, Wilhelm; Ganshorn, Martin; Knoebel, Adolf." Thereafter - China, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Croatia, Zagreb. We find there SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Helm, Hans, Police Attache since early 1942. Co-workers: Huebner, Stuewe, Wissel, Horvath, Baendereck, Schrempf, Franz Frank, Anton Kramer, Schumacher, Mainka. In Sarajevo, we have SS- Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit and Rudolf Reznicek as interpreter.

On page 5, under the heading "Rumania, Bucharest" we find "Rumania, Bucharest. The post of the Police-Attache is not occupied any more (until January 1943: Boehme). Richter, SS- Hauptsturmfuehrer, Commissionar for Jewish questions."

On Page 6, under the heading "Slovakia" we find: "Slovakia - Pressburg (Bratislava), Goltz, Franz, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer, Kriminalrat, Police-Attache since September 1939. Co- workers: Wisliceny, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer."

With the permission of the Court, I shall confine myself to this.

I now come to Prosecution document No. 262. This document was already submitted by Chief Inspector Less and was marked provisionally. It was not submitted as a document, it was attached to the statement of the Accused under No. T/37 (243). This is an "Organization Plan" prepared by Hoettl and Ohlendorf, in any event approved by Hoettl and Ohlendorf, and it was shown to the Accused during his interrogation. The attitude of the Accused regarding this "Organization Plan" of the Head Office for the Security of the Reich, the Court will find on pages 3011-3015 of the statement of the Accused. I do not have copies of this document, because they are included in the document submitted by Mr. Less. I request that this document be detached and marked.

Presiding Judge: No, that will confuse us.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I request the guidance of the Court.

Presiding Judge: We had such a case where the same document was submitted a second time as an independent document although it belonged already to T/37. Correct?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Correct.

Presiding Judge: Maybe we should act the same way also in the future.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is my problem: those documents, which are attached to T/37 represent material that was only shown to the Accused. In most cases I want to probate these documents as documents, separately from what was said by the Accused.

Presiding Judge: I understand. We spoke about this. The question is now only a technical one. You will have to make additional copies of it, so that the material will be submitted separately and we will not have to detach it from the set of material attached to T/37.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In future, when I get to such documents that refer to what was submitted under T/37, three copies will have been prepared.

Presiding Judge: Very well, that will apply to what you wanted to submit now.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I apologize that this time the copies were not prepared.

Presiding Judge: Meanwhile, I did not give this document a number.

State Attorney Bar-Or: All right, I shall return to this document perhaps after the break.

I now come to Prosecution document No. 789. This is a table - if you can call it that - which shows the ranks in the SS and the parallel ranks in the German army and also the parallel ranks in the American army. This table was prepared at the time for the purposes of the Nuremberg Tribunal and appeared under No. NG-2253. The authenticity of the document is based on the Yad Vashem reel on which we have an affidavit from Mr. Grisha Shapira. I request permission to submit it. It is useful in that we can comprehend the hierarchy in the new German notation, compared to what was customary in the German army and other armies.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/106.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In this series in which I submit documents on the overall structure of the units connected with the Accused, I have now reached the last document, namely Prosecution document No. 84. This is the text of the oath of a member of the SS and it was submitted to the Accused; it is document No. 163 of T/37. The Accused confirms its contents in general, except for the new title given here to Adolf Hitler. He says that he took the oath of loyalty already in 1932 and what he says is to be found on pages 2059-2062 of the statement of the Accused. I shall not read the oath now, but the same request also applies here.

Also here I have to ask for the Court's indulgence for the preparation of additional copies. This document too was already submitted.

Presiding Judge: You will refer to this again when you have those copies.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Is that all for now?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am now going back with my documents to Germany. The documents I have submitted just now relate to the organizational structure of the SS and police units, insofar as the Accused is connected with them. I now request permission to submit documents that relate to the chapter of Germany 1933-1939 - a matter on which the honourable Court has already heard witnesses.

Presiding Judge: Is there any connection between the submission of the documents and the hearing of the testimonies?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. I try to bring witnesses on certain events and to support what they say with the documents relating to that period. I shall not now bring documents relating to matters after 1939. When we shall progress and hear witnesses who refer to that later period, documents related to that period will also be submitted. In this way we endeavour to establish matters so that they bear each other out.

The first document is Prosecution document No. 1451 and it is headed "Secret Command matter." It originates in the Head Office of the SS, Department II 112 1 and it is a "Activity Report" for the period from 1 October 1936 to 15 February 1937. It originates in SS files found by the American forces in Berlin and we got them through the microfilm Alexandria 4, on which Mr. Bar-Shalom spoke. I request permission to submit the document.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/107.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court's permission I shall read a few passages from this report.

Firstly, Chapter I deals with internal activities and it says under b):

"As a result of the departure of the former Untersturmfuehrer von Wildenstein, the position of head of the Department became vacant. In accordance with an order from II 1, and until definite arrangements are made, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Schroeder, officer at II 112 1, has been charged with the temporary direction of the Department."
Presiding Judge: Is it known who made this report?

State Attorney Bar-Or: According to the dictation marks, it originates in II 112. I assume it was Schroeder himself.

Presiding Judge: It is not signed.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We are dealing with the internal files of the SD Head Office in those days.

I come now to the external activities; Chapter II, section 2:

"Research Archive records of the SD. The following interrogation of important Jewish personalities were carried out in cooperation with the Berlin State Police, the result of which is of great value for work in this field."
Chapter III - the relation to the Political Police, the Gestapo.
"The cooperation between Department II 112 and the appropriate Section of the Secret State Police Office and the Berlin State Police can in general be characterized as good. Findings of the SD that did not require further action from the point of view of intelligence, were always transmitted to the Gestapo for follow-up. As already mentioned, Jewish personalities have been interrogated in cooperation with the Berlin State Police. In addition, a watch was kept on Jewish meetings and this proved to be a good source of information for the SD. Conversely, both service units did approach us often to obtain brief information on certain questions."
In Chapter IV under "Special Matters" we find the following:
"cooperation between Department II 112 and the other departments of the SD Head-Office must be intensified. cooperation with the departments of the Central Department II 2 must be fundamentally restructured. In this context particular consideration is to be given to to the question 'Jews in the Economy.' Until now this matter has been dealt with by Chief Department II 23. Insofar as from the point of view of the German economy in general purely economic questions are involved, these can usefully be dealt with there, also in future (individuals, currency offences, etc.). When, however, questions are involved that fit into the general context 'Jews,' such as for example emigration and all regulations connected therewith, even if of an economic nature, these should be effectively dealt with in future under the over-all responsibility of II 112."
And finally:
"Judaism is by no means only an internal political adversary: the focal point of its activity is abroad. Therefore, for the sake of expedience of all questions touching on 'Jews abroad,' insofar as the element 'abroad' is secondary, should be dealt with by Department II 112."
I now pass on to document No. 1168.

Presiding Judge: I indicated that the previous document will be T/107. Was it already recorded as T/107?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I think so.

I wish to leave one document and request permission to return to it. This was also already submitted to the Accused. I shall first take care of the copies and then return to it. I now pass on to Prosecution document No. 2 - a report on the journey of SS-5Hauptscharfuehrer Eichmann and SS-Oberscharfuehrer Hagen to Palestine-Egypt. The report is dated 4 November 1937. But I see just now that this was also submitted to the Accused. Therefore I request permission to resubmit it only after the break.

Presiding Judge: All right.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now pass on to Prosecution document No.1510. It is dated 21 December 1937. File Memorandum, Department II 112 of 18 December 1937. This document too derives from the last Alexandria microfilm. The original copy - if one can call it that - the photostatic one which I wish to submit bears the stamp of the National Archives Record Group 242. I ask to submit it.

Presiding Judge: That will be T/108.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We received this material very late. I did not manage to prepare a translation. With the Court's permission, I shall read short passages in the original. This is file memorandum of 21 December 1937. Under paragraph 2 we read:

"Hartmann and Eichmann will report until 6 January 1938 that all Gestapo* {*Geheimes Staatspolizeiamt - the national HQ of the Gestapo.} -files are put in place. The index thereon, together with those already prepared by II 112, shall be submitted in bound form on 6 January 1938 to II 112."
Presiding Judge: That does not tell us much.

State Attorney Bar-Or: At the moment it does not. As we progress, the matter will become clear. This is the beginning of closer connections between the Gestapo on the one hand and the SD on the other, a process which led at the end of 1939 to their fusion in the RSHA - Head Office for the Security of the Reich. Things did not happen in one day. Does your Honour request a translation after each passage or only at the end?

Presiding Judge: I would like to shorten this altogether. Could you say: I draw the Court's attention to such and such a paragraph?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have already made it short.

Presiding Judge: I give you the opportunity to make it shorter yet. Do not let us lose time over it.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I draw the Court's attention to paragraph 4, where not only Department II 112 appears, but also the office IIB4 of the Gestapo and the manner of coordination.

Presiding Judge: If you will tell us: I submit this document as evidence of the tightening of the relations between Department II 112 of the SD and the Gestapo and draw attention to the following paragraphs - we gain at least half the time.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I wish to draw the attention of the Court to the entire section 7 which contains an instruction to read the book Geschichte der Juden (History of the Jews) by Joseph Kastein by 1 January 1938 and also advises on the existence of a special group, special meetings of persons, where guidance and a sound historical basis will be given on all matters concerning the Jewish problem. At the end of the document, the Court will find, as will yet be clarified, the notation 24 XII E.C.H.

I come now to document No. 1507, which also derives from the Alexandria reel And its photocopy is signed by the NationalArchives record Group 242. The document is dated 25 June 1938 and deals with the ways Jews should be interrogated. The problem was who should interrogate Jews - the Gestapo or the SD. If one of the two does the interrogation, the other sometimes does not know about it; there had to be coordination. The document was distributed among all the departments in order to clarify that question. I request to submit this document.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/109.

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