Were you involved in this matter of the children?

Accused: Indirectly, yes, for the following reason. In the letter to Himmler, signed by Mueller, Department IV, in the document - in the document which has just been dealt with - the reference is "Instruction 3 October 1942 in Cracow," in other words, Himmler issued the relevant instructions in Cracow. Now Himmler set the age limit for children who were to be evacuated at ten. In the telegram dealt with previously, Guenther indicates that this matter involves problems, insofar as children of ten who cannot work, but who are to be deported under an order from Himmler, are to be accommodated in children's camps, and these camps must first be set up.

Section IVB4 was not concerned either with the children's camps or with the question of principle, but it would have meant the transport figures would have changed, and the figures of those to be transported had to be provided to the Reich Transport Ministry, so IVB4 proposed that the age limit be changed from ten and that it be at least fourteen. The Chief of Department IV agreed to that, because that avoided these children being separated from their families, and that in turn avoided giving extra impetus to the Polish resistance movement by this matter, as is shown in the communication.

Dr. Servatius: That will do.

Accused: But my explanations are incomplete if I do not deal also with the interpretations, that is to say, the way in which the various criteria were formed.

Presiding Judge: I shall tell you once more - probably you did not understand what I told you two days ago. We are not interested here in general explanations about every exhibit. A great deal of explanation can be given. The purpose - the only purpose - of these proceedings is to obtain answers to questions which you are asked. You are not being asked to give general lectures on the exhibits. Will you please bear this in mind in future when answering questions.

Dr. Servatius: The evaluation of the evacuees by the Migration Office has absolutely no bearing here.

I now come to several exhibits which concern the taking possession of the Rothschild Foundation's Nordrach Sanatorium in Baden - exhibit T/745, document No. 1569, then an exhibit which has not yet been submitted, number 1570, which I submit, and another exhibit T/746, document No. 915. This shows that other Departments were alert to measures against the Jews.

Presiding Judge: Exhibit 1570 will be marked N/27.

Dr. Servatius: The first document, exhibit T/745, is a communication from the Director of the Lebensborn (Source of Life) society to Eichmann dated 30 September 1942. The beginning of the letter reads: "The Higher SS and Police Leader South West SS Gruppenfuehrer Kaul has drawn the attention of Lebensborn to the Sanatorium of the Rothschild Foundation in Nordrach in Baden, and in accordance with the wishes of the Reichsfuehrer-SS would wish for this institute to be opened as a Lebensborn home for this district." It continues: "The owners are the Reich Association of Jews." The writer assumes that Eichmann can dispose of the property without any problem.

The second document which has been submitted, is a letter of thanks from Lebensborn to the Higher SS Leader, Kaul, for his support and for establishing the connection with Eichmann.

The next exhibit in this group is a letter from Gruppenfuehrer Kaul to the Director of Lebensborn, and this makes it clear that this SS Gruppenfuehrer provided not only theoretical, but also practical assistance - he had the sanatorium occupied by an advance party, in order to steal a march on the District Leader.

Witness, did you take any steps in this matter after you were approached?

Accused: It was not necessary for me to take any steps, since faits accomplis had been created. It is quite possible that formalities had to be attended to subsequently in this instance.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/754.

Presiding Judge: Does this still have something to do with the Lebensborn affair?

Dr. Servatius: Certainy: there were three exhibits.

Judge Halevi: Is the Lebensborn matter concluded now, or are you going to ask something further about Lebensborn? I should like to ask a question.

Dr. Servatius: I am proceeding to a new section.

Judge Halevi: In that case I should like to ask: With regard to the formalities which you said had to be attended to, one of these three documents indicates that there had to be a transfer of property and of ownership from the Reich Association of the Jews to Lebensborn, and that as the official in charge of the Reich Association, you were asked to make the arrangements. Were these the "formalities" you were referring to when you said that they had to be attended to?

Accused: Today, I forget what type of formalities were involved then. The Chief of the Security Police was in fact the overall authority in charge of the Reich Association of Jews in Germany. Normally it was up to me to carry out the requisite formalities on the basis of the instructions from my chief in the Land Registration Office. I do not know which were the authorities in charge - but at that time the Reichsleistungsgesetz (Law for Contributions to the Reich) came into force, which allowed other authorities to carry out confiscations, and so today, I cannot say what actually was the procedure at that time.

Judge Halevi: Please turn to exhibit T/745, the last paragraph. This reads:"The owner of the property is the Association of Jews in Germany. On behalf of the Director of the Lebensborn, SS Standartenfuehrer Sollmann, I would ask for the Reich Association of Jews in Germany to be given instructions for transferring the sanatorium to the Lebensborn Registered Society. If you, Obersturmbannfuehrer, are not competent for such matters, I would ask you to pass on my request."

This was the request to you. Did you see yourself as empowered to deal with it, and did you issue instructions for the transfer?

Accused: I had to obtain instructions from my chief. I could not issue instructions on my own initiative.

Judge Halevi: Thank you.

Dr. Servatius: I now come to exhibit T/754, document No. 1107.

Presiding Judge: What is the subject now, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: In this document?

Presiding Judge: No - which section are we now coming to? What is the heading of the section we have reached?

Dr. Servatius: There are now some specific matters related to the Gestapo and Police authorities. There is a memo from the Duesseldorf Secret Police Headquarters, dated October 1942, with notification of the facts to IVB4 at the bottom of page 2. The Duesseldorf Gestapo is asking for a ruling as to whether the children in question have to wear the Jewish Star, and then proposes, on the basis of a subtle explanation, that the application for exemption of these children from the obligation to wear the Jewish Star be rejected, since the documents might be forged. They are children of a mixed marriage and the father, a man called Heimann, has an order for protective custody issued against him, signed by Mueller, dated apparently 5 January, but it should be 5 November 1943 - the date varies. It is issued by Section IVC2.

Witness, would you comment, please, on what you had to do with the order for protective custody issued here.

Accused: My Section had nothing at all to do with the order for protective custody - otherwise the reference IVB4 would appear somewhere on the order for protective custody.

Dr. Servatius: How did it come about that the matter was dealt with by Department IV? Why was it signed by Mueller?

Accused: Because the whole matter started out originally from IVB4. This is clear from the communication from the State Police Headquarters to the Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4. Reference is made to decrees by Section IVB4. Thus complaints must have been submitted. Those complaints were referred by the Section to the competent State Police Headquarters for investigation, and then the results of the police investigations came back, and clearly Mueller himself dealt with the conclusions and sent them on directly to IVC2, because otherwise, as I have already said, the reference IVB4 would have appeared somewhere.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/254, document No. 1246. This is a communication, dated 25 December 1942, on actions against Jews in Cracow, who had been found in a hiding place. Mueller informs Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, a member of Himmler's personal staff, of the actions' success. Witness, did such communications as this one from Cracow cross your desk, and were you able to take any measures in such cases?

Accused: They did not cross my desk, these communications, and I was not able to take any measures either.

Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/292, document No. 192. This deals with large-scale deportations of Jews on the basis of instructions from Himmler. The document in question is an urgent telegram from Mueller to Himmler, dated 16 December 1942. The total is made up as follows: 30,000 from Bialystok, 10,000 from the Theresienstadt Ghetto, 3,000 from Holland and 2,000 from Berlin - total, 45,000. At the end of the communication it says that only 15,000 of the total, at the utmost, will be able to work, so that 30,000 will be unfit for labour. Mueller then adds that of the 10,000 to be evacuated from Theresienstadt, only 5,000 will be able to work. He also says that such evacuations could be carried out in order to build up the Theresienstadt Ghetto, which with 48,000 people is already overcrowded.

What did you have to do with this affair?

Accused: I had to make arrangements for the transports. Mueller himself had to get the necessary authorization from Himmler. I myself was not able to make any proposal, but had to follow orders.

Dr. Servatius: How could Mueller make proposals unless he received the documents from you?

Accused: The first sentence of the telegram, "In respect of the increased transport of labour to concentration camps ordered by 30 January 1943," means that in accordance with this order from Himmler I received instructions from the Chief of Department, with regard to the figures of Jews capable of being evacuated, to contact the various State Police Headquarters of Commanders of the Security Police in order to obtain these figures. This is how I obtained the data from the various sectors, and then Mueller himself set the whole operation up.

Dr. Servatius: At the end it says: "Im Interesse des Ausbaus des Ghettos" (In the interest of building up the ghetto). I assume that this is a typing error: logically it must be Abbau, or reducing the numbers.

Judge Halevi: I have another question, Dr. Servatius, with reference to the Theresienstadt Ghetto. The document refers to the evacuation of 5,000 Jews from Theresienstadt - 5,000 old people, over 60 years old, who are no longer capable of working, in order to reduce the number of ghetto inhabitants, which has become too high. This required special authorization, as old people over the age of 60 were actually allowed to remain in Theresienstadt. Whose idea or proposal was this?

Accused: The driving force behind this matter was the Stae Secretary for Security in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, K. H. Frank. Not only in this instance - in other cases as well. This Higher SS and Police Leader instructed his Commander in Prague, who was directly in charge of Theresienstadt, to ensure that the numbers in Theresienstadt were reduced. When, in accordance with orders, such a circular was from time to time sent to all points from where evacuations were to be arranged, these agencies complied with these instructions which they in turn received from their local superiors, and they would report to Berlin and make the necessary applications.

With regard to dealing with Theresienstadt, another communique which was issued shows very clearly, Your Honour, which says how reporting...which shows, that such a report was received from the Protectorate. However, in this case neither the Department Chief nor the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service could take a decision, as Himmler had to be approached directly. Orders to this effect were given by Mueller and he himself acted accordingly.

Judge Halevi: Thank you.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/765, document No. 1282. These are directives for the technical implementation of evacuation of Jews to the East, to Concentration Camp Auschwitz, dated 20 February 1943. The directives are from IVB4, and they are new directives, signed by Guenther. As far as I can see, there are no essential changes compared with the earlier provisions, and reference is made to matters related to property law. But regulation of this subject is reserved under item VIII. Page 2 contains the most important directive, that is to say the definition of the categories of persons to be evacuated. The basis is paragraph 5 of the First Regulation Persuant to the Reich Citizenship Law, and then several exceptions are listed.

Witness, under these directives you are notified of the departure and arrival of evacuee transports. On the basis of such notifications did you get an overall picture which might have given you more accurate figures of how many persons were evacuated?

Accused: I did receive orders to give a precise report to my superior on a particular day every calendar month as to the number of evacuees. However, today, I am unable to say what the overall figure might have been.

Dr. Servatius: I shall return to the question in conjunction with the report of the statistician Korherr. But first I would like to turn to exhibit T/1135, document No. 186. This concerns the Accused's taking part in the possible grant of an exit permit. This is a published extract from the diary of Jochen Klepper, the poet. Jochen Klepper had a Jewish wife, and as a result of persecution he committed suicide on 10 December 1942. The entries in the diary show that Eichmann spoke to the poet, Klepper, on the day before the latter's death, that is on 9 December 1942, after a preliminary consultation. At the end he said to him that he thought that things would work out. This is in column 3 of the report.

Witness, do you remember this meeting?

Accused: I do. I have some recollection of the meeting. I myself was unable to take any initiative. I will have given him an intermediate reply. The words I use show this. I could take no initiative in this matter because there was a general ban by Himmler, and only my superiors could relax or annul the ban in individual cases. The document also shows that the driving force in this case was the man's fear that as compulsory divorce was concerned, separation might be possible. What is interesting is that his own State Secretary insisted on compulsory divorce at the Wannsee Conference with great intensity.

Dr. Servatius: I should like to add that according to this text, Frick said that the main thing is compulsory divorce, so that after the divorce the Jewish party would immediately be deported. This was the consequence of the legal measure.

Presiding Judge: I should like to ask the Accused if he actually remembers submitting this case to Mueller.

Accused: I cannot remember this actual case and submitting it to Mueller, since after all these years I cannot reconstruct my actions. But given the fact that Reich Minister Frick was involved in this case, it is totally unthinkable for me to have dealt with such a case on my own initiative.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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