Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-082-03
Last-Modified: 1999/06/09

Judge Raveh:   What were these operational orders?

Accused:    Generally speaking, the Chief of Department IV
himself contacted Gluecks.  I have already stated here that,
up to a certain point, Gluecks was subordinate to Mueller, I
believe, but was then made into an independent Department
Chief of the Economic-Administrative Head Office.  As a
result of the earlier bureaucratic contact, Gluecks and
Mueller always discussed things directly, either on the
telephone or face to face.  The result of the discussion was
indicated either to me, or, if I was not available for
consultation, to my permanent deputy, as an operational
order to be dealt with.

Judge Raveh:   I still do not understand what were the
contents of these operational orders.

Accused:    The destination of the transport, for example,
where it was going;  the number of the accompanying escort,
whether barracks were allotted to this transport, for
example, and all other matters involving equipment.  All
such wishes on the part of the Inspectorate of Concentration
Camp Matters  were notified to me on the basis of the
consultation, that is, the discussions between Mueller and
Gluecks.  In addition, IVB4 had to maintain direct contacts
with Group D of Concentration Camp Matters for detailed
information to be used as the basis of the Transport
Timetable Conference.  At the time, the term for all this
was "operational orders."

Judge Raveh:   And it was Mueller who told you about all of
this.

Accused:    Not only the matters of principle were involved
in this subject.  I have already said that the Section also
had to make direct contact with Mueller's official in
charge, in order to clarify questions of detail, since, in
order to get the Timetable Conference underway, it was
necessary to have a rough idea of where these transport
trains...

Judge Raveh:   I asked whether the entire contents of what
you called operational orders reached you through Mueller.

Accused:    Basically yes, that is correct.

I should like to supplement what I have just said, Your
Honour.  Operational orders did not only include what I have
just explained; what I have just explained referred to the
matter of contact by telegraph - that is to say, a form of
advice note.  Operational orders also meant the orders to
ascertain the numbers present in those areas indicated by
Mueller, and from which deportations were to be carried out.
An operational order also meant drawing up guidelines,
because this was where the instructions and orders which
Mueller received, and everything that reached him from other
central offices, was passed on by him to Section IVB4.  All
of this is covered by the term "operational order" which
IVB4 received from Mueller.

Dr. Servatius:  Witness, would not the term "operational
orders" also cover what is to happen to these people:
whether they are to work, what sort of work they are to do,
and what is to happen to the aged and those who are not
capable of working?  Would that not be operational orders as
well?

Accused:    They certainly might have been operational
orders, but since Section IVB4 in Department IV was not
responsible for such matters, Section IVB4 never received
such operational orders.  I do not even know whether there
was a particular section in the Head Office for Reich
Security which would have received such operational orders,
but the sections of the Economic-Administrative Head Office
did receive them.  There is a document submitted to the
Court which shows this situation very clearly.

Dr. Servatius:  I now turn to exhibit T/402, document No.
177.  This consists of several documents, including a letter
from the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann and other minutes.  I
would refer to page 3, a telegram from Schleier, a Foreign
Ministry official, to the Foreign Ministry, in which he
says: "No objections to the evacuation of a further five
thousand Jews who have appeared with the State Police."

I shall omit the last documents in this file and come now to
the next file.  This is the second French file, F 17.  Here,
too, I shall omit the first seven or eight documents, and
start with exhibit T/419, document No. 585.

This is a memorandum from  Dannecker, the official in charge
in Paris about a meeting with Eichmann held on 11 June 1942.
It says that Himmler has given orders for large numbers of
Jews to be sent to Auschwitz for labour purposes, as
follows: 15,000 from the Netherlands, 10,000 from Belgium,
100,000 from France.  He laid down the conditions as
follows: those capable of labour between the ages of sixteen
and forty, with the option of including ten per cent not
capable of labour.

Witness, Dannecker refers here to a discussion with you.
Would you tell the Court what was the basis for these
orders?

Accused:    Based on such orders from the Reichsfuehrer-SS,
the Chief of the German Police, Mueller would issue orders
for a general consultation to be held, to announce and
implement such an order.

Dr. Servatius:  I would refer to page 2, item 2.  It reads:
"By means of direct or indirect negotiations, agreement must
be reached with the French Government to issue a law under
which, similar to Regulation 11 under the Reich Citizenship
Law, all those Jews who live outside the national boundaries
of France or subsequently emigrate lose their nationality
and right of abode."  This is the interesting legal act
which means that, as soon as a Jew crosses the border, he is
deprived of his nationality and his right of abode and, by
the same process, any property is also forfeit.  The next
documents are...

Judge Halevi:  Dr. Servatius, I have another question to the
Accused.  On the first page it says that Himmler, or, to be
more precise, the Reichsfuehrer-SS, has therefore issued
orders for large numbers of Jews to be transferred to
Auschwitz either from Romania or from the Eastern Occupied
Territories, or from the Western Territories.  However, the
figure of 100,000 Dutch, Belgian and French Jews - that is
not ascribed to Himmler, but to some agreement.  Where was
this agreed on?  It looks as if it was agreed on in a
meeting between Dannecker and yourself.

Accused:    No, Your Honour.  The term which appears in the
exhibit, "vereinbart" (agreed upon), was an unfortunate
choice on the part of Dannecker.  The telegram which was
discussed for the second time today, in which Mueller lays
down the total numbers for various countries - Mueller to
Himmler - this shows that Mueller fixed these numbers;
Himmler indicated one number only, and Mueller then broke it
down for the various countries.  If Himmler had issued such
a detailed order, then Dannecker should have written "RF-SS
has issued orders," but he did not do so...

Judge Halevi:  Himmler did not issue such orders?

Accused:    No, what I meant was that if he had issued such
orders, then Dannecker, in accordance with procedures,
should have made a corresponding reference, but he did not
do so.  In any case, the term "agreement" is a very
unfortunate choice in the circumstances, since, as the files
have shown, I was not authorized to conduct negotiations of
such fundamental and decisive importance.

Judge Halevi:  Thank you.

Judge Raveh:   Where did Mueller get the figures from ?

Accused:    He was aware of them through the reports which
first of all his own specialist section had to make once or
twice a month, as well as through consultations and
discussions with the senior commanders of the Security
Police in those countries - so that he knew roughly how many
Jews would be involved in individual countries, and thus
fixed these figures.  As far as I know, in actual fact the
total numbers which he fixed off the cuff were never
actually kept to.  And in connection with this document, I
should like to point out that, as far as France is
concerned, this was not implemented, because these orders...

Judge Raveh:   You were not asked about that.

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibits I wish to discuss are
T/424, document No. 58, and T/428, document No. 97.  The
first is a telegram from the Accused to the Paris office,
announcing a consultation for which he would arrive, while
the second document deals with the subject matter of this
consultation.

Witness, what was the purpose of this journey?

Accused:    The telegram I sent to Paris indicates that I
was going to Paris on orders from the Chief of Department
IV, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.  It was my duty to pass on to
Paris an order, an order from the Reichsfuehrer.  Until then
the figure set by Mueller for France was 100,000.  In the
meanwhile, Himmler had not accepted the number; he gave
orders that all Jews should be deported from France as soon
as possible.  It was this new order which I had to transmit
personally in Paris.

In this communication about my visit I made a reference to
these orders, and on the first page of exhibit T/428, second
paragraph, this is quite clear, where it says, "in view of
the order from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, transmitted to Section
IVB4 by the Chief of Department IV on 23 June 1942, in
accordance with which all Jews resident in France are to be
deported as soon as possible."  That was my task.

Dr. Servatius:  Witness, what was the source of this sudden
change to a harder line?

Accused:    I remember orders for a harder line after the
death of Heydrich, which were issued by Himmler and enforced
by him.

Dr. Servatius:  The next exhibit is T/439.  This is a minute
by Roethke in Paris, or from Dannecker in Paris, dated 21
July 1942.  It says that on 20 July 1942 Eichmann and Novak
from IVB4 had telephoned. It goes on: "The question of
deportations of children was discussed with Eichmann, who
decided that, as soon as deportation to the
Generalgouvernement again becomes possible, transports of
children can roll." It also says: "Novak promised that
around the end of August, or the beginning of September, he
would make it possible to send six transports to the
Generalgouvernement which could take all types of Jews,
including those incapable of working and elderly Jews."
Witness, do you wish to explain your orders and decision, as
indicated here?

Accused:    Yes.  Himmler ordered the deportation of all
Jews from France, with no restrictions.  The French police
seized children as well.  Paris asked me what was to be done
with these children, and I passed on what it says here.
But, if this document is read on its own, out of context, it
could create the impression at first sight as if I took a
decision at that very moment, and that, therefore, I was
able to decide on such matters on my own initiative without
any instructions.  I would, therefore, like to refer to
Prosecution document No. 64, which is an urgent telegram for
immediate submission, dated 10 July 1942, that is, eleven
days before the telephone call in question.  In that, Paris
wires the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, notifying
them of the fact that the French police have seized the
children, and asking for a decision - an urgent decision
from the SS - as to whether these children are to be
deported.  The fact that it took eleven days to take a
decision on this matter proves that I, for my part, had to
pass this matter up to my superiors through the proper
channels, as I was not empowered to take a decision on it.
When I received the decision from my superiors, after eleven
days, I called Paris, in accordance with my orders and
passed on the decision.  Mueller could not take a decision
either, as is shown by the long period involved, because
otherwise I would have been able to supply information
earlier, and despite Himmler's orders that all Jews were to
be deported, this matter was submitted by Department IV to
the higher authorities for decision.  It is the documents
from France which prove and show my position as a
transmitting agency - as documents in the other countries
rarely do, but here they have been preserved in their
entirety, and that is what I have to say on this subject.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Shvili, which exhibit is document No.
67?  Perhaps Dr. Servatius or Mr. Hausner can help us?

Attorney General: T/438.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.  Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius:  I shall now deal with a new file.

Presiding Judge: If that is the case, this will be a good
point to recess.

[Recess]

Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius:  I come now to exhibit T/451, document No.
142.  This is a memo from the Paris office, bearing the
signature Arnot, about a discussion in Section IVB4 in
Berlin on 28 August 1942.  It was a working Session on
Jewish questions.

In the first paragraph, second sentence, it says: "During
the discussion, Eichmann announced that the current
evacuation problem (deportation of stateless Jews) should be
completed by the end of the calendar year.  The end of June
1943 is scheduled as the final date for deporting the other
foreign Jews."  Further on, it says that deportations should
be carried out at an increased tempo.

Witness, did you give these replies, and on what is this
instruction based?

Accused:    Yes, I passed on this instruction in accordance
with orders.  The next exhibit will show by whom the order
were issued.

Dr. Servatius:  That is exhibit T/453, document No. 1260.
This belongs with T/456, document No. 270.

Witness, what is the passage you wish to refer to in the
second exhibit, T/453?  Is it on page 3?

Accused:    Yes, it is on page 3, the first paragraph, where
it says: "In accordance with the plan announced
confidentially by the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the areas occupied
by Germany should be free of Jews by the middle of 1943."

Dr. Servatius:  In this connection there is exhibit T/456,
in which these measures are again mitigated.  At the bottom
of page 1 it says: "The Reichsfuehrer subscribed to the
attitude presented, and issued instructions for no Jews of
French nationality to be arrested for the time being."

This is a communication dated 26 September - and then there
is this memo of 9 September 1942 which says that these areas
are to be free of Jews.  Do they not contradict each other,
so that one might assume that this was not an order from the
Reichsfuehrer?

Accused:    At first sight, that is obviously what it looks
like.  But in the previous paragraph in Prosecution document
No. 270, it says that the Higher SS and Police Leader sent a
telegram to Himmler, informing him of the problems related
to the position of the Petain Government.  As a result,
Himmler called a halt to this matter for the time being.
But the next series of documents shows how persons in high
positions continued to press for these deportations to start
again.

Dr. Servatius:  The next document is exhibit T/471, document
No. 121.  That is a letter from Knochen to Mueller, dated 12
February 1943, a report on difficulties in implementing
deportations in France.  Subject: The Final Solution of the
Jewish Question in France; consultations with Eichmann in
Paris.  I would refer the Court to page 3, where there is a
discussion of the issue of French objections to
deportations; arguments put forward to the Germans against
the measures include references to the Italians.  It is said
that the Italians - these are facts, which are also reported
on and stressed by all the Headquarters of the Security
Police - are taking sides of the Jews everywhere east of the
Rhone.

The entire document deals with these difficulties, but of
importance is the first paragraph which says: "Eichmann's
report on the evacuation of all Jews of French nationality
induces me to react briefly on this matter and, in
presenting the current situation, to draw attention to those
points required for implementation, in order to have as few
difficulties as possible from the French Government."
Knochen's proposals follow.

Witness, there is a reference to your report.  Did you
discuss or negotiate this matter with Dr. Knochen?

Accused:    As the documents show, I had to negotiate with
Knochen.  On that I should like to state the following in
detail:  By taking this single occurrence in isolation, once
again there might be the impression that, after Himmler had
issued orders that for the time being no Jews holding French
nationality were to be deported, I had acted contrary to
such orders and on my own initiative tried, nevertheless, to
continue with deportations, using every available means.
However, if the preceding documents are reviewed,
particularly one which has been indicated as being discarded
- Prosecution number 815 - it will be seen that Himmler
dispatched Colonel-General Daluege of the Order Police to
France to visit the cities of Paris and Marseilles, in order
to identify the problems on the spot.

After the return of General Daluege, Himmler changed his
mind.  I was instructed to get in touch with Paris and to
notify Knochen of the instructions of the Head Office for
Reich Security that all Jews were to be deported.  At which
point Knochen had this report sent to Mueller.

At the same time, this document is further proof of the fact
that I was unable to issue any orders to the Senior
Commander of the Security Police, because otherwise, after
the consultations I had with him, he would not have
dispatched this lengthy report on the problems to my direct
superior, Mueller.  Further documents are relevant to what I
have just said.

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