Judgment in the Trial of Adolf Eichmann 

[Part 16]

136. There is no doubt that, side by side with the special orders sent from time to time to the Generalgouvernement directly from Himmler, and perhaps also from Hitler's Chancellery, there existed the authority of the RSHA, and therefore also the authority of the Accused, concerning the Generalgouvernement area.  This authority could be exercised through the Commander of the Security Police and the SD (BdS) in the Generalgouvernement and its subordinate local police authorities.  Perhaps in practice a large measure of freedom of action was left in the hands of the local police, if only because of the large scale of the actions perpetrated there against Jews.  But the Accused admits the fact that such an authority was possessed by the RSHA, when asked by the Superintendent Less if he had prepared orders to the Security Police in Poland as well, based on Heydrich's directives of 21 September 1939 (these are the directives concerning the concentration of Jews in towns etc., mentioned above): 

"If during the course of time there was any ambiguity, then of course the BdS was permitted to turn to the RSHA with a request for an explanation, a directive or a decision; and then the official in charge...gave the suitable information." (T/37, p. 3148)

Elsewhere, he explains that this authority was exercised only in regard to "matters beyond the horizon of the Generalgouvernement" (Session 99, Vol. IV, p. xxxx20), and in his Statement to the police, he describes these matters, with which he himself was authorized to deal, as of national importance to the Reich (reichswichtig) (T/37, p. 3128) - for instance the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality in the area of the Generalgouvernement. 

We have before us the Accused's letter dated 18 February 1942 (T/267), in which he informs the Foreign Ministry that the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto are to be immediately separated from the rest of the population, and he therefore proposes to treat Jews, nationals of neutral countries, in the same say as Jewish ex-Polish nationals.  In a memorandum to the German Foreign Ministry dated April 1942 (T/268), we read that the Accused, as representative of the Head of the Security Police and the SD, stated that in future foreign nationals would be included in the measures taken by the Security Police within the Warsaw Ghetto to ensure public order, for instance, to halt epidemics (in other words, the extermination of these Jews).  Here, it is to be remembered that the large "actions" in the Warsaw Ghetto began in July 1942.  It transpires from a later document (T/270 dated 3.9.42) that the Foreign Ministry supported the attitude of the Accused in this matter.  Here, therefore, the Accused appears as a decision-maker on behalf of the RSHA in matters concerning the Warsaw Ghetto, and he certainly had authority to carry out his decisions.  This is proof of the fact that he implemented the authority which was granted to him as a result of the Wannsee Conference. 

We also refer to document T/310, signed by Kaltenbrunner, dated 5 March 1943, with the designation of the Accused's Section.  This document is based on a draft prepared by the Accused and his assistant Hunsche (T/271), and its contents are once again instructions that the measures taken are to be applied also against those Jews of foreign nationality of certain countries who live in the Generalgouvernement area and in occupied areas in the East.  The letter is also addressed to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in the Generalgouvernement, and notice of it is given to the Senior Commander of the SS and the Police, Krueger (see also T/784, a letter dated 23 September 1943, on the same subject, signed by Mueller and also bearing the reference IVB4). 

But the Accused's Section deals not only with general instructions in the Generalgouvernement area, but also with individual cases.  We have documents before us concerning a number of cases in which Section IVB4 occupied itself with cases of Jews of foreign nationality in the Generalgouvernement area, in answer to questions referred to the RSHA by the German Foreign Ministry.  For instance, the Accused's Section orders the transfer of a Jew of foreign nationality and his family from the Warsaw Ghetto to a concentration camp (T/355).  The Section deals with a request by the Argentine Embassy to prevent the transfer of one of its nationals living in the Generalgouvernement area to a concentration camp.  This last-mentioned case, of Gershon Willner, is worthy of mention also for another reason, for the cynical language used by the Accused when, on 9 July 1942, he reports that this Jew died on 12 April 1942 of weakness of the heart muscle "in spite of large quantities of tonics administered to him" (T/437).  

The Argentine Embassy applied for the first time on 17 April 1942 (T/346).  On 4 June 1942, the Commander of the Security Police in Cracow (KdS) sent word that they are about to transfer Willner to Auschwitz.  It was proved by the evidence of (Gershon Willner's brother-in-law) Aaron Silbermann (Session 30, Vol. I,  p. 525), that Willner was a man in good health who never had any heart trouble, and that he died in Auschwitz.  Notification of his death was received by his family on 25 June 1942.  A copy of a letter from the representative of the Foreign Ministry attached to the Governor General of Cracow was submitted to us (T/346).  From this letter it appears that Willner was still alive early in June 1942.  It is clear that the Accused's report about the date and cause of the death or Willner was false, and that the man died an unnatural death.  The excuse given by the Accused in his evidence (Session 81, Vol. IV, p. xxxx5), that all he did was to pass on a message which he received from Cracow, is not plausible, because undoubtedly he knew the value of the tale about "administration of tonics," to which he put his signature. 

Exhibits T/356, T/357 testify to another case of a Jew of foreign nationality, an inhabitant of the Generalgouvernement area, who was sent with his family to a concentration camp, according to information sent to the Foreign Ministry by the Accused's Section. 

We also have before us a letter (T/266) dated 17 September 1942, signed by Mueller, marked IVB4, wherein Mueller informs the head of Himmler's personal staff that he has ordered the issue of directives to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Cracow that Jews employed by the Beskides Oil Company are to be evacuated only to the extent that replacements are available.  It appears that these orders were given by the Accused's Section, and hence this is further confirmation that this Section was authorized to decide the fate of Jews in the Generalgouvernement area whenever the necessity for such special instructions arose.  Mueller's letter gives the impression that it was written in the ordinary course of business, and not as an isolated, unusual case.

137. Evidence was also submitted in connection with the transport of Jews of the Generalgouvernement area by rail to extermination camps. This included an exchange of letters between Ganzenmueller, the State Secretary in the German Ministry of Transport, and Wolff, the head of Himmler's personal staff.  Ganzenmueller informs Wolff on 28 July 1942 about a timetable of trains from Warsaw to Treblinka (one train per day, 5,000 Jews each) and from Przemysl to Belzec (one train per week, each 5,000 Jews).  He adds that the running of these trains was decided upon together with the Commander of the Security Police in Cracow, and that information was sent to Globocnik (T/251).  To this, Wolff replies on 13 August 1942, expressing joy - also in the name of Himmler - at the fact that a train leaves daily with 5,000 "of the Chosen People" to Treblinka, and requests the assistance of Ganzenmueller in the matter also in future (T/252).  As the Accused himself testifies (Session 100, Vol. IV, p. xxxx17 and top of p. 18), this was after the death of Heydrich, when Himmler himself was acting as Head of the Security Police and the SD.  It is possible that on this occasion Himmler acted in this capacity, and that therefore this matter also passed through the RSHA channels. 

On the other hand, we have before us the minutes of a conference held in Berlin on 26 and 28 September 1942, about the evacuation of 600,000 Jews within the Generalgouvernement area, and 200,000 Romanian Jews to the Generalgouvernement area (T/1284).  There is no list of those who participated in the conference.  It concerns urgent transports proposed by the Head of the Security Police and the SD between Warsaw and Treblinka, and between Lemberg and Belzec.  In his Statement to Superintendent Less, the Accused says (T/37, p. 3545) that possibly Novak, one of his own Section, took part in this conference, but almost in the same breath he contends (pp. 3540, 3544) that his Section never dealt with deportations within the Generalgouvernement area, and in his evidence in Court he reiterates this more strongly (Session 100, Vol. IV, p. xxxx15 et seq.).  But we do not believe this denial, for in our opinion the fact that the Head of the Security Police and of the SD was concerned with the matter is decisive, and therefore it is logical that someone from the Accused's Section - which was the Section authorized to deal with Jewish affairs - participated at this meeting on behalf of the RSHA.  The Accused was right in assuming, as he did in his Statement to Superintendent Less, that the suitable man for this was Novak, the expert in matters of transport in Section IVB4.  It is to be noted that negotiations on general policy in this matter took place in Berlin, and not in Cracow, which was the seat of the Eastern Railways management, and that questions of transportation within the Generalgouvernement area were discussed at one and the same conference with matters of transport from Romania, which were, without dispute, within the competence of the Accused's Section.  The Commander of the Security Police in Cracow, mentioned in letter T/251, is also a member of the RSHA.  The allegation by the Accused, in his Statement to Superintendent Less, that such matters of transport were within the scope of Globocnik's authority, is unfounded.  In T/25, we see that Globocnik only received notice of matters which had been agreed upon by others, and naturally such notice had to be given to him, as he was receiving the transports of Jews in the extermination camps. 

Novak himself, in his evidence for the Defence taken for his trial in Vienna (p. 8) admits that he did negotiate with the management of Eastern Railways, although he denies contact with the authorities of the Generalgouvernement. 

Ludwig Rajewski, who gave evidence at the trial of Hoess in Poland, worked in the Registry Office in Auschwitz.  In his evidence (T/1356), he said that Jews from the Generalgouvernement area also arrived at Auschwitz and mentions these transports together with transports from Bialystok.  This is an important fact, since the Accused's Section undoubtedly dealt with the Jews of Bialystok (see supra, para. 134).  Here lies the proof that the Accused's Section had a hand also in the deportation of Jews from the Generalgouvernement area to Auschwitz.  From the evidence of Mrs. Rivka Kuper (Session 26, Vol. I, pp. 431-433), we also learn about the deportation of Jews from the Generalgouvernement area (Cracow) to Auschwitz. 

To conclude this chapter, we find that the Accused and his Section were also authorized to deal with matters concerning the Final Solution of the Jewish Question within the area of the Generalgouvernement, and that according to the evidence they were also active, in fact, in this matter from time to time, although it would be true to say that the Accused's main activity was not here but elsewhere, whilst in the Generalgouvernement area there existed other channels of command, wherein the Accused had no part. 

138. Also in regard to the activity of the Accused concerning Jews in the Eastern Occupied Territories, the Wannsee Conference is a safe point of reference, for there the representative of the Rosenberg ministry, set up to run these areas, was also present.  Since there Heydrich's authority received recognition by all those present, without territorial limits, it obviously applied to those areas as well, and with it the authority of the Accused as Referent for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.  Heydrich himself jealously guarded his authority in the Eastern Territories as is seen from his letter (T/301), in which he demands that his representatives be given the right to participate in the decision as to who is a Jew, for the purposes of applying police measures in those areas (see also T/299; N/13).  The decisive proof of the activity of the Accused in the Eastern Occupied Territories is to be found in the matter of the "Brown File."  These were detailed directives drafted by the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, to arrange certain matters connected with the administration of these territories (T/296).  It seems that these directives were prepared separately for the Reich Ostland Administration (the Baltic countries) and for the Administration of the Ukraine.  The Ukrainian draft was passed on to other authorities concerned, amongst them Himmler, for them to state their point of view.  The approach to Himmler is explained by the fact that on 17 July 1941 Hitler decided that police security measures in the Eastern Occupied Territories should be in the hands of Himmler, as  Reichsfuehrer-SS and Head of the German Police (T/176).  Heydrich, in Himmler's name, replies on 10 January 1942 with certain reservations as to the contents of the draft, and in connection with the directives in Jewish affairs he writes: 

"Since the Central Administration for Jewish Affairs is in the hands of the police, I suggest printing the directives on matters of Jewish questions, as laid down in the version of the Head Office for Reich Security (official in charge: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann)." 

Exhibit T/297, which is before us, is a copy of a part of Heydrich's letter, the part dealing with Jewish questions.  It seems that the letter was divided up at the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, and each department received the part of concern to it.  (Dr. Wetzel, the man who dealt with this subject in the ministry, received the part concerning the Jews). 

In his letter, Heydrich referred to the previous version of the RSHA.  In fact, the language used in the letter shows that earlier discussions had already been held in connection with the Brown File for Ostland, and it seems that the RSHA had already drafted its proposals in regard to the Ostland. Further to this letter, Bilfinger, of Group IIA (Organization and Law) of the RSHA, sends to Wetzel the draft directives in connection with the Jewish Question, as approved by Heydrich (T/298).  The letter is marked with the reference number SIIA2, the Section of the RSHA dealing with matters of legislation (see T/99).  The directives themselves attached to the letter do not bear a signature or a file number, and they have a handwritten note at the top: "New draft of December 1941."  It appears that these were the directives which had been prepared prior to Heydrich's letter of 10 January 1942 for the Brown File of Ostland, and they were repeated for the Ukrainian file.  The lack of any reference and signature is understandable, because this was only a copy of former directives. 

The Accused maintained categorically that he had had no part in the preparation of these directives.  It is his assumption that they were prepared in Department II of the RSHA (Session 100, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx2-8).  This version is immediately contradicted by Heydrich's unequivocable statement, included in letter T/297, that the Accused is the official in charge on behalf of the RSHA to draft directives concerning Jewish affairs.  Section IIA 2 in the RSHA might have acted to centralize all material in connection with the formal drafting for the Brown File, but it stands to reason that the legal department did not lay down the substantive contents of the directives concerned with police action.  This is within the scope of the authority of the official dealing with the matter itself, that is the Accused, as was stated by Heydrich.  We, therefore, find that the directives attached to the letter T/298 were composed by the Accused or in his Section.  The general policy of these directives testifies to exceeding harshness in the treatment of Jews, as compared with the policy outlined in the proposals by the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories.  Whilst the ministry proposed that, in taking measures against the Jews, economic considerations should come first, the Accused's directives insist that no such considerations should be allowed to interfere with the implementation of the Final Solution, meaning extermination (pp. 1, 3).  To the list of Jews who came to these areas from other places, the Accused adds Jews from the Reich (sent to the East on his initiative) (supra, pp. 1, 2).  The ministry proposed a gradual ousting of Jews from the cultural activities of the rest of the population; the Accused decides: "Cultural activity by Jews amongst the rest of the population is out of the question." 

Another grave matter, viz., the introduction of extermination by gas in the Eastern Occupied Territories will be dealt with in detail in its turn.  Here, it is to be observed that Wetzel, who prepared the drafts of the letters in the matter (T/308), emphasizes that the Accused, as the RSHA official dealing with Jewish affairs, expressed his consent to the introduction of the new method for the extermination of Jews.  This is further proof of the fact that the Accused's scope of activity also included the said areas in the East.The Accused also dealt with the matter of Jews of foreign nationality in these areas, as he did in the Generalgouvernement area.  The instructions included in the above-mentioned letters T/310 and T/784, were also addressed to the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD in Ostland and in the Ukraine.  He also dealt with individual cases of such foreign nationals.  A long struggle developed for the life of the Jewess Jenny Cozzi, of Italian nationality, who lived in the Riga Ghetto (T/348-T/353).  Influential Italian circles intervened on her behalf, but to no avail: The chapter was sealed with a short and ominous statement by the Accused, dated 25 September 1943 (T/354), saying that, 

"In view of the changes which, in the meantime, have taken place in the political situation in Italy" (the reference is to the Badoglio coup) "I refrain from going any further into the matter.  I have given instructions that the Jewess Cozzi should be housed, for the time being, in the Riga concentration camp." 

139. A further question arises with regard to the Accused's activities in the East, as to whether he was directly connected with the murders committed by the Operations Units, apart from the handing over of Jews to Nebe and Rasch, of whom we have already spoken.  The Accused denied the existence of any connection of this kind (T/37, p. 1119).  At the same time, he admitted that he was present at a gathering of Operations Units' men on the eve of the war against Russia, and, as will appear later (Section 163), the Operations Units' task in regard to the extermination of the Jews was discussed there.  Here, therefore, one can see the first contact between the Accused and the Operations Units.  This contact continued through the receipt of reports on the activities of the Operations Units from June 1941 onwards.  At a date not later than September 1941, the Accused himself visited Minsk, on orders from Mueller, and saw an Operations Unit in action at the pits (Section 120 and Section 166 infra), and on his return he reported to Mueller on what he had seen. 

We know from Ohlendorf's sworn affidavit (T/312) that the Operations Units were under the command of Heydrich, in his capacity as head of the RSHA, and the question arises as to whether the line of command between Heydrich and the commanders of the Operations Units passed through the Accused.  

On this point, evidence against the Accused was given by Justice Musmanno, who testified to conversations which he had at the time in Nuremberg with Schellenberg, of the RSHA, in the course of his investigations about Hitler's final fate.  He heard from Schellenberg that the latter had been present, together with the Accused, at the above gathering, when Heydrich and Streckenbach, head of the Personnel Department of the RSHA, gave instructions to the men of the Operations Units (Session 39, Vol. II, pp. 712-713).  Schellenberg added that the Accused personally supervised the activities of the Operations Units in regard to the extermination of Jews and controlled these operations (supra, pp. 714). This last statement by Schellenberg with regard to the Accused's duties in relation to the Operations Units, is a far-reaching one, but it was made in very general language by a man who was a war criminal and was himself implicated in the activities of the Operations Units, and we do not have any other corroborative evidence of this statement.  Accordingly, we refrain, out of caution, from basing findings of fact upon this version of Schellenberg's. 

Additional evidence against the Accused is to be found in the evidence of Noske at the Einsatzgruppen trial (T/307).  Noske was himself a unit commander in the Operations Units and worked from June 1942 onwards in the RSHA, collecting reports from the East.  He gave evidence that, from the spring of 1942, Operations Units' reports on the killing of Jews were transmitted directly to the Accused in his Section IVB4, where these reports were collected.  In our view, this statement provides a sufficient basis for drawing conclusions, especially as the Accused himself has not disputed the accuracy of Noske's testimony.  This matter is dealt with in his Statement T/37, pp. 2950-2963, and though the Accused alleges there that he does not remember that his Section collected the reports on the slaughter of Jews, his final reaction to Noske's description is (supra, at p. 2963):  "...I must say that it [the description] is substantially correct - that I cannot deny." 

On p. 2962 supra, he also admits that it is obvious that the Section, which collected the reports, also prepared summaries of them, for the use of its superiors. 

Accordingly, we find that the Accused was in contact with the Operations Units from the commencement of their activities.  From the spring of 1942, the Accused began to be active in connection with the issue of operational directives to these Groups, by collecting the material relating to the extermination of Jews and preparing summaries thereof.  The preparation of summaries was obviously intended to be of assistance to those who had authority from time to time to decide upon the continuation of the activities of the Operations Units.  At a later date, we find further activity on the part of the Accused, with regard to the Operations Units.  The reference is to the letter T/310, dated 5 March 1943, which we have already mentioned in discussing the Generalgouvernement area.  This letter, which referred, as it will be remembered, to the fate of Jews of foreign nationality, is also addressed to Operations Units B and D.  This is proof that at that time the Accused's Section also dealt with transmitting instructions to the Operations Units.  The instructions in letter T/784, dated 23 September 1943, on the same subject, are also addressed, inter alia, to the commander of Operations Unit B. 

140. In considering the whole question of the Accused's activity in the East, we have not taken into account the various rumours testified to by some of the witnesses who declared that they had heard of the Accused as the person responsible for what was happening in the ghettos.  With regard to this evidence, we have not found it appropriate to use our power under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950, since it is not clear to us in what way those rumours reached the witnesses. 

141. Has the Accused's activity in the actual extermination operations, as distinct from his activities in rounding up Jews and deporting them to the places of extermination, been proved, and to what extent?  In our view, this question is only of secondary importance, because the legal and moral responsibility of a person who delivers the victim to his death is, in our opinion, no less, and maybe even greater, than the liability of the one who does the victim to death.  But the question has been raised, and it is our duty to discuss it.  We shall therefore consider separately the camps in the East (Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Belzec) and Auschwitz. 

With regard to the extermination camps in the East, it appears that they were set up by the SS and Police Commander in the Lublin region, Globocnik, under a special order which he received direct from Himmler, or Hitler himself, in the second half of 1941.  Later, after Heydrich's death, the extermination operation in these camps and the plunder of the victims' property there was known as "Operation Reinhard," from Heydrich's first name.  These camps were first put into operation at various dates in the first half of 1942.  They were actually set functioning by Kriminalrat Christian Wirth, who had already specialized in the killing by gas of human beings, by exterminating mentally sick persons.  This is the same Wirth who was mentioned by Gerstein in his statement about his visit to the Belzec camp, quoted above.  Apparently, Wirth used to receive his orders directly from Hitler's Chancellery (uehrerkanzlei) which had posted him for duty to Globocnik. 

These facts were established before us, inter alia, by the affidavit of Morgen in the Trial of the Major War Criminals at Nuremberg (N/95).  We should not be inclined to base our findings solely upon this affidavit, without further corroboration, because Morgen's purpose was to represent the whole of the SS as having had nothing to do with the extermination operations, and this tendency of his was likely to colour the statement in question as well.  We did, however, find confirmation of the fact that special duties were delegated to Wirth by the Fuehrer's Chancellery in an exhibit, T/1295, dated 19 May 1943, which is a recommendation for the promotion of Wirth, put forward jointly by Buehler (of Hitler's Chancellery) and Globocnik, and not on behalf of the RSHA.  

Again, in a letter from Brack, also of Hitler's Chancellery (exhibit T/1375, dated 23.6.42), we read that this office placed some of its personnel at the disposal of Globocnik "for carrying out his special task," which was called "Action Against the Jews" (Judenaktion). 

The affidavit of Pohl, who was in charge of the Economic-Administrative Head Office, must also be mentioned.  He says that Himmler charged Globocnik with the task of "implementing the programme known as `Operation Reinhard' against the Jews" (T/1348, Section 2). 

It should be pointed out that also in the seventh count of the indictment in this trial, which deals with the plunder of property, the name of Globocnik is mentioned in connection with "Operation Reinhard" (supra, Section 5), though it is not clear if the reference there was only to the economic aspect of the operation. 

Further proof that it was Globocnik who administered the whole of "Operation Reinhard" is found in the final report which he submitted to Himmler (exhibit T/1389).  In a report dated 4 November 1943, he speaks of "`Operation Reinhard' which was conducted in the Generalgouvernement area," and from a report of 10 January 1944 it is clear that "Operation Reinhard" also included the extermination which was referred to there as Aussiedlung which, it was stated, had been completed. 

The deportation of Jews to Globcnik's camps did not have to be reported to Oranienburg, i.e. to Group D of the Economic-Administrative Head Office, which was responsible for the administration of the concentration camps as from March 1942 (see T/1278).  For example, from exhibit T/1399 - directives issued by the Accused's Section for the evacuation of Jews to Izbica, near Lublin - it appears that the departure of the transport had to be reported to the Accused's Section, to the BdS in Cracow, and to Globocnik, and the arrival of the transports had to be reported solely to the Accused's Section (see also T/737).  These extermination camps were at no time under the supervision of the Economic-Administrative Head Office.  Nor, until October 1943, when the Economic-Administrative Head Office took over the responsibility for the remaining labour camps, was there any connection of this kind with regard to the labour camps in the Lublin area.  In our opinion, the fact that Globocnik's camps were independent of the Economic-Administrative Head Office, is irrelevant to the question as to whether there was any direct administrative connection between these camps and the RSHA and the Accused's Section. 

So far, the Accused's contention that the extermination in  the camps in the East was carried out in accordance with special orders in which he had no part, is borne out; at any rate, it is not contradicted.  It is unnecessary to emphasize again that we are now discussing what happened within the camps.  The Accused's responsibility for dispatching Jews to these camps is, of course, a separate matter which is, in fact, not in dispute.

Next