Judgment in the Trial of Adolf Eichmann 

[Part 19]

159. We know of the prevention of births from the Kovno Ghetto and from Terezin.  Dr. Peretz (Session 28, Vol. I, p. 478) testified about Kovno.  There the Germans published an order in July 1942 for the termination of all pregnancies except those in the eighth or ninth months.  A woman whose pregnancy was not terminated in spite of the order was liable to the death penalty. 

With regard to Terezin, we shall quote a statement, dated 21 August 1843, sent by Dr. Munk, director of the health services in the ghetto, to the chief medical officer and all the gynaecologists there, which reads as follows: 

"As a consequence of the two latest notifications of births, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Burger has announced that in future all fathers of children conceived here, and also the mothers and the children, will be included in transports and deported.  We therefore request you again to report, first of all, all pregnancies known to you which have not yet been reported, since otherwise the examining gynaecologist becomes an accessory, and therefore guilty.  The information to be given to the pregnant women must be in unequivocal language, saying that the abortions have to be made on official instructions." (T/863) 

On this subject, Rahm (who succeeded Seidl as camp commander) stated at his trial (T/864): 

"Until about March 1944, I knew nothing about the prohibition according to which women in the ghetto were forbidden to bear children... Then Eppstein [head of the Jewish Council] told me that he thought that - in accordance with what had been agreed between himself and Eichmann - the general prohibition in force in Germany concerning artificial abortions did not apply to Jews, and that this agreement was exploited by Eichmann, in oder to force Jewish women in the ghetto to have abortions...and when Guenther came to visit me, I asked him about it, and he confirmed to me that I did not have to see to it personally, but it was already a matter for the Jews themselves, and that the Elder of the Jews had received notification about it from Eichmann directly." 

It should be mentioned that this same Burger, who was mentioned in Dr. Munk's statement, was one of the Accused's men (T/37, p. 1478).  In this matter of the prevention of births, our conclusion is that it has not been proved that the Accused was involved in giving the order in the Kovno Ghetto, of which Dr. Peretz spoke.  In the "Brown File" on Easter Occupied Territories, in the drafting of which the Accused participated, we have also not found instructions with regard to the prevention of births amongst the Jews.  But with regard to Terezin, the Accused's responsibility for the order given there for the termination of pregnancy, and for its implementation, has been proved fully.  

160. The Prosecution adduced evidence with regard to a specially horrible chapter with which the Accused's name is also connected.  The reference is to the collection of skeletons in the Institute of Anatomy at the University of Strasbourg. 

One of the pseudo-scientific institutions of the Nazi period was called "The Ancestral Heritage."  Its president was Himmler and its director a man called Sievers.  The task of the institution was "to investigate the area, spirit, activity and inheritance of the Indo-German group of the Nordic race" (T/1362).  Under the auspices of this institution, Professor Hirt of the University of Strasbourg carried out examinations of skeletons and skulls.  On 9 February 1942, Sievers submits to Brandt, who belonged to Himmler's personal staff, a memorandum proposing that examinations of this kind be also carried out on skeletons and skulls of Jews (T/1363).  In a letter dated 7 July 1942, Himmler gives his approval to Hirt's research work (N/18).  In order to secure Jews, alive and dead, Sievers approaches Gluecks, the official in charge of concentration camps, who refers him to the Accused.  A conversation takes place between Sievers and the Accused.  Sievers requests the Accused "to create suitable conditions in Auschwitz" for carrying out the examinations in accordance with Himmler's instructions, and the Accused replies that he needs to have a letter from Himmler or from his personal staff (evidence of Sievers at the trial of the doctors at Nuremberg, T/1370, p. 5776).  On 2 November 1942, Sievers again approaches Brandt and supplies him with a draft for such a letter from Brandt to Section IVB4, for the attention of the Accused (T/1264).  On 28 April 1943, a conversation takes place between Sievers and Guenther, and Sievers makes the following note in his diary on the content of the conversations: 

"Examinations are now possible in the concentration camp of Auschwitz...discussion about the procedure." (T/1367).      On 21 June 1943, Sievers informs the Accused's Section that the research work in Auschwitz has been completed and that the people examined (79 Jews, 30 Jewesses, two Poles, and four other persons) are to be transferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp (T/1366).  In August 1943, about eighty detainees were sent from Auschwitz to Natzweiler, and Kramer, who was then the commander of this camp, approached Professor Hirt in Strasbourg, in accordance with the instructions he had received.  Hirt gave him a quantity of gas and explained to him how he was to execute these people.  Kramer carried out this assignment in a matter of days and sent the bodies to Strasbourg (evidence of Kramer at the trial of the doctors, (T/1371)).  Evidence was also given at Nuremberg by a witness called Henripierre (T/1369), with regard to the visit of an SS officer to Strasbourg.  Henripierre also related that bodies arrived in three consignments - 30 women, 30 men, and another 26 men.  It was clear that these persons had just been killed, and the witness described what was done with the bodies in the Anatomy Institute at Strasbourg.  In a letter dated 5 September 1944, Sievers requests Brandt to instruct him what to do with the collection of skeletons, in view of the danger that Strasbourg might be occupied by the Allied armies (T/1368).  We do not know Brandt's reply, but when the Allies conquered Strasbourg, bodies and parts of bodies were found there, and in regard to some of them it was stated "apparently Jews." (T/1372) 

With regard to this chapter of events, the Accused testified (Session 79, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx12-15), that he does not remember Sievers' visit, he does not deny receipt of the letter T/1365, and the conclusion is that he really has no comment to make except in relation to the documents, and the matter was not within his competence. 

Sievers and Kramer were accomplices in the crime of executing the victims, and their evidence requires corroboration, but there is sufficient corroboration, both in the evidence of Henripierre and also in the documents submitted.  It is clear that Sievers twice visited the Accused's office - the first time shortly before 1 November 1942 (and the letters T/1364 and T/1365 are a result of this visit), and the second time on 28 April 1943, when he spoke to Guenther.  Sievers' evidence that on the first occasion he spoke to the Accused himself is supported by the draft letter dated 1 November 1942 (T/1363) and by the letter dated 6 November 1942 (T/1365), and also by the fact that in a document (T/1366) a letter (not submitted to us) is mentioned which was sent from the Accused's Section on 25 September 1942.  The Accused himself, or through his permanent deputy, gave instructions to the concentration camp at Auschwitz, first of all to place the detainees at the disposal of Professor Hirt in the required numbers, and then to transfer them to Natzweiler - all this, knowing for certain that the end of these detainees would be their execution (in the letter of 6.11.42, T/1365, it is specifically stated: "Subject: The Establishment of a Collection of Skeletons in the Anatomy Institute at Strasbourg"). It is correct that, in this matter, the Accused requested and received specific orders from Himmler's staff. 

161. With regard to the number of victims of the Final Solution, the indictment does not mention exact totals but speaks of millions of Jews exterminated, mostly in the extermination camps, and hundreds of thousands by the Operations Units.  Only in regard to limited operations were more precise figures mentioned, when the evidence, and especially the final figures mentioned in documents, made this possible.  The Prosecution could not do more than this, nor was it obliged to do more, according to the definitions of the crimes with which the Accused was charged, which place emphasis on activities against a group of people as such, as distinct from the individuals who make up that group.  The statistical data before us are far from being complete.  Therefore, we shall not attempt to give specific figures even approximately but confine ourselves to a general finding, that the extermination of millions has been proved, and that, according to demographic calculations made by Professor Baron, in his evidence before us, on the basis of the sources mentioned in his testimony, there is no doubt that the total number of victims of the Final Solution was about six million (Session 13, Vol. I, pp. 183-185).  Professor Baron also gave particulars of the destruction in various countries.  Of Polish Jewry, which before the Second World War numbered some 3,300,000 souls, there was left at the end of the War a remnant of some 70,000; and this is not the only country where the Jewish community was completely wiped out.  There is also confirmation of the total figure of six million from the Accused himself, and he probably knows the details better than any other person, because it was in his Section that secret statistical data were collected on the progress of the extermination programme.  As will be detailed below, he once spoke of six million Jews having been killed and on another occasion about five million.  The Attorney General expressed the opinion that, in referring to the lower number, the Accused had not included the victims of the Operations Units; but it is difficult for us to be definite on this point. 

162. We now propose to establish more precisely what was the part played by the Accused in the extermination operations.  We have already touched upon this central topic in some of the earlier sections, when giving a description of the background of the events, especially in Hungary and Eastern Europe.  In other sections, in which we described the expulsions of the Jews and all that was connected therewith, in the Reich itself and in the other European countries, the part played by the Accused is clearly seen from the very description of activities carried out there by his subordinates.  In regard to all these matters, we have only to summarize and reach final conclusions.  But we have not yet discussed the status of the Accused within the RSHA, i.e., at the centre from which the extermination operations throughout the length and breadth of Europe were directed, and this we now propose to do.  In the course of this discussion, we shall touch upon another chapter in which the Prosecution seeks to prove specific activity on the part of the Accused, i.e., the introduction of the method of gas-killing, and the supply of gas to the extermination camps. 

163. First, let us elucidate the date at which the Accused was informed that an order for complete extermination had been given by Hitler, for clearly we can place upon him responsibility for participating in the implementation of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question only from the moment when he began to act in the full knowledge that the signal had been given for carrying out the Final Solution. 

The Accused contends that Heydrich informed him of the matter orally, and that on the same occasion Heydrich sent him to Globocnik in Lublin, in order to ascertain what stage had been reached by the latter in his preparations for the exterminations.  He relates that he travelled to Lublin as ordered, and there saw the extermination installations in the process of construction and was informed that the Jews would be executed by exhaust gases from a motor (T/37, p. 172).  He mentions the date of the conversation and the visit in his Statement T/37, pp. 169-170: 

"In June, I think, was the outbreak of war, in June or July, let us say July, was the outbreak of war.  And apparently about two months later, possibly three months later, at all events it was at the end of summer...when Heydrich summoned me.  I presented myself to him and he told me... `The Fuehrer has ordered the physical destruction of the Jews.' 

"... And then he said to me: `Eichmann, go to Globocnik in Lublin...the Reichsfuehrer has already given Globocnik appropriate instructions, and see how far he has progressed in the work he has to do'." 

From the Accused's testimony before us, it appears that his visit to Globocnik took place approximately in the middle of September (Session 87, Vol. Iv, p. xxxx20; see also Session 78, Vol. IV, p. xxxx13) and this we are prepared to accept as fact. 

But, in contradiction to the Accused's version, we find that he had been informed not at the end of summer, in the circumstances he has described, but it was as early as the beginning of the summer of 1941 that Hitler had issued his order for the physical destruction of the Jews. 

The Accused admits that he was present at the gathering of men of the Operations Units which took place in Berlin on the eve of the war against Russia, i.e., in June 1941, but in his evidence he denied that the men of the Operations Units received information there as to what their duties would be and stated that the discussion revolved only around organizational questions (Session 102, Vol, IV, pp. xxxx10Þ11).  But this evidence is contradicted by Walter Blume's statement, in the trial of Ohlendorf and others (Trial No. 9 of the additional trials at Nuremberg).  Blume, who was commander of one of the Operations Units, declares (T/306, p. 3) that he was present at that gathering, and that there Heydrich spoke about the task of the Operations Units in regard to the extermination of the Jews.  Sufficient corroboration of Blume's statement is found in the Accused's own Statement (T/37).  When Superintendent Less asked him if, at that gathering, Hitler's order for extermination had been mentioned, he contends that he does not remember what happened at that gathering, but adds (supra, p. 2119), 

"...I assume that when the discussion opened, they were relying on some order..." 

and again, p. 2121, in answer to a further question about Hitler's order or another order, which was given there to the men of the Operations Units: 

"You are absolutely right, Mr. Superintendent, certainly something like that was mentioned." 

We find further confirmation that the Accused knew already in the summer months of 1941 that an order had been given for the Final Solution by mass extermination, in the following: 

(a) The Accused admitted, when cross-examined by the Attorney General, that he received reports of the activities of the Operations Units in the East from the end of June 1941 onwards (Session 102, Vol. IV, p. xxxx11), and thus he had weekly information about the mass killings of Jews.  Is it conceivable that he neither understood nor knew at that time that these activities were being carried out in accordance with an order from above for total extermination? 

(b) On 28 August 1941, the Accused writes to the Foreign Ministry that the emigration of Jews from the German-occupied territories is to be prevented, "having regard to the Final Solution of the European Jewish Question which is now in sight and is at present in the preparatory stage" (T/183 - our emphasis).  It should be pointed out also that precisely during the same period the Accused secretly informs Rademacher that the Fuehrer has agreed that the Jews in Germany should be obliged to wear the Jewish Badge (see Section 82 above).

We have already remarked, when we spoke of an earlier stage, that the rulers sometimes also spoke of the Madagascar Plan as "the Final Solution," but in the course of time the significance of this term changed.  This gradual change in content, while the term itself remained unchanged, was convenient for camouflage purposes vis-a-vis all those who were not privy to secret decisions taken from time to time by the top leadership.  Therefore, when the Accused states, for example, in a letter dated 12 March 1941 (T/697), that the emigration of German Jews from Yugoslavia is not desirable, "having regard to the Final Solution of the Jewish Question which is now in sight," it is not yet clear what is the Final Solution mentioned there.  But when, on 28 August 1941, further words are used, to the effect that this solution "is at present in the preparatory stage," it is clear that the reference is to the new solution, and this solution, though,  at that moment, in the preparatory stage, is none other than total extermination.  If, in the same letter, the Accused gives an additional reason that, as a result of the emigration of Jews from the occupied areas, the possibilities of Jewish emigration from the Reich would be still further limited, it may be assumed that the reference there is to that trickle of emigration which was still being allowed until, in October 1941, by Himmler's order, the gates were finally closed. 

(c) In his statement, Hoess says (T/90, p. 1) that Himmler informed him in the summer of 1941 (he cannot give the exact date) that Hitler had given an order for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, and that it would be the duty of the SS to carry it out.  It is inconceivable that, at that same time, this matter was not known to the Accused, who held the same rank as Hoess and was head of the Section for Jewish Affairs in the RSHA.

(d) Finally, in the letter of appointment, dated 31 July 1941, mentioned above (T/179), Goering ordered Heydrich to submit to him, at an early date, a plan for implementing the Final Solution, by way of "evacuation," i.e., the extermination of the Jews. It can be assumed with certainty that, immediately upon receipt of this letter, Heydrich summoned the official authorized to handle Jewish affairs in the RHSA, i.e., the Accused, explained to him that now a turning point had been reached as far as the handling of Jewish affairs was concerned, and gave him the new instructions, arising from the situation.

164. It follows, therefore, that already in the summer of 1941 it was clear to the Accused that everything connected with the expulsion of Jews would, in the end, lead to their final destruction.  We are, therefore, convinced that the Accused gave false testimony when he stated that he had sent the first transports from the Reich territory to the Lodz Ghetto in October 1941, in order to rescue the Jews from death at the hands of the Operations Units.  To maintain this version, the Accused was even prepared to admit that he employed the cunning techniques of horse dealers, in order to overcome the opposition of the head of the Lodz district to the entry of additional Jews into that ghetto, as stated in a cable of protest from the head of the district, dated 9 October 1941 (T/220).  True - says the Accused in his evidence (Session 78, Vol. IV, p. xxxx13) - there is a basis for this complaint, but (so it appears from his evidence) any method to ensure that these Jews did not fall into the hands of the Operations Units was acceptable.  The truth is that, at the time of the negotiations regarding these transports to Lodz in the second part of September 1941 (see exhibit T/221), the Accused knew full well that the Jews in the Lodz Ghetto would also be exterminated sooner or later, because such was the Fuehrer's command.  The truth is that the Accused employed horse dealers' methods without any lofty intentions. 

165. It is therefore clear that all the Jews dispatched by the Accused and his Section to the East for "posting for work," or under any other camouflage term, were dispatched to death by him knowingly, whether he sent them after the Wannsee Conference or in October 1941 to the Lodz Ghetto.  And it makes no difference whether they were sent to an extermination camp or to a labour camp.  They could be done to death immediately in the concentration camp, or also later, after they had been employed in one of the labour camps in the East.  It makes no difference whether the forced labourers died as a result of the hard labour or were taken away from their place of work to the place of physical extermination.  The Accused admitted this in his reply to the Attorney General (Session 93, Vol. IV, p. xxxx26): 

"Q. ...When you issued directives T/1399 under your signature, for the deportation of Jews to Izbica, near Lublin, there was no obligation to report to Oranienburg, nor to the Auschwitz camp, but only to Lublin and to Cracow, because this transport was going directly to extermination.  True? 

"A. The contents of the document are correct.  This was within the authority of the State Secretary. 

"Q. I am not asking about authority, I am asking, if this is the way it was signed and sealed, were not these people destined for extermination? 

 "A. Yes, I do not deny this at all." 

(Group D of the Economic-Administrative Head Office was located in Oranienburg.  The State Secretary mentioned here is apparently Krueger.) 

Later on, on the same page, he corrects himself and replies: 

"Whatever may happen, at any rate I have never denied that, to my sorrow, some of the deported Jews were sent to death.  This I could not deny." 

The limited reference to only a part of the deportees was apparently intended to exclude those who had been put to forced labour before their death.  But even if this was so, there is no doubt that their final fate was also known to the Accused at the time he dispatched them to the East, and it was for that purpose that he sent them there. 

As we have stated elsewhere with regard to the deportees to Auschwitz, it was as persons condemned to death that they reached the gates of the camp. 

166. We shall now discuss the question as to whether the Accused had a part in the introduction of the system of killing by gas and the supply of gas.  The Accused denies that he had any part at all in this. 

As we have already mentioned, when we spoke about Globocnik's extermination camps, the system of killing by gas had already been used in Germany before then to put an end to the lives of mentally sick people (N/94, p. 15), and the order for this appears to have been issued from Hitler's office.  The unit engaged in this, under the guidance of Wirth, was transferred to the East, in order to use the same system against the Jews.  Until then, it was a question of using motor exhaust gases.  As to the system of carrying out executions by means of Zyklon B gas (prussic acid), which was used at Auschwitz, Hoess states that it was invented by his deputy, Fritzsch, who first used it to execute Russian prisoners (T/45, p. 146; T/90, p. 4).  There is no reason why his statement should not be accepted as accurate. 

The question of finding a "cleaner" and more efficient system for mass executions than shooting undoubtedly occupied the attention of the Accused as early as the end of the summer or the beginning of the autumn of 1941.  This we find from the mention he makes in his Statement (T/37) of the impression he gained when he saw an Operations Unit in action near Minsk, where he had been sent by Mueller.  He states that his reaction to this was: 

“How can this be possible?  To shoot like that at a woman and children... The men must go out of their minds or they will become sadists - those men of ours." (supra, p. 214) 

Again, the date of the visit is in dispute: In his evidence before us, the Accused moves this visit to the winter of 1941-1942 (Session 87, Vol. IV, p. xxxx22).  At the same time, he connects the visit with "the double battle of Minsk and Bialystok" (T/37, p. 211), and so does the timetable attached to the Counsel for the Defence's written summary.  It should be mentioned here that, in his evidence, the Accused was confused in saying that he crossed this battlefield on the occasion of his visit to Lublin (see Session 87, Vol. IV, p. xxxx20).  This battle did not take place later than July 1941 (see, for example, T/313, report of an Operations Unit from Minsk, dated 13 July 1941).  It also stands to reason that, if Mueller wanted to receive particulars about the activities of the Operations Units and sent the Accused to Minsk for that purpose, he did so at an early stage, and not in the winter of 1941-1942.  Accordingly, we find that this visit took place in September 1941 at the latest. 

167. In exhibit T/308, which is connected with the name of Dr. Wetzel, an official of the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, we find the main evidence implicating the Accused with regard to the introduction of the method of killing by gas vans.  This collection of documents comprises a handwritten memorandum, a typescript of the same memorandum and two drafts of letters to the Reich Commissioner in Ostland (the Baltic countries). The handwritten memorandum and the typescript are identical, with one exception: The memorandum states that a conversation took place between Wetzel, Brack (an official of Hitler's Chancellery) and the Referent dealing with the Solution of the Jewish Question.  The place in which the name of that Referent was to appear was not filled in (it should be added that the name of Wetzel himself was not filled in either).  According to the typescript, the third person who took part in this conversation was the Accused.  One of the draft letters does not say any more than the memorandum and the typescript, but also mentions the names of Wetzel, Brack and the Accused.  Thus far, we still do not know the details of the discussion which took place among the three of them, but the second draft, dated 25 October 1941 (which was also submitted at one of the Nuremberg Trials - the Trial of the Doctors, Green Series, Vol. l, pp. 870-888) states: 

"With reference to my letter of 18 October 1941, I inform you that...Brack, of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, agreed to take part in the preparation of the necessary housing and of the gas apparatus.  At present, the apparatus required does not exist on a sufficiently large scale and must be manufactured.  Since, in Brack's view, the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause greater difficulties than their manufacture on the spot, he thinks it would be more effective to send his men, especially his chemist, Dr. Kallmeyer, to Riga immediately, to attend there to everything necessary... 

"May I point out that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the Referent for Jewish Affairs in the RSHA, has agreed to this procedure.  According to Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, Jewish camps are about to be set up in Riga and Minsk.  Perhaps Jews may also be brought to these camps from the territory of the Old Reich.  At present Jews are being evacuated from the Old Reich and brought to Lodz, but also to other camps, so that they can arrive at a later date for posting to work in the East, insofar as they are fit for work.  As things stand, there is no reason why those Jews who are not fit for work should not be liquidated by means of Brack's apparatus.  In this way, there will not be any incidents, such as occurred - according to a report submitted to me - when Jews were executed by shooting in Vilna.  We cannot allow such incidents, especially in light of the fact that the executions by shooting were carried out in public.  But those who are fit for work must be deported to the East for the labour operation.  Naturally, Jews who are fit for work must be separated from the other men and women.  I request a report on your forthcoming activities." 

Learned Counsel for the Defence argues that only the handwritten memorandum can count as evidence, and he emphasizes that the Accused's name is not mentioned therein.  In his evidence before us, the Accused denies having taken part in a conversation of this kind. 

This was not the reaction of the Accused in his Statement to Superintendent Less when these documents were submitted to him.  He then stated (p. 2313): 

"Yes, to this I can only say - it is all described with accuracy... I cannot raise any doubts here as to it being so."  (See also p. 2314.) 

Afterwards, the Accused returns to the same subject of his own accord and says (supra, p. 2339):"There is no doubt that Wetzel came to me on this matter. This I cannot at all explain in any other way, after reading the report - that I brought the matter up through Gruppenfuehrer Mueller - but I cannot say that Gruppenfuehrer Mueller decided in this matter - to the Head of the Security Police and the SD, and after this I informed Wetzel of the attitude taken by the Head of the Security Police and SD.  It makes sense only in this way." 

Superintendent Less showed him the same documents a second time (p. 3483), and the Accused made no further comment in connection with this.  In Session 30, Vol.I, p. 518, these documents were submitted to us without protest, and the Accused's denial that he spoke to Wetzel about the gas appears for the first time in his testimony (Session 78, Vol. IV, p. xxxx17) and again (Session 98, Vol. IV, p. xxxx37). 

We do not attach any value to this denial and so do not accept it.  The denial is based essentially on the fact that, in the handwritten memorandum, the Accused's name does not appear.  This was noticed by the Accused only after he had been examined by the police.  The documents were written in an official office of the German Reich, their formal authenticity is not in doubt; they are closely connected; they record the words and actions of persons acting with official authority, and they were composed soon after the events occurred.  If we add to this that the Accused readily admitted the accuracy of their contents, not only spontaneously when the documents were first shown to him, but also a second time on another day, after he had had time to think, and volunteered to repeat his confirmation of their accuracy, without having been questioned again on this subject; and again on a third occasion, when shown the same documents he expressed no reservations.  This is more than sufficient to convince us that these documents are not only authentic from a formal point of view, but also accurate in content, and there is no basis for the much later denial made by the Accused.  Thus, it has been proved that the Accused expressed the consent of the RSHA to the use of gas vans in October 1941 as a substitute for the execution of Jews by shooting.  (His argument in Statement T/37 that he acted according to instructions from his superiors is repeated in regard to many other matters, and we shall deal with this later in its proper place.)  From the declaration of Ohlendorf (T/312), we know that in the spring of 1942 a gas van was sent to the Operations Units, and exhibit T/309 gives evidence of the dispatch of an additional van in July 1942. 

Therefore, we find that the Accused took part in exchanging the system of execution by shooting for execution by means of gas vans.

Next