The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Attorney General: Now, Professor Gilbert, you say that you took Judge Musmanno to Goering and acted as translator. What was said in that conversation?

Witness Gilbert: Well, Goering said more or less the same things that he had said to me, namely that he was sure that Hitler was dead and that his political testament was genuine. This was the political testament, I’m sure you all know, in which Adolf Hitler accused the Jews of starting a war and admitted ordering their extermination as punishment.

There is psychology behind that, but we need not go into it. Then Goering, of course, was asked what he thought about this crime of extermination and he immediately said: “Well, this, of course, was not any business of mine, it was not in my jurisdiction, it was under the jurisdiction of Himmler and his boys, Heydrich, Eichmann and so on.”

Q. Did you introduce Judge Musmanno to other accused persons?

A. Yes, there were some others, but frankly I don’t remember the details at this point. There were other interpreters available, enlisted men, and some of the other accused did speak English.

Q. Did Judge Musmanno also see other accused men, such as Ribbentrop, Frank, von Schirach, von Papen and Kaltenbrunner?

A. I believe so, but frankly, I don’t remember all the rest of the details.

Q. Did you talk to Judge Musmanno about Eichmann?

A. No, we didn’t. There was really no occasion to speak about Eichmann at the time. Frankly, he wasn’t thought of very much by the major Nazi war criminals, and anyway, I had reason to believe that he was dead, at that time.

Q. What led you to the conclusion that Eichmann was dead?

A. Well, his own boss, Kaltenbrunner, told me he was dead. I remember this conversation very vividly, because it was the one day on which, I’m afraid, I lost a little of my professional aloofness. This was a day on which a survivor of Auschwitz testified how the children born in concentration camps were taken from their mothers and never seen again, and then, in the rush season of 1944, children were thrown alive into the furnaces of Auschwitz.

This was too much, even for a psychologist, and I went to Kaltenbrunner at lunch that day, and I said: “Herr Kaltenbrunner, now do you really mean to tell me that you know nothing about these things?” And he said, “No, no, really. I didn’t have anything to do with the extermination programme as such. This was done by Heydrich and Eichmann and the people in that context – Heydrich, Eichmann and the others involved in this chain of command, from Himmler on down. And,” he added, “they’re all dead.”

Q. Is that to be found on page 163 of your book?

A. Yes, this is a correct recording of the conversation I had with Kaltenbrunner, right out of my diary.

Q. Eichmann’s name is mentioned here on a further occasion, after Wisliceny’s evidence – I think on page 102. This is Goering’s response when already in gaol, after Wisliceny’s evidence.

A. Yes, I remember that conversation.

Q. What did Goering say then?

A. Well, his comment on Wisliceny’s testimony was that Wisliceny looks like a big Schweinehund only because Eichmann isn’t here – or to make it exact, that “Wisliceny is a little Schweinehund who looks like a big one, because Eichmann isn’t here.”

Q. Does this appear in your book?

A. Yes, this can be found in the original diary – all of these notes that are in the public version can be found in the original diary which I kept at the time.

Q. Did anyone else in the Nuremberg gaol talk to you about Eichmann when you were on your official mission?

A. Yes, the name came more and more into discussion, not so much amongst the main Nazi war criminals, but among the SS men of whom we had practically the entire military and police power in gaol in Nuremberg. There were many higher SS police officials, and I frequently ran across Eichmann’s name there – at first, somewhat to my surprise, but more and more a clear picture emerged.

Q. Did you speak to Oswald Pohl about Eichmann?

A. Yes. Oswald Pohl – I believe his title was Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, the Chief of the WVHA – was also in Nuremberg, and I, of course, discussed the atrocities with him.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. Well, he tried to get into a jurisdictional dispute about who had charge of the extermination programme. He, of course, disclaimed responsibility for himself, insisting that this was under Kaltenbrunner’s jurisdiction, but he made it quite clear that Eichmann was involved.

In other words, both Kaltenbrunner and Pohl tried to shove on to the other the responsibility for being in charge of the bureaucracy, but both agreed, automatically, that Eichmann was the one involved, at least one of those involved.

Q. Pohl was kept in the witness wing in the Nuremberg gaol – is that correct?

A. Yes, in the witness wing there was the rest of the top hierarchy of Nazi Germany, and they were interrogated at times, called at times as witnesses by the defendants, sometimes by the prosecution; I had access to all of those – just as free access as I had to the top Nazis themselves.

Q. Is that where you also met Ohlendorf and Rudolf Hoess?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any contact between the witnesses detained in the witness wing and the principal accused who were imprisoned in their cells?

A. No, that’s why they were kept in a separate wing. They could only be called to discuss particular cases, if they were needed as witnesses, and then the attorney might call the witness to discuss something with the defendant. Otherwise they were kept quite separate.

Q. You said that other people spoke to you about Eichmann. Who were they?

A. Well, the main one was Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz.

Q. What did Hoess say about Eichmann?

A. Well, he seemed to be unable to discuss the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, and at first I hardly noticed this, but when I started to get written statements from him for psychological purposes, the name came in more and more, and it gradually dawned on me that this man must be a key figure in the whole extermination programme.

Q. What do you mean by “it dawned on me”?

A. Well, I was starting to investigate something else. What I was really interested in was what makes these Nazis tick. So I was trying to find out what made Colonel Hoess tick, how could he do things like this? And in the orderly procedure of getting a case history on a subject, I asked Colonel Hoess to write an autobiography telling his entire history from childhood up to the present time.

Q. Are you referring to that autobiography which was published under the title “Commandant of Auschwitz”?

A. Oh, no – I am speaking of the original autobiography which Colonel Hoess wrote for me in Nuremberg, for purely psychological purposes, in his own handwriting.

Q. You have kept it in your possession until now, and it has not been published so far?

A. That’s right – that is one of the original written documents I had to confirm my conversations, and it hasn’t been published except for excerpts which I used in analysing the case of Rudolf Hoess in my second book, The Psychology of Dictatorship.

Q. Did Hoess write it before he wrote his autobiography in Poland?

A. Oh, yes – definitely; he had not yet been brought to Poland to stand trial, and I was the first one, I believe, to ask him for his case history.

Q. I notice there is a date at the top – 10 April 1946. And Hoess ended it on 12 April. It took him two days to write – would that be correct?

A. Yes, that would be about right.

Q. And it has not yet been published?

A. Not as such, no – as I said – except for brief excerpts.

Q. Is this the original handwriting of Hoess?

A. This is the original.

Q. Signed by him?

A. Yes, this is Rudolf Hoess’ signature, and this is exactly the document which he wrote for me.

Presiding Judge: Did the witness receive this from the hands of Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: I received this from Hoess himself and have kept it in my possession ever since, except that I showed it to Mr. Hausner when I came here.

Attorney General: I submit this document. To my regret we have not managed to make copies. We shall make copies for the Court. We shall ask for the document to be returned to us so that we may print it. The handwriting of Hoess is quite legible.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1169.

You will receive it back after the session, in order to make copies of it. Has Dr. Servatius seen the document?

Attorney General: Dr. Servatius has received from us a copy of the English translation, since Dr. Gilbert made an English translation for himself. And I gave him the complete translation.

Presiding Judge: Please also give him the German original.

Attorney General: Certainly.

Dr. Servatius: May I request a photocopy of the handwritten document, in order to show it to the Accused?

Attorney General: I have no objection to Defence Counsel receiving the document and showing it to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: The document will be returned to you, and you can submit it to Defence Counsel.

Attorney General: I have a manuscript of Hoess which has also not yet been published. I shall let him have it immediately.

I understand that Eichmann is mentioned in the autobiography written by Hoess?

Witness Gilbert: Yes, I noticed that. That is how I began to get the impression that Colonel Hoess cannot describe the extermination programme without referring to Eichmann, even though he is only supposed to be writing a personal autobiography for psychological purposes.

Q. At a later stage we shall draw the Court’s attention to what it says there.

Tell me, Professor Gilbert, did Hoess testify in Court?

A. Yes. He was a witness for Kaltenbrunner.

Q. He gave evidence, or at any rate evidence was led, showing that 2,500,000 men, women and children had been exterminated in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

A. Yes.

Q. What was the effect of this evidence on the other accused in that trial, as far as you remember?

A. Well, this was one of the main psychological problems at the trial. The atrocity evidence of the extermination and the films of the atrocities and concentration camps sometimes had a very shocking effect on the defendants themselves, and I was very anxious to find out just how genuine this was, and what their guilt reactions were from a psychological point of view.

Q. Do you remember what Hans Frank said to you?

A. Yes. In connection with the testimony of Rudolf Hoess, he stopped me in the hall on the way to lunch or from lunch and said: “Captain Gilbert, this was the lowest point of the trial. Just imagine a man sitting there and saying out of his own mouth: I murdered two and a half million men, women, and children.” Oh yes, I remember the additional comment: “People will talk about this for a thousand years.”

Q. Do you recall the testimony of Keitel who, I believe, was the Chief of the German General Staff?

A. That’s right. I recall Keitel’s reaction to the atrocities particularly vividly in connection with the atrocities films. And when I saw him in the cell later, he said: “Those dirty SS swine! If I had known what they were up to, I would have told my son, I’ll shoot you rather than let you join the SS.” He was, of course, at the same time trying to indicate that it was not the army that had committed these horrible atrocities. But he did react emotionally and with great shock.

Q. Do you remember any unusual reaction on the part of anyone else?

A. Well, there were a number of them. We could, of course, go on and on, but I think we want to come back to the documents that form the picture that I gradually formed of the role of Adolf Eichmann.

Q. That is correct.

A. Well, in connection with getting these guilt reactions, I would have to present the reaction of Goering, which leads to the next document which I received from Colonel Hoess. Goering’s reaction was to try to brush it all aside, to tell everybody that this was all exaggerated propaganda. “Oh, they are a bunch of SS Schweinehunde doing some dirty things, but it is all exaggerated, it’s all propaganda.”

So, I would engage Goering in conversation in front of the others and say: “Well, now, you can’t just brush off the murder of two and a half million people. The German people themselves will demand to know how did this happen. The conscience of the world demands to know how did this happen. Do you want to go down in history as a man who just laughed it off?” …And we would argue along this line.

You see, the only way of appealing to Goering was not through conscience, but through his egotistical role in history. And I knew that he was trying to brush aside the crimes, so that he would not lose his chance to get his picture in the German history books, because he knew that even the German people would be horrified by it. Particularly because women and children had been murdered. The killing of the men would not damage his picture in the German history books, he told me.

Now then, realizing that he was determined to try to blot out the memory of this horrible crime from history, I felt that, psychologically, historically and humanly, it was absolutely necessary to see to it that this was properly documented – both from the historical and the psychological point of view.

Q. And then, what did you do?

A. I therefore told him…I’m sorry. No, the next step was his clinching argument, namely, that it was technically impossible to exterminate two and a half million people inside of the three or three and a half years that Colonel Hoess was Commandant of Auschwitz. This seemed to be very convincing to some of the other Nazi leaders.

Q. What did you do, then?

A. I then told him that, of course, I was no expert in mass production of extermination, but that there was an expert in the witness wing, and I could get the details from him. I was, of course, referring to Colonel Hoess.

Q. And then you took a sheet of paper and you wrote at the top certain words in German?

A. That’s right. I wrote a question in German.

Q. And you gave it to Hoess and got his written reply?

A. That’s right. I handed it to him, and he wrote the reply in his own handwriting.

Q. You gave it to him on 23 April 1946, and you received his reply on 24 April 1946?

A. Yes. I believe the dates are recorded on the document.

Q. Kindly read out to the Court the question and the answer (I already have a printed copy here – it is a short document).

A. The question which I wrote down in German was: Goering wants to know how it was at all possible, from a technical point of view, to destroy two and a half million people in the course of three and a half years.

Q. What was Hoess’ reply?

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, this is going to take very long, with the translation.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 1320. This is yet another report from Ferenczy, dated 7 June 1944, in Hatvan. In the second paragraph eleven localities are mentioned where camps had been set up for assembling Jews, and it says that in these camps the commanders were officers of the German Security Police. In paragraph 12, I should like to draw the Court’s attention…

Presiding Judge: What was the first paragraph?

State Attorney Bach: The first paragraph was paragraph No. 2. It says there that the commanders were officers of the German Security Police, and it indicates the places. I do not wish to read out all of them here.

In paragraph 12 it says: “According to information from the railway station-master, about 400 persons from the labour services were released – and it mentions some of their names – they were arrested by the German Security Police and their leave passes were confiscated.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1164.

Judge Halevi: What is “typical of the Jewish Intelligence Service?” It appears in section 13.

State Attorney Bach: It says:

“This is typical of the thouroughness of the Jewish Intelligence service: In a telegram sent from Koeszeg to me, in my name, by some unknown person in Hatvan, I was asked to free his wife from the Koeszeg Ghetto. The purge in the areas across the Danube was planned for a later date, but, notwithstanding that, they were aware, at the most westerly edge of the country, that I was acting in Hatvan as a liaison officer.”

Our next document is No. 1321 – once more a report of Ferenczy from Hatvan, dated 8 June 1944. This is already an interim report on the implementation of the deportations. He talks of various areas of his command where so far a total of 275,415 Jews had been transported in 92 trains. “Apart from mixed marriages and their offspring, there are no longer any Jews in the aforementioned areas.”

In paragraph 3 it is stated:

“I arrested Dr. Bela Berend, a member of the Jewish Council in Budapest, and also his wife” – and he mentions her name here – “who had been released from an assembly camp, since they obtained and passed on forged documents to their relatives, who at that time were detained at that same assembly camp. I brought them to Munkacs for purposes of interrogation and, after the interrogation I handed them over to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1165.

State Attorney Bach: The last report is our document No. 1322. Ferenczy’s report dated 9 July 1944, from Budapest. Here it says: “From the beginning of the evacuations, on May 14 1944, until today 434,351 persons belonging to the Jewish race, left the country in 147 trains.”

In paragraph 3 he says: “The Jewish community has now been evacuated from all regions of the country, except from the capital Budapest.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1166.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I should now like to present the evidence of Dr. Tibor Ferencz.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Ferencz: A little.

Presiding Judge: Do you want to speak in Hungarian?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

The witness is sworn.

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness. Dr. Ferencz Tibor.

Q. Is Ferencz your first name?

A. Ferencz is my surname – Tibor is my first name.

Q. Where do you live?

A. In Bnei Brak, on Rashi Street.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Ferencz, when did you immigrate to
Israel?

Witness Ferencz: On 22 May 1957.

Q. Where were you until then?

A. In Budapest.

Q. During the Second World War, where were you and what was your occupation?

A. Prior to the War I was a lawyer in one of the provincial towns. In 1942 I was mobilized for the labour service. I served in the labour force with longer or shorter intervals.

Q. In the Hungarian labour service?

A. Yes.

Q. After the War, in what were you engaged in Hungary?

A. When I returned home at the end of March 1945, I didn’t find anything there, nor any members of my family. My wife, my mother-in-law – all of them had been taken to Auschwitz. Similarly my apartment had been robbed, and I didn’t find anything there, except for one thing which was in the garbage – and that was my diploma. I decided to discontinue my law practice and to dedicate myself solely to the service of the Jewish People.

At that time I volunteered – I offered my services to the People’s Prosecution Office. At the time this office was devoted to bringing to trial those who were responsible for war crimes. Within a short time I had risen to the position of Prosecutor with the General People’s Prosecution Office, and also Deputy Chief Prosecutor. All matters were concentrated in my hands, in my office, all the trials against war criminals and of those who had committed crimes against the people. Thus I directed all these matters which were within the competence of this office.

Presiding Judge: Was this the General Prosecution that was attached to the special courts that dealt with war crimes?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: What are these documents?

Witness Ferencz: These documents are photostats of my letters of appointment. I have the original documents, bearing the seal of Ministers and of the Prime Minister.

State Attorney Bach: I apply to submit these letters of appointment in the Hungarian language.

Presiding Judge: With or without a translation?

State Attorney Bach: I think it will be without a translation. Perhaps the witness will be able to tell us what they certify. This is our document No. 671.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1167.

Perhaps the interpreter can glance at the documents and tell us what they contain. Without a detailed translation. Is that possible?

State Attorney Bach: It should not be necessary to translate the whole document.

Interpreter: The first document is dated 15 June 1945, signed by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Agoston Valentin. In this certificate he appoints Dr. Tibor Ferencz, advocate, to be a People’s Prosecutor with the General Prosecution in Budapest. He requires him to report immediately to the Director of Prosecutions.

The second document is from Prime Minister Miklos, dated 25 September 1945. He advises him that the Council of Ministers has appointed Dr. Tibor Ferencz as deputy to the General People’s Prosecutor on behalf of the government.

The third  document is dated 28 December 1946, and in essence it is identical with the previous one, except that it is from another Minister of Justice.

In the fourth document he is released from his appointment, on 26 May 1948. But at the same time he is appointed to another post with the Chief State Prosecutor’s office.

State Attorney Bach: Did you also, by virtue of this office appear personally in trials, or were you present at the trials of Hungarian war criminals?

Witness Ferencz: In the proceedings of the trials I directed the material for the prosecution and in most cases I also appeared personally. Of course, I also had assistant prosecutors, who prepared the files.

Q. Were you present at the trial of the deputy ministers Endre and Baky?

A. On a few occasions I went in and out of the court-room, a few times.

Q. What were the sentences given to Endre and Baky?

A. Death by hanging for both of them.

Q. Was the punishment carried out?

A. It was carried out.

Q. Do you remember when the sentence of death on Endre and Baky was carried out?

A. I am sorry – I can’t remember now exactly when it happened, since there were many cases of the execution of the principal war criminals in those days. At any rate, I remember that it was in the summer, but when exactly, even if I make a special effort, I can’t recollect.

Q. In the summer of roughly what year?

A. Either 1946 or 1947. I would prefer to say 1946. I don’t remember exactly.

Q. Do you remember whether Endre and Baky were hanged on the same day or on different days?

A. Yes, on the same day, I saw to it that they should be hanged on the same day.

Q. Did you see them on the day of the hanging?

A. The court rejected their application for clemency. Accordingly they knew that there was no way out and that the death sentence would be carried out. And then, after consultation with my Minister of Justice, Istvan Reiss, and on his instructions, I went into the death cell and questioned Endre and Baky separately, approximately an hour or an hour and a half before their execution.

Q. Were they together or in separate cells?

A. They were separated.

Q. Was it only on that day that they were separated, or in fact were they generally kept apart from each other during the whole of that period?

A. All the main war criminals were kept in separate cells.

Q. Including these two?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the object of your meeting them?

A. Endre, the proceedings of whose trial I remember in particular, defended himself throughout the trial by saying that he had acted in accordance with instructions and on this ground he based his request for clemency – that we  should pardon him because he had acted according to instructions.

As a result of the consultation with my Minister of Justice, I wanted, once again, before the death sentence was carried out, to determine finally, perhaps for the sake of history, what was the nature of the instructions he had received and from whom he had received them.

Perhaps I may be permitted to add that Endre had previously been the head of a small administrative district in Goedoelloe. He was a most consistent anti-Semite. He did everything he possibly could against the Jews. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of deputy district governor for the district of Pest. He was equipped with all the attributes necessary in order to be in charge of Jewish affairs in Hungary.

Also on the occasion of this, our last meeting – and this I definitely recollect – he referred to the fact that the plans for carrying out the deportations and for the “ghettoization” – that is to say the placing of the Jews in ghettos – came to him in ready-made form. He told me that it was the Accused who gave him these orders and he was obliged to give an account to him of every deportation and on each operation of placing Jews inside a ghetto.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps, here, I am bound to ask the Court for a decision which will enable me to question the witness about the statements that were made to him by Endre and Baky.

It is clear from the evidence of the witness that his conversation with them actually took place very shortly before these two men were executed, after their application for clemency had been rejected and they did not have any more hope of achieving anything as a result of the statements that they made to him.

It seems to me that this is the closest case of a dying declaration that it is possible to find, although from the legal point of view a dying declaration is an exception from the rules of hearsay evidence only in cases of murder trials, when the reference is to the words uttered by the victim before he died. For this reason I would not be able, according to the normal rules of evidence, to produce this evidence.

But it seems to me that, from the point of view of its real significance, when a man no longer has any hope and he then says certain things that have greater weight, it seems to me that there is an analogy between the present instance and a dying declaration.

The Court will also recall its decision in connection with the evidence of Judge Musmanno, who also testified about statements made to him by various war criminals. Defence Counsel responded to that by asking a number of questions, in which he tried to show that, in the case of some of the offenders at least, there could have been contact between the cells, which would have enabled them to co-ordinate their stories, and so on.

Naturally the more we shall be able to point to a larger number of instances of this kind, when we have one instance in a goal in Nuremberg, and when we submit the statements of Hoess in Cracow and Wisliceny in Slovakia, and the statements of war criminals in Germany, and these two in Budapest, then the extent of the consistency between these statements is greater, to that extent it will be more difficult to believe in coincidence or chance and in collusion between all those people who, as it were, decided to shift the whole guilt on the Accused, while he is innocent.

Accordingly I request the Court to permit the witness to quote the last words of these two men, Endre and Baky, who throughout the final Hungarian period had the closest connections with the Accused.

Presiding Judge: If you please, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: Only one other analogy is possible. This is not a dying declaration but the declaration of a man anticipating execution. I agree with the Prosecution that there was no co-ordination here. But, without doubt, there was an intention to justify themselves morally before their people and that is how they arrived at the Accused,
Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: But what is your view, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 57

We allow evidence of the witness Dr. Ferencz about remarks he heard from Endre and Baky before they were executed. (See our Decisions Nos. 7 and 29).

State Attorney Bach: Which one of them did you see first – Endre or Baky?

Witness Ferencz: First Endre.

Q. Did you go to him in his cell?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did the conversation last?

A. Between a quarter-of-an-hour and half-an-hour.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: We shall immediately submit it. I thought that it had been submitted. It states here: “Eichmann summoned the Jewish Council to come to him at the Schwabenberg, to the Majestic Hotel and he laid before them the pro memoria plan.

Those present were Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann and Krumey, Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Wisliceny and another German officer. Representing the Jews: The President Samu Stern, the Vice-President Dr. Ernoe Boda, Dr. Ernoe Petoe and the counsel, Dr. Janos Gabor.

At the outset President Stern presented certain requests. Following this, Eichmann began his address, and spoke first of all about the Jewish star. He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide the star. There was some discussion on this matter and thereafter he said that as from 5 o’clock all Jews would have to wear the yellow star which would be exchanged afterwards by the one which the Jewish Council had to supply.

He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide about three million stars. He also demanded that the stars should be uniform throughout the country.

Afterwards he passed on to questions regarding housing. He said that in the case of a change of address, they had to notify him about it and receive permission from him. He said he would also deal with matters concerning Kistarcsa – he could not say when this would be.

This was in reply to a request that he release those who were detained in Kistarcsa when the Germans first arrived. He said they could apply to him in this connection, but he warned them not to deceive him. He expressed his opinion that the most important objective was to increase industrial productivity that was so essential to the war effort.

To this end he had created a labour force, and this was comprised of Jewish workers specifically. If the Jews behaved properly, nothing would happen to them, and they would be treated as all other workers, and this applied to work productivity. After that he added that these people would enjoy fair treatment and would receive the same wages as other workers. We said that, for this purpose, we would have to obtain a mandate. To this he retorted that we should have to abandon such liberal attitudes, and that we should not ask but command.

“At a later stage in the minutes Eichmann mentioned that he was taking a very great interest in Jewish artistic works and in Jewish libraries. Since 1934 he had been dealing with Jewish affairs and that he knew Hebrew better than we did. We told him that we had a Jewish museum in which antiquities and libraries were kept. He said he would visit it. Thereafter he issued various instructions regarding the supply of goods to the Germans and concerning the submission of lists of Jewish organizations.

Later on he stressed that these orders would be valid only for the duration of the War (that is to say the orders by the Germans) and that, afterwards, the Jews would be free and would be able to do as they pleased. Everything that was happening in regard to Jewish affairs was only for the duration of the War. When the War was over, the Germans would again be pleasant towards people, as they had been in the past (or, as he expressed it in German: ‘Die Deutschen werden wieder gemuetlich sein‘).

“He would prefer this to be carried out without violence. Only in case of resistance would there be need of force. If the Jews went over to partisan operations – he would kill them off without mercy. The Jews had to understand that nothing was being demanded of them except discipline and order.

If there would be discipline and order then not only would Jewry have nothing to fear, but he would defend Jewry and it would live under the same good conditions as regards payment and treatment, like all the other workers. He would especially appreciate it if they would make his views public amongst all sections of Jewry. He also stated that he would prevent all plunder of Jewish possessions and that he would punish those seeking to enrich themselves from Jewish property.

“After that there came a moment of excitement. Dr.Janos Gabor rose and said that he was very unhappy  because of the wearing of the Jewish star. His father had served in the World War as a mililtary judge, with the rank of major. His grandfather had been a ‘Honved‘* {*Popular name for a member of the Hungarian armed forces.} in the 1848 revolution. The wearing of the star would incite the riff-raff to shame the Jews in the street and to attack them. To this Eichmann replied that he would not permit anyone to suffer because of the star and if such incidents were to occur – he should be notified and he would attend to them.”

The Court will take note that Dr. Boda, in fact, confirms that his minutes are contained in a certain book, and they were printed there in Hungarian. What we have submitted to the Court is a translation of those minutes into German. We shall submit to you, later on, confirmation that this German translation is a correct translation from the Hungarian book which we are also prepared to place at the Court’s disposal.

Presiding Judge: Does not Dr. Boda himself confirm it?

State Attorney Bach: He does not confirm the translation and hence it is still necessary for us to compare the translation with the book.

There is another affidavit by Dr. Ernoe Petoe who also took part in that meeting. He is now living in Brazil. He is also about 79 1/2 or 80 and in a delicate state of health. He actually confirms two matters. Firstly he participated in that meeting and he, for his part, confirms the same details which I have already brought before you, and therein, naturally, there is additional corroboration, and I should like to bring this to your notice.

Apart from that he was the man who at the time established contact with the Regent Horthy and achieved the return of a train for the first time, that train which set out from Kistarcsa. This we have learned from other witnesses who heard it from him. He confirms that he found a way of approach to Horthy’s son and managed to secure the return of the train, and hence there is the additional weight of his evidence also on this point. He made a sworn affidavit about these matters before our consul in Brazil and I request the Court’s permission to submit his affidavit. The number of our document is 1300.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you have to say?

Dr. Servatius: I have received the contents of this affidavit, for my information. It exists only in the Hungarian language. I have no objection to its submission, but I would ask to be given a German translation.

Presiding Judge: [To State Attorney Bach] Will you see to that?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, of course. I have asked someone to read this document to Defence Counsel in German, but we shall also supply to Dr. Servatius a full translation of the document into German.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 56

We permit the submission of the affidavit of Dr. Ernoe Petoe.

State Attorney Bach: To my regret, here too I shall only be able to produce the original affidavit during the recess. We have been given only photocopies of that affidavit.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/1157.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, he also mentions an interesting fact that the son of the witness, the son of Dr. Petoe, was in the company of Raoul Wallenberg in a student hostel in Switzerland in the summer of 1920. This later helped in the joint activity of the witness and Raoul Wallenberg about whom we shall still hear, who extended outstanding aid to the Jewish community, mainly in Budapest.

After that he describes this meeting. Here he only adds one point, that with regard to those goods and articles that Eichmann demanded to hand over to the Germans, Eichmann had at the time promised to make payment to the Jews, and that it never reached the stage of payment. This is on page three of the Hebrew reprint, on page two of the original.

After that there is an account of the meeting. I do not want to go over that again. Then comes the chapter on Kistarcsa. Here he again relates the whole story, including what happened at the Schwabenberg. He too, together with the Witness Freudiger: was at the Schwabenberg and he gives a first hand account of what happened there and what they learned later, in the evening, from Dr. Brody when the latter returned from Kistarcsa. He also mentions that the operation at Kistarcsa was carried out by Novak.

At the end he describes a certain change of attitude on the part of the Hungarian gendarmerie and about his contact with Ferenczy who told him that at first he did not believe that they were really exterminating the Jews in the east, but in view of the behaviour of the Accused, who would not allow them to go there personally to ascertain the facts, he began to believe that this was truly the fate of the Jews. It is on page 6 of the translation.

“In Ferenczy’s presence Captain Lullay delivered a ‘Philippic’ address to us, lasting hours, against the Gestapo and, in particular against Eichmann and his men, in which he said that they were now conducting a campaign of life and death against those who had now become a cause of danger to them as well. They wanted us to clarify to them what the truth was about Auschwitz, for they had asked Eichmann in vain to permit them to go there and personally to ascertain the facts. From this they came to the conclusion that the rumours about the incinerators for the destruction of Jews who were not capable of working, were correct. I pointed out to them the nature of the military situation according to which the defeat of the Germans was a fact.”

“The outcome of this discussion was that Ferenczy offered his assistance in thwarting Eichmann’s plans to carry out deportations.”

And here these are several particulars about the negotiations with Ferenczy.

“On 17 August I was taken to Eichmann’s headquarters
and from there I was put into a German prison. I was
released on 21 August on the intervention of the
Regent. On 23 August, Ferenczy appeared before Eichmann and informed him that, on the orders of the Regent, they would prevent the deportation, even by force of  arms. Meanwhile Ferenczy showed me the deportation schedule prepared by Eichmann, and which was to be carried out between 26 August and 18 September, from the brick industry zone in Csillaghegyi. The first transport was to include the members and officials of the Jewish Council, together with their families.”

“In view of this opposition, Eichmann was prevented from carrying out his plans, and he said that he would fly to Berlin and seek aid from Himmler. I later received a message for Dr. Wilhelm Karolyi from Mor, a Counsellor in the Hungarian Foreign Office, to the effect that Himmler had agreed to defer the deportations. In this way Eichmann’s plan to deport the Jews of Budapest failed. As a consequence of the change in the military situation, Eichmann was no longer capable of carrying out the deportation without the help of the gendarmerie. Thus Budapest Jewry was saved from deportation.”

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, may I be permitted briefly to interrupt the submission of evidence on the question of Hungary, and to request the directives and the guidance of the Court in a matter which is to take place next week?

It is our intention to exhibit in Court a number of documentary films in order to illustrate certain events about which evidence had already been led, and other events on which evidence will be produced next week. Naturally we will ensure suitable authentication of the incidents contained in these films. We shall produce witnesses who will be asked to testify under oath that this is how matters looked in fact.

It seems to me that we have the right to present these films, but in view of the fact that it is not a daily or normal occurrence for films to be shown in a court-room, I thought it would be proper to ask the Court’s guidance in this matter.

Presiding Judge: Is there a precedence for that?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour. Films were also exhibited at Nuremberg on several occasions. This was also the case in the Bergen-Belsen trial. These are two instances which I can recall at the moment, concerning this type of evidence. We sometimes make use of a film for another purpose, in order to identify a place, and so on. But this is not our purpose. Here the intention is to illustrate the events.

Presiding Judge: Were decisions given there – or was the matter simply taken for granted?

Attorney General: I believe that there was some objection, and it was decided that it had probative value and, on several occasions, the showing of films was allowed.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could show us where this appears in the reports.

Attorney General: Certainly. I think that it appears already in the early volumes.

Judge Halevi: What do the films contain?

Attorney General: One film is about Auschwitz after the liberation – showing the appearance of the survivors. One film which we will also show if we can manage to convert it from 35 mm to 16 mm, concerns the Warsaw Ghetto.

I say “if we can manage” for there is a technical problem in bringing a 35 mm projector to the Court. If we cannot manage, we shall be obliged to forego the film because of this difficulty. There is one film dealing with the transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck. There is another one showing scenes of the Mauthausen camp.

Judge Halevi: Was the film of Mauthausen taken after the liberation or before?

Attorney General: There are scenes which were photographed at the time of the event. There is one scene, really apocalyptic, of thousands of people standing at a roll-call, naked, which was certainly shot at the precise moment when it took place. And there will be a witness who will testify that this is indeed what it looked like.

Judge Halevi: Where do these films come from?

Attorney General: From various sources. There are documentary films which were made by various institutions,  immediately after the War. The film on Auschwitz has a Czech commentary. We will remove the sound – we do not need the Czech commentaries, but apparently this film is of Czech origin. There are films which were filmed jointly by Eastern and Western bodies, French and Polish, but these were private organizations, not official bodies. These films were taken immediately after the War.

Judge Halevi: The transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck, for example, that was filmed at the time of the event?

Attorney General: We are not aware of the origin. I cannot tell the Court with certainty who photographed it. We have our assumptions, but I do not want to deal with assumptions. At any rate we shall not exhibit anything which cannot be substantiated by witnesses.

Presiding Judge: Are there amongst these films such as have already been shown in those trials?

Attorney General: This, too, is not clear to us. According to the record of proceedings at Nuremberg, there was some authentication on behalf of the Allied military authorities at the beginning of the film. This authentication does not appear in the films in our possession, and hence we shall require a different method of authentication. There is also a film which the German television prepared towards this trial. It was shown in Germany and called “In the steps of the Hangman.” It was featured on West German television on the occasion of the opening of this trial.

It is a film which we do not propose showing to the Court in its entirety, because it adopts a moralizing tone in order to arrive at certain conclusions and clearly it would not be proper for us to ask the Court to view all of it. But it contains sections on the operations of the Einsatzgruppen, which were apparently filmed at the time they were taking place, and these, too, will be verified by witnesses. We shall extract this portion only and show it to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, before I can take a stand on this, I should have been shown the films, in order to enable me to evaluate them. And a further observation relating to the inclusion of the films in the Court record. I would ask the Court to determine the procedure in this matter, for obviously the films are not going to be annexed to the records of the trial. Therefore, the Prosecution, in my opinion, should have submitted a precis of the contents of the films.

Attorney General: QWe are ready to comply with both requests of Defence Counsel. We shall show him the films before we apply to exhibit them. We shall also prepare a precis for the Court’s use.

Presiding Judge: So when will we be able to obtain Defence Counsel’s reaction – after he has seen the films? In other words, when will you be able to show him the films?

Attorney General: Not before the end of next week, but we wanted a decision in principle before we start expending the sums of money involved in converting the 35mm film to 16mm. It is not a simple matter.

Presiding Judge: This is a sort of vicious circle.

Attorney General: Yes, to a certain extent, but, if I understand in general from the Court that subject to appropriate authentication, there will be no objection to this form of submitting evidence, we shall nevertheless undertake this expense.

Judge Raveh: But is the rest of the material ready?

Attorney General: Yes.

Judge Raveh: If that is so, it is possible to show it to Defence Counsel immediately.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. Were you deported together with your family?

A. Together with my family and all the members of my community.

Q. All the members of your community?

A. Yes.

Q. How many of you were in one railway waggon?

A. We were more than one hundred persons in the waggon.

Q. How do you remember that?

A. I remember it because our community numbered 103 souls, and all the members of our community were in that waggon. It was clear to me that there were more than one hundred souls there.

Q. Were you given any food during the journey?

A. No – neither food nor water.

Q. Did you have water inside the railway waggon?

A. We were not given any. I can well remember a case where we – the young people – tried to prepare some supply of water. We took buckets, went to the nearest pump, although there were no taps there, we went to the nearest pump, and when we carried the water to the waggon, SS men came and poured it out. We were left without any water. If I may be permitted to describe the terrible conditions that prevailed in that waggon in the course of this journey to Auschwitz…?

Presiding Judge: Yes.

Witness Sapir: First of all, there were more than one hundred people, as I mentioned previously. There was not even room to stand. Towards evening the train began its journey. We did not know where it was bound for. When morning came, we saw that it was making its way to the east.

We passed small railway stations, forests, mountains, we did not know where we were. We wanted to read the signs on the stations, but we knew that it was forbidden to be too inquisitive, for the sentry standing on the roof above us was likely to make use of his arms.

We knew – there had also been an instruction to this effect – that it was forbidden to peer outside. With regard to the state of affairs inside the waggon – I have no words to describe them: Women were fainting; in one corner of the truck people were shouting “Wasser” (water), but there was no water – we could not provide water for there was none.

In another corner of the truck a mother was comforting her child; I remember the words well: “Schlof, mein kind” (Go to sleep, my child). But the child could not fall asleep, for it was hungry, it was very hungry. It had not had any food for two days already, since our departure from the town.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Sapir, did you ultimately reach some place in this train?

Witness Sapir: In the end, after three full days, the train was shunted into a siding, but we did not know where we were, what was the name of the place.

Q. When did you find out where you were?

A. After the train had stopped there for three hours, with us sitting inside, we got off and then we saw the fiery chimneys, and we noticed a very strange smell. We asked prisoners who had been there for some time: What is this smell? And they said: Here they are burning all sorts of “Lumpen“(rags). But afterwards we found out; for the ritual slaughterer of the community – suddenly I heard his voice, saying: “Alas, I have forgotten my prayer-shawl and phylacteries in the waggon.” A prisoner said to him there: “What do you need these for – soon you will be going, and he pointed to the chimney, soon you will be going there.”

Judge Halevi: Who said that to him?

Witness Sapir: One of the prisoners.

State Attorney Bach: In that same place?

Witness Sapir: Yes.

Q. So perhaps tell the Court what was that place?

A. This place was Auschwitz. Then we at last knew what was in store for us, what our fate was, where we were.

Q. You were there together with your parents?

A. Yes, I arrived there together with my parents.

Q. Did you also have brothers and sister?

A. I arrived together with my four brothers and one sister.

Q. How old were your brothers?

A. One brother was born in 1929 – he was then 15; another brother was born in 1933 – he was then 11; my sister was born in 1936 – she was then 8; another brother was born in 1938 – he was then 6; and there was a little baby brother who was born in 1941 – he was then 3.

Q. What happened to your parents and to all your brothers and your sister whom you have mentioned?

A. After the selection had been made…the selection was very simple. A doctor stood there and merely with a slight movement of his hand, people were to go to the right or to the left. My parents went to the right. I did not have time to take leave of them. I was amongst those who, for some reason, were destined to live: I went to the left.

Q. And your brothers and sister?

A. All of them went with my parents.

Q. Did you see them again, after this?

A. No I did not see them at all, after this.

Q. Of all the members of this community, how many remained alive?

A. Eighteen survived. But I must add that, of these eighteen, six were in the Hungarian labour camp; that is to say, of all those who went to Auschwitz, exactly 10 survived.

Q. Where else where you, after Auschwitz?

A. I was in Auschwitz for two days.

A. And after that?

A. After that I was transferred to the Jaworzno labour camp, near Auschwitz. In that camp, if I may describe the life…

Q. No – perhaps, you would only tell us this: In the end, did you reach the camp at Gleiwitz?

A. Yes. This was on 16 January 1945. When we returned from the mine…I was working in a coal mine, Dachsgrube it was called, it was in Upper Silesia, I was working then on the day shift at the time.

Generally we worked in shifts, a day shift, one at night and one in the morning – that is to say, day, night and noontime. But at that time I was working on the morning shift. We got back in the evening. They did not even allow us to wash, nor eat – nothing – there was an order to move, to line up and to move. Where to – we did not know.

We left, the entire camp numbering 3,000 people, and went along an unknown road. We walked for 24 hours. It was cold, there was snow, there was no food. On the way people reached total exhaustion and were unable to go on. Those who could not continue were shot, of course. Their bodies remained strewn along the road.

Q. How many were you at the start?

A. Three thousand.

Q. How many survived?

A. After walking for 24 hours we came to a town called Beuthen, in Upper Silesia. It was already evening and they sat us down at the side of the road, in the snow, and told us to wait. We waited about two hours and after that the commanding officer came to us – it was either the commanding officer or his deputy, I cannot be positively sure about this now – and announced: “Whoever is unable to continue will remain here, and he will be transferred by truck.”

I was amongst those who remained, for I knew that if I went on with this march it would end in my death, I could not carry on with it. And this I knew…although I did not do much thinking then. We remained, about two hundred persons.

And we stayed there until morning in that place, at the side of the road, in the snow, the cold, without food. In the morning they came to take us. They put us in some kind of dining room, where the mineworkers of that place used to eat, and we were told to wait. We waited. And after that, they came and took us all out.

Here I should like to mention something.

Q. Perhaps you would first tell us what was the ultimate fate of those two hundred?

A. They came and took us out of the town, a short distance from this dining room – about five kilometres if I estimate it correctly, and they gave us working tools, spades pick-axes, hoes, and implements of this sort, and told us to dig pits. We could not do so. We were absolutely at the end of our strength. Our oppressors stood over us, with whips, and struck us.

Q. How many of those two hundred remained alive?

A. When we were digging the pits, we still numbered almost the full contingent.

Q. But would you, perhaps, tell us how many of these two hundred remained in the end?

A. In the end a total of eleven persons remained. We dug these holes for the whole day, until the evening. We all believed that this would be the end of us. But, towards evening, they came and took us back to that place from which we had set out in the morning. We did not know what was happening there. In the morning an SS man named Lausmann come in. I actually remember his name very well.

He said: “Yes, I know that you are so hungry.” It was, in fact, already three days that no food had passed our lips. Then he said: “I know, you are so hungry, but soon the mineworkers who are working the night shift will come here. Something will surely be left over, and this we will divide amongst you.” We felt some kind of more humane tone, that here was something humane.

But disappointment was not slow in coming. Straightaway, as he finished these words, a pot was brought into the room, and we all thought that there was food inside the pot. But he took us, one by one, bent each down into the pot and shot him in the back of the neck. He continued shooting in this way, and shooting and shooting without end, until he got to somebody and in the middle some other officer came in and said something to him. What he said I do not know. He stopped.

I was amongst those who remained alive out of all those two hundred. In addition there was a young man there who, in the middle of it all, while Lausmann was firing, when this was going on, began making a speech in German – I do not remember that speech but I remember well that he said to him, in his concluding sentence: “The German people will answer to history for this.” This sentence I remember well. But this young man was shot immediately – he did not remain alive.

Q. Please tell us how, in the end, you escaped from these SS men. Please tell us that in one sentence only.

A. Since there were only eleven of us who remained, and those who were killed were taken out to those graves that we had dug the previous day, we did not participate in their burial – apparently the others did so. There were more prisoners there – there were other “Haeftlinge” as they called them. Haeftlinge is a very common name.

Presiding Judge: Please reply to the question you were asked. I understand that this is very painful for you, but we have to come to the end of this evidence. Please say how you, personally, escaped.

State Attorney Bach: I am prepared to waive the question.

Presiding Judge: If you can finish the evidence now, let us do so. Otherwise – we shall continue tomorrow morning.

State Attorney Bach: In fact, I am ready to waive this question.

Presiding Judge: If you, Dr. Servatius, have a question, we shall stop now. Otherwise let us end this evidence now.

Dr. Servatius: I have no questions.

Presiding Judge: Are you in a position to reply to one further question? The last question was: How did you ultimately escape from all this? You may sit down, if you please.

Witness Sapir: It is easier for me to answer standing up. After the eleven of us remained alive, we were transferred to the Gleiwitz camp. In that camp there were then, as I heard, 14,000 people.

We, the eleven of us, were placed there into a cellar containing frozen potatoes. We ate these potatoes for we had not eaten anything for four days. That was in the evening. We were there the whole night. They took us outside in the morning. I was amongst those who approached the gate.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Sapir, it would be much easier to complete your evidence, if you would reply to the question you were asked.

State Attorney Bach: I know that you have much to relate – it is simply impossible to ask you about those matters.  Therefore tell us only about the final stage of your escape.

Witness Sapir: We were in Gleiwitz. Here I do not know exactly what was the intention of the Germans, what they were thinking. But they put us into open railway waggons and we began our journey. We travelled for half a day, and the waggons came to a halt at midday. No one knew why they had stopped.

In the afternoon we were taken off the waggons and they took us to a German village called Stein. Near this village was a forest. They took us into this forest and there they began to shoot the people. I fled from that place.

Obviously, since I am here, this is a sign that the bullet did not strike me. And in this way I wandered around in that forest for two more days. After that, the Russian army arrived, and in this way I was liberated.

Q. I have one last question: When you came to Auschwitz, what was the number that you were given and which appears on your arm?

A. A3,800 [Witness shows the tattooed inscription on his left forearm].

Q. Do you know the significance of the letter “A”? When was the series A started?

A. There is nothing authentic that I can say.

State Attorney Bach: Thank you very much.

Judge Halevi: You said that they brought a pot and everyone bent down and was shot in the back of the neck. How many people were shot in the neck?

Witness Sapir: If I subtract 11 from 200, the result is 189.

Q. How many SS men were there?

A. There were many of them. As assistants to them there were those in black uniforms – I do not know if it was exactly like that – but they called them “Volksdeutsche.” There were also several in green uniforms and they took part in this action.

Q. What is your present profession?

A. My profession: I am working with Youth Aliyah as a youth leader and teacher.

Judge Halevi: Thank you.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Sapir, you have concluded your testimony.

The next Session will be tomorrow morning, at 9 o’clock.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. Are you able to tell the Court something about attempts to mislead the Jews of the town regarding their ultimate fate?

A. Yes. When the deportations began, a Gestapo officer said to me – I will use his actual words in German: “Ihr lebt jahier wie die Schweine, Ihr werdet nach Deutschland ueberfuehrt, wo Ihr in normalen Verhaeltnissen leben werdet mit Euren Familien. ” (You are indeed living here like pigs; you will be transferred to Germany, and there you will lead a normal life; you will be transferred with your families). And then he said: “Ihr werdet dort arbeiten” (You will work there).

Q. Can you tell the Court about a false order which appeared
to show some concern for Jewish education?

A. Yes. Once we received a letter from the Gestapo. The Ghetto Committee received the letter through the Council, which stated that it was not good for the children to be wandering about the ghetto area without studying the Torah or receiving an appropriate religious education. Therefore they gave us an order to see to it that the children studied. I was given the letter for my attention. I did not understand – and I was unable to understand – the purpose of the letter.

Presiding Judge: In what capacity did you receive this letter?

Witness Foeldi: I was one of three former officers of the Austro-Hungarian and Czech army, and the three of us were charged with organizing and attending to the fair distribution of food, etc., and also with keeping order, as far as it was in our power. I received this letter and I did not understand the Gestapo’s concern for the Jewish education of the children.

But, anyhow, I asked the Rabbis who were in the ghetto to attend a meeting. There I read out the letter. The senior Rabbi suggested that we send our thanks to the Gestapo for its concern and request authority to send a number of men to the synagogue where we could take out the books which would enable us to provide for education and studies. We never received any reply or reaction.

State Attorney Bach: Did you ever see in this place, in Uzhgorod, the officer Marton Zoeldi?

Witness Foeldi: Yes.

Q. Perhaps you would tell the Court, who was Marton Zoeldi?

A. He was an officer of the Hungarian gendarmerie. In 1942, when there were the riots in Subotica, and it became known throughout the world that 4,000 Jews were killed there, he was the prime mover of this whole operation. Subsequently, when an end was put to this whole campaign in Subotica, he fled to Germany and joined the Gestapo. On one occasion we heard in the Uzhgorod Ghetto that Marton Zoeldi would be coming. I was alone in the office when he walked in and moved around.

Suddenly he asked me: “What is your name?” I told him: Martin Foeldi.” He gave me a slap in the face and said: “How dare you have such a name when there is a difference of only one letter between my name and yours – my name is Marton Zoeldi and you are Martin Foeldi?” That is how it began. This was the first time my face was slapped since I became an adult.

Q. How did the presence of Zoeldi affect the manner of the deportations?

A. It had an adverse effect. Even prior to this the arrangements were not good, and no deportation was carried out without acts of cruelty. But after he had been there a day or two, everybody was afraid of him, including the officers of the Hungarian Police. We felt that they feared him.

Q. Do you know anything about Zoeldi’s function within the Gestapo?

A. No.

Q. In what office, in what place did he work as a rule?

A. It was only after the War that I got to know that he was Eichmann’s right-hand man.

Presiding Judge: You said earlier that he had been in the Hungarian Gendarmerie?

Witness Foeldi: Yes, but he fled after the riots.

State Attorney Bach: He added that he subsequently joined the Gestapo.

Presiding Judge: Was he in uniform?

Witness Foeldi: Yes.

Q. In what uniform?

A. In the uniform of the German army.

State Attorney Bach: When did the deportations in Uzhgorod begin?

Witness Foeldi: Approximately on 14 April 1944, or 20 April.

Q. Did the “ghettoization” of the transports begin then?

A. The deportations from the ghetto began then.

Q. Where to?

A. At that time we did not know the destination – merely that the deportations had begun.

Q. Are you sure it was in April?

A. No, I made a mistake, it was in May.

Presiding Judge: In what year?

Witness Foeldi: 1944.

State Attorney Bach: In what manner were these deportations carried out?

Witness Foeldi: We received a notice from the Council, for the members of the Council were not inside the ghetto. We received this notice to the Ghetto Committee that we were to draw up a list of people – as far as I remember, of 1,500 to 2,000 persons. Inside the ghetto there was a loudspeaker and we requested those persons who wished to leave together to come to the office to register.

Whole families reported, or one member of a family who gave us a list of all the members of the family, their relatives and friends. There was an official there, he was also a Jew and in fact one of us, who recorded and drew up the list. On the following day there was a roll-call and all the people were divided into sections of 50 or 52 persons – approximately 1,500 to 2,000 people in all.

Q. Was there any distinction at all made between men, women and children?

A. No, no distinction.

Q. All of them were taken?

A. Yes, they were all taken. Old men and women, women and men.

Q. In what kind of trains were they transported?

A. In freight trains. We saw the trains from inside the ghetto. Although it was far away, one could see the trains.

Q. How many people were there in each freight-car?

A. Seventy to eighty persons.

Q. At what rate were these deportations carried out?

A. Almost every day or two days.

Q. Almost every day or two days a train left with 1,500 people?

A. Yes. Every two days would be more accurate.

Q. When did you go?

A. I left with the last transport.

Q. Which members of your family went with you?

A. All my family. And apart from that, we three officers who had been on the committee.

Q. Were you officers in the Austro–Hungarian army?

A. Yes, and we were on the Ghetto Committee.

Q. Who were the members of your close family?

A. My wife, son, daughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, my brother-in-law, his wife and little girl.

Q. Where were you transported to?

A. We went via Csap and Kosice. At Kosice we knew that we were on the border between Slovakia and Hungary. And we knew that from that point onwards we would know that if we went to the right after Kosice this would mean that we were going to the east, to Poland. If we continued in a straight line we believed we would remain inside Czechoslovakian territory.

Q. In fact, where did you go?

A. We travelled to Auschwitz via Obysovce-Presov.

Q. When you arrived at Auschwitz, did someone in a certain conversation want to tell you what was happening in Auschwitz?

A. When I arrived?

A. Yes, or shortly before that. I am referring to a particular encounter when someone wanted to tell you what was happening there.

A. The moment we reached Auschwitz some people came in – we did not know who they were for we had never seen uniforms such as theirs. We were given an order to get down, but quickly, and to leave all our effects and belongings inside the freight-car.

We alighted and it was in such a hurried manner and at such a fast pace that we did not realize what was happening. They said to us that the men should stand on the right side with children over the age of 14, and the women on the left with the young boys and girls. They, the women began walking while we were still standing, and suddenly they were almost completely out of view.

I stood there with my son who was only 12 years old. After we had started walking forward, I suddenly came up to a certain man. I did not know who he was. He was dressed in a uniform of the German army, elegant, and he asked me what my profession was. I knew that being a lawyer by profession would not be very helpful and, therefore, told him that I was a former officer. He looked at me and asked: “How old is the boy?” At that moment I could not lie, and I told him: 12 years old. And then he said: “Wo ist die Mutti?” (And where is your mother?) I answered: “She went to the left.” Then he said to my son: “Run after your mother.”

After that I went on walking to the right and I saw how the boy was running. I wondered to myself how would he be able to find his mother there? After all, there were so many women and men, but I caught sight of my wife. How did I recognize her? My little girl was wearing some kind of a red coat. The red spot was a sign that my wife was near there. The red spot was getting smaller and smaller. I walked to the right and never saw them again.

Q. Did they take all the women with the children to that side?

A. I noticed that also amongst the women they made some kind of division. The younger women were walking separately without boys or girls, and the older women walked in a separate group. After the event we heard of a case where “Haeftlinge” (detainees) the old hands, if I may call them that, came along. It happened occasionally that one of them would say to a young woman: “Give the child to granny and you go to work.” There were individual instances of this kind – a cousin of mine also handed over her boy and girl to a grandmother and went to work, but she was killed there.

Q. Dr. Foeldi, how long were you in Auschwitz?

A. I was in Auschwitz for only ten days.

Q. While you were there, can you tell the Court something about the postcards which you were obliged to write?

A. Yes. It was during the first days that we were given an order – we received a postcard and a pencil and they dictated to us the wording of the postcard.

Q. Who dictated?

A. He was some kind of Kapo or SS man. I do not remember exactly any longer – we were standing against a wall, writing, and from behind they dictated to us the contents of the postcard.

Q. What did they tell you to write on this postcard?

A. I do not remember it word for word, but it was more or less as follows: “I am at my ease and I am going out to work. I am feeling well.” I do not remember the postcard exactly, but I subsequently found in my sister’s possession the card I had sent her in Budapest.

Q. Did they tell you to write the name of the place where you were?

A. Yes. Waldsee. I must add that, while we were still in the ghetto we had already received such a postcard from the first transports.

Q. You received a postcard from Waldsee. What did you think of that?

A. We began searching for the place and found some resort place by that name in Austria.

Q. How did the receipt of these postcards at the time effect you?

A. That put our minds at ease. We thought, at any rate, that they were well and, secondly, that this was a wonderful place in Austria – so we thought.

Q. Dr. Foeldi, can you identify this postcard? [Hands a postcard to the witness].

A. Yes. It says here: “I have arrived safely. I am fit and in good spirits, and feel fine.” And here is my first name and that of my wife. I added my wife’s first name in order to give a hint that I was together with her.

Q. Is it written in your handwriting?

A. Yes.

Q. And to whom did you send this postcard?

A. To my sister in Budapest.

Q. And afterwards did she return this postcard to you, and is that why you have it in your possession?

A. Yes.

Presiding Judge: Are you producing this postcard in evidence?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Again, we shall hand the postcard back to the witness – we have a copy here. The postcard is marked T/1151.

What name did you sign?

Witness Foeldi: The first name and surname we used within the family – Martin is Marcel and Bizi – Elizabeth.

State Attorney Bach: Did they dictate the contents of this word by word or merely the general content?

Witness Foeldi: Word by word.

Previous | Index | Next