The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Q. Mr. Freudiger, do you know where the Accused lived in Budapest?

A. No.

Q. When did you leave Budapest?

A. On 10 August.

Q. Can you tell us where you went to and how you managed it? I would ask you to do so briefly – there is no need for all the details. Where did you go to – and by what route?

A. We left Hungary and escaped to Romania as Romanian Jews. I cannot say that the passports were forged – the passports were not forged, only the names were forged. I did not state my name, and I obtained the passport. It was not only for me. We secured, through Dr. Fildermann and friends who lived in Budapest, the means for 130 non-Romanians to travel to Romania. The genuine Romanian Jews simply had the right to return to Romania.

Q. Did Wisliceny know about your plan to escape?

A. Yes. I was also supposed to go on that train to Bergen- Belsen, in the same way as the greater part of the Jewish public functionaries of Hungary. At the last minute, Wisliceny notified me that I had to remain in Budapest, because Krumey, on his own initiative or that of Eichmann – this I do not know – anyhow did not allow a member of the Judenrat to abandon his job, and I had to remain. I prepared myself, in case he would allow me to do so later on.

We began to take steps to arrange the passports, because I got news from my friends in Bucharest. Approximately in the middle of July, possibly on 20 or 15 July, Wisliceny said to me, suddenly, without any preamble (we had been talking about other matters): “Freudiger, go away now!” After that, a day or two after this, he told me about the possibility of Romanian Jews returning to Romania. I did all the rest.

Q. Did you reach Romania safely?

A. The following day, on 11 August, we went by the ordinary train from Budapest to Romania. They wanted afterwards to arrest the whole group – it was not only my family and I, there were other people there as well. But we had already crossed the border. By the time they came to arrest us, we had already crossed the border.

Presiding Judge: And from there, from Romania?

Witness Freudiger: We remained in Romania for 14 months, and from there we came to Palestine.

Q. Were the Russians in Romania then?

A. On 11 August Romania was still under the rule of Antonescu. The Russians entered on 23 August.

State Attorney Bach: Thank you very much.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I have a number of questions.

Sir, you spoke about the ban on using the railway, about the ban on leaving the country, and about many other prohibitions. Who issued these prohibitions?

Witness Freudiger: The instructions appeared in the official Hungarian Gazette.

Q. Thank you. Who set up the camp at Kistarcsa, the Hungarians or the Germans?

A. This camp had been in existence previously. I said yesterday that it had been in existence before 1944.

Presiding Judge: Was it a Hungarian camp?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you, that is sufficient for me. You said at one time that, at the end, there was a Hungarian camp commandant. Was this the case also at the beginning?

Witness Freudiger: Yes, it was always a Hungarian.

Q. At the time of the operations or the steps that were

taken, did the Hungarian police or gendarmerie appear?

A. What operations?

Q. I shall not enumerate the operations in detail, but the question is directed to whether these arrests were carried out by the Germans, or whether the Hungarian gendarmerie did that.

A. When hostages were taken at the beginning of the occupation in Budapest, the Budapest police went together with an officer or soldier of the SS or a German soldier. The deportation itself was always carried out by the Hungarian gendarmerie together with a small contingent of the SS. On the train, after they were already in the railway waggon, there were only SS officers who were in charge of the train.

Q. You spoke about the Jewish laws enacted by Hungary. Were these laws more severe than in Germany?

A. Before 1944 or during the occupation? Before 19 March or after 19 March?

Q. Were the laws more severe before that date or thereafter?

A. Before – no. The laws before 19 March were certainly not stricter, perhaps even less so than in Germany. After 19 March, there were laws against the Jews. I am not familiar with the German laws. They deported Jews from there, and  they deported Jews from Hungary.

Q. Do you not know whether the subsequent laws were more severe than in Germany itself?

A. I do not know the German laws that existed in 1944.

Q. Did you once make a report – on 18 August 1960 – in which you also described that which you have recounted here?

A. Yes, I gave my account to the police.

Q. Is everything in that written account on this question accurate?

A. I did not write that account in August 1960. We wrote that account in September 1945. A large part of that account accords with the truth. When we wrote it, we were under the impact of what had happened – this was a month or two after we escaped.

Judge Halevi: 1944 or 1945?

Witness Freudiger: Yes, 1944. We wrote it in Bucharest at the request of Dr. Fildermann, the director of the Joint in Bucharest. When I read the report some years later, it was almost entirely correct, but there are matters there which I see today in a somewhat different light. But at the time I knew it that way and felt that way.

Presiding Judge: Was it written by you?

Witness Freudiger: It was written by the three of us.

Q. Who were they?

A. Myself, Alexander Diamant, and Yohanan Link.

Q. And in 1960, I understand, you gave that to the police.

A. And in 1960 I confirmed that I stood by it.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, it appears here that this is the account of Pinhas Freudiger about the events from 19 March to 10 August 1944, whereas at the end it says “Jerusalem, 18 August 1960″ and signed by Philip von Freudiger.

Presiding Judge: That is the same name, Dr. Servatius.

State Attorney Bach: I should like to explain. On 18 August 1960, the witness identified the account, and therefore that date appears there. The account was written then [in 1944], and not in 1960.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you wish to submit this account?

Dr. Servatius: Not for the present. I merely want to put forward an argument to the witness. [To Witness] It says here, on page 21, in the copy in my possession, that “In Hungary the racial laws were much more rigorous than in Germany, the more so than in Slovakia, and they included a wide range of Jews who had been converted for a long time, and their descendants, and also a large number of half-Jews who were the offspring of mixed marriages.” Is that correct?

Witness Freudiger: We felt it in this way. But I think, according to all that I have read from 1944 to this day about the events in Germany – I think that was a mistake. In Germany, too, they seized Jews who had converted out of the faith, and so on.

Q. Sir, I asked you only whether you wrote the account, and whether the correct version is what you wrote there or what you have stated here as a witness.

A. I wrote that, and that was what I thought then. Meanwhile I learned that this was erroneous, and that in Germany, too, the situation was severe.

Q. I have another question. How did the Hungarian gendarmerie behave – did it treat you with greater consideration, or did the Hungarian police behave in the worst manner?

A. The Hungarian gendarmerie, particularly in the provincial towns, was not any better. They were very cruel.

Q. Allow me to read out to you what you wrote then, in your account, on page 11 in the lower part. “The Hungarian Gestapo was created entirely according to the model of the German security service, a state within a state, without control, endowed with full authority, and seeking to outbid in brutality and shamefulness the body in whose image it had been established. Thus there was imposed upon Hungarian Jewry an arm which took upon itself the orders of the German rulers and the Hungarians.

A. So what is your question?

Q. Which is correct? The statement which I have just read, or the account which you gave here previously?

A. Earlier I said that the Hungarian gendarmerie was no better than the SS, and here we are talking of the Hungarian Gestapo. First of all, these are two separate matters. The Hungarian gendarmerie was part of the Hungarian police, a special part of it, and they were always more aggressive than the police. And the Hungarian Gestapo was not yet in existence. The Hungarian Gestapo was set up upon the demand of the SS. And the head of the Hungarian Gestapo, Peter Hein, was the one who handed over Horthy to the Germans; he was the head of the Hungarian secret police.

Q. Sir, that is sufficient for me.

What was Endre’s role? Was he the authority upon whom everyone’s fate depended?

A. Upon whom everyone’s fate depended? Endre was the Director General of the Ministry of the Interior, and his function was – he took this upon himself – to help, to work hand in hand with the Sondereinsatzkommando. He aimed at – and this was his aim – securing the consent of the Hungarian Government for this plan. He was directing the affairs in the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. Sir, was he the person upon whose word depended the fate of every single Jew – for life or death?

A. If Endre wanted to stop the deportations and not to help, he would either have had to find someone else in his place, or really to implement it a little more slowly and with somewhat greater difficulties.

Q. Sir, that is enough. I shall now permit myself to read from page 13 of your account. “The man who had it in his power to decide on matters of life and death in regard to the fate of the Jews was Endre.” Is that correct?

A. That was correct.

Dr. Servatius: I have no further questions.

State Attorney Bach: I have no questions in re-examination.

Judge Raveh: How did you arrive at that figure of 600,000 which you mentioned?

Witness Freudiger: As I said previously, there were 800,000 Jews in Hungary and, in my estimation, there remained in Budapest after the deportations only the Jews of Budapest and the young Jews who were in labour service. I believe they numbered more than 200,000 – possibly some tens of thousands more. As against this, I did not include in these 800,000 those who converted out of the faith.

Q. Were the numbers of those who remained based on statistical data or upon your estimate?

A. We knew how many Jews there were in Budapest according to the statistics. Possibly there was a difference of 10,000, not more than that.

Judge Halevi: Mr. Freudiger, with regard to the figures you mentioned, that in the Auschwitz report that was sent to you by Rabbi Weissmandel and drawn up by two Slovakian prisoners of Auschwitz, a total was mentioned of 1,450,000 Jewish victims.

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. This was before the deportation of the Jews of Hungary.

A. Yes.

Q. Is there another copy of that report? Did you duplicate it at the time.

A. The report was printed in a book by the late Rabbi Weissmandel, which was published some months ago in New York, entitled Out of the Distress. The report is included there.

Attorney General: This book is in our possession. We are able to submit it to the Court.

Judge Halevi: The question is: Who would be able to verify the report? The witness? After all, he duplicated it and dealt with it.

Attorney General: Perhaps he can do so. We did not intend to submit it, since we have no way of verification, unless the witness can do so.

Judge Halevi: The witness obtained it, dealt with it and duplicated it.

Attorney General: We can do so immediately. We have the report right here.

Judge Halevi: I think it is a sufficiently first-hand source relating to Auschwitz. Did you tell us who sent this report to Switzerland?

Witness Freudiger: Moshe Krausz.

Q. When did he send it?

A. At once. Already in June. Possibly it was also sent directly from Slovakia to Switzerland.

Q. Did you see any letters in Rabbi Weissmandel sounded the alarm; did Rabbi Weissmandel’s call for help also pass through your hands?

A. Yes. The letters for help which he sent to us, or…?

Q. No, a call to the free world.

A. A call to the free world – I did not see the actual letter, because he sent it to Switzerland, to Istanbul, and perhaps also to America; but I know about the letters and also about the outcome of these letters. The Rabbinical Rescue Committee of America was established as a result of these letters in 1943.

Q. Did he ask only for financial help or for military help
as well?

A. He asked for everything. From the Jews he asked for financial aid – he asked the Jews to undertake all kinds of activities, to persuade the British and American armies to help, to bomb Auschwitz. And we sent letters, and I know that they reached their destination, describing the route, the direction in which the trains were going. Weissmandel sent a plan of Auschwitz – where the crematorium was located.

After the report was received, we asked that they be blown up and I do not know what else, but they did not do
so.

Weissmandel had a further plan. There was a large railway tunnel – I don’t know how you call it in Hebrew – a tunnel between Kassa and Presov – his plan was to blow it up. Nothing came of all these suggestions.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. What happened to those Jews afterwards?

A. A day or two after the Jews were returned to Kistarcsa, we received an order that all the members of the Judenrat were to come to the Hotel Majestic, to the offices of the SS. I came around 9:00, 9:30 to the office of the Judenrat.

All were nervous, because all of us, the whole of the Judenrat, had never before been summoned to come together.

Q. Where was the Hotel Majestic?

A. At the Schwabenberg, that was actually the headquarters of the Sondereinsatzkommando. There it said: Sondereinsatzkommando IVB4.

Q. Who were the German officers working there?

A. I did not know them all – Eichmann, Krumey, Wisliceny, Hunsche, Novak. Later on I met Klages on one occasion – he belonged to the SD – who was located elsewhere. He took the place of Krumey, because at the beginning of July they transferred him to Vienna from Budapest. Some other officer came in his stead, I think his name was Krueger.

Q. Were the offices of Eichmann, Wisliceny and Hunsche in the same place, in the Hotel Majestic on the Schwabenberg?

A. Yes.

Q. In the same place to which all of you were summoned?

A. We were all summoned to come on that one day.

Presiding Judge: When was that?

Witness Freudiger: It was two days after the train was brought back to Kistarcsa, it could have been, perhaps, 12 or 13 July.

State Attorney Bach: Did all of you actually go?

Witness Freudiger: At the beginning we all went, with one exception. Berend was not in the office at the time. Eight of us came, instead of nine. We came to the office on the Schwabenberg. We went in. They asked us whether everyone was present. I was somehow the spokesman. I said, Berend is not here. He was a young member – he had not been a member of the executive for long. They said he, too, must come here. We had a taxi, and they said: Send the taxi to fetch him. We sent the car back – it was six or seven kilometres from town. An hour later, Berend was also there. I told the officer there, Hunsche: Our complement is full.

Q. Was it mainly Hunsche who spoke to you on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he talk to you about, and how long did he keep you there?

A. This could have started roughly at 10 or 10.30. He said a few words to us and told us to wait, and that soon he would take us into his office. We waited an hour, an hour-and-a-half, two hours. Our members were extremely nervous.

Eventually Stern, who was seventy years old and not in good health, said to me: “Freudiger, go to Hunsche and ask him why they summoned us here.” I went to Hunsche and said: “We are all waiting, what is going to happen?” He replied: “Soon, soon.” And another hour passed. After an hour, our nervousness grew. I said to Hunsche: “What is going to happen? We would like to telephone our office to tell them we are here.” And he said: “No, do not telephone, I will phone right away.”

Then I asked him to provide something to eat. I said I was able to fast, I was an Orthodox Jew, but he should give food to the others. Stern was there, and he gave him a slice of bread and a cup of coffee. The others did not receive anything.

At approximately two o’clock, he took us to his office and began speaking about various subjects – that the life of the Jews had to be organized, how to organize the Burial Society, and all sorts of matters. That would have been an interesting subject for discussion, if there had been Jews in Hungary, but not when there were no longer Jews in Hungary. Thus the time passed.

Then he again sent us down, and we waited for him. By now it was six p.m. I said to him: “We are allowed to walk in the streets until eight o’clock only.” All of us, by now, had the yellow Shield of David. The whole Jewish population, as I have previously said, had permission to be in the streets from 2-5 p.m.; we had special permission – from eight in the morning until eight in the evening. I pointed out that it was now six o’clock, that we were up there on the Schwabenberg, and that we had to get home. He answered: “Don’t worry, I will provide you with an escort, and everyone will reach his home.” He said there was something we had to arrange.

After that, at seven o’clock, the telephone on his table rang. He began speaking. Then he stopped and went into another room. Apparently he did not want us to hear, that we should hear what he was saying. We heard him saying: “Well, very well.” After that he returned to the room. We were left in the middle of a sentence when the telephone rang. Then he came back and said: “All right, now you may go.” We went home.

Q. During all this time, from ten in the morning until seven in the evening, was anything at all discussed which seemed to you to be a matter of importance?

A. No. If there had been Jews in the country, it would perhaps have been important, but to talk about the Burial Society when the Jews had already been killed in Auschwitz?

Q. What did you find out when you returned home?

A. I, of course, could no longer go back to my home, for it had been destroyed by a bomb. I was living in the Old Age Home of the Orthodox community. It was not far from the Schwabenberg. It still had a telephone, because in institutions, in hospitals, the telephone was allowed to remain. I got back at eight o’clock, a little before eight, and I received a telephone call from Kistarcsa to the effect that SS men, a special contingent with Hauptsturmfuehrer Novak, and thirty trucks had arrived. They shut out the Hungarian police force under Vasdenyei and the remaining police who were in the Kistarcsa camp.

They took the Jews who had been on the train before, put them on the trucks, and left the place in a hurry. As I learned afterwards, the phone call Hunsche received was a message that a train had brought them to Hatvan, in a direction opposite to that of Budapest. They had transferred them to a town closer to Kistarcsa in another direction, and sent them in an express train beyond the borders, to Auschwitz. The call to Hunsche was to the effect that they had crossed the border. It was after this that they allowed us to go home, for they thought that if we got to know about it, we would again intervene and run to Horthy.

Q. Did you speak to Wisliceny about this episode?

A. Yes, definitely. On the next day or the day after I spoke to Wisliceny – I described the whole incident to him. Wisliceny said to me…

Q. Perhaps you would quote what Wisliceny said in German?

A. He explained the meaning of the telephone call. I told him the whole story. Then he said: “You stayed there until Hunsche received the telephone call that everything was in order.” And he said to me in German: “Was glaubt denn der alte Trottel, Eichmann wird diese Ohrfeige einstecken, dass er seinen Zug hat zurueckholen lassen?” (Does that old fool really believe that Eichmann would keep quiet at this slap in the face that his train was sent back?)

Q. To whom was he referring with the words “der alte Trottel” (the old fool)?

A. To Horthy.

Q. Was it only from Kistarcsa that Jews were later taken away by force, as you described?

A. There was one other place, about a week or ten days later, another concentration camp, at Sarvar, from where they also took away 1,000 or 1,200 Jews. But there they had  already begun with the second stage. They did not begin deporting them in trains, but came immediately with trucks and locked up the police. What they had done at Kistarcsa on the second occasion was the model for Sarvar. That we knew only after it was done.

Q. When you said “they came,” to whom were you referring?

A. Novak and his men.

Q. Did you also discuss this matter with the commandant of Kistarcsa – Vasdenyei?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he also confirm it to you?

A. He was really an honest man and apologized. He said: “What could I do?”

Presiding Judge: Who was this man?

Witness Freudiger: He was the Hungarian police chief of Kistarcsa.

State Attorney Bach: Did he express his regrets at this incident?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. By the way: What is the distance between Budapest and Sarvar, that second camp you mentioned?

A. It is further away. Sarvar is in the west of Hungary – it could be at least 120 kilometres away.

Q. After this occurrence, when you returned to the Schwabenberg and saw Hunsche and his comrades, did they again refer to the incident when you were held at the Schwabenberg?

A. Actually I did not have much to do with Hunsche, but he knew me. A day or two after I had been in the office there, when he saw me, he asked laughingly: “Sind Sie noch immer nervoes? Stern hat sich schon beruhigt?” (Are you still nervous? Has Stern already calmed down?)

Q. Mr. Freudiger, I shall not question you on details of the negotiations that were conducted between Brand and Kasztner and the Germans. We shall hear about this directly from Brand. I would ask you only this: Did you occasionally receive reports about these discussions from Dr. Kasztner?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that he once expressed himself on a certain matter concerning the wording of a draft proposal for a deal made by Eichmann?

A. Yes. He always reported on something when it was already done. He always confronted us with a “fait accompli,” and informed us that there had been such negotiations. He said that people would be sent to Bergen-Belsen, and after that also to Strasshof, there had been some haggling, trucks would be delivered, etc.

He asked him whether they were sending these people to Germany? Perhaps only to Bergen-Belsen. There had been no talk as yet of Bergen-Belsen, but only that the train was to proceed to the Spanish frontier – this was what was afterwards called the Bergen-Belsen train, instead of to the Spanish frontier.

It was after 6 June, after D-Day. Major battles had already taken place in France. We then asked what would happen if some disaster occurred, for the route was not all that safe? To that Eichmann once replied: “Nu, es ist keine grosse Sache. Getoetete oder beschaedigte Juden werden mit anderen ausgetauscht.” (Well, that is nothing of importance. Killed or injured Jews will be replaced by others.)

This is what Kasztner told me that Eichmann had once said to him, that he was an honest man, and if he sold 3,000 Jews, he would have to supply him with this number, and if they should be killed or injured, there would be others. He would supply other merchandise. His expression was: “This is nothing of importance, dead or injured Jews will be replaced by others.”

Q. The main thing is this expression “Vernichtete oder beschaedigte Juden werden mit anderen ausgetauscht” (exterminated or injured Jews will be replaced by others). Please tell the Court about your last meeting with the Accused on 21 July 1944.

A. As I have said, the whole of Hungary, with the exception of Budapest, was already judenrein by the beginning of July. A duel was being fought whether or not to deport the Jews from Budapest. We hoped that Horthy would be the stronger – we had some indication that, on the German side, too, that Veesenmeyer was also not so rigorous and was opposed to Eichmann’s plan to expel the Jews from Budapest at all costs.

On 21 July – I remember that day well, it was a Friday – I received an urgent telephone call from Wisliceny saying that he wanted to speak to me, and that I should come to him right away. I went to his private apartment on the Schwabenberg.

He told me that a day or two before he had been in Bratislava, where he had spoken to Rabbi Weissmandel and with all our Jewish friends; they had heard the B.B.C. broadcast which reported on Brand’s programme to exchange a million Jews for 10,000 trucks, and that the B.B.C. added that a guarantee had been required that these trucks would not be used except on the western front, but not on the eastern front against the Russians, and His Majesty’s Government could not do anything against its allies, the Russians.

Presiding Judge: I think you have made a mistake here. They wanted to say that the trucks would be used only on the eastern front, and not on the western front.

Witness Freudiger: That they should guarantee not to use them on the western front.

Q. You simply interchanged “east” for “west.”

A. His Majesty’s Government was very sorry – it could not accept this offer.

Q. Were those his words in English?

A. Yes, as far as I remember, he said that in English. But  it may be that I am mistaken. Afterwards the press, the Hungarian newspapers, also reported it. Rabbi Weissmandel told him that this was clear proof that the matter would now be carried out. It had already been going on for a month and a half.

Throughout this month and a half we had not heard a word about the whole matter. Now it was of no value. And why were the English disclosing such a matter, because they were seeking an alibi against the Russians? And now they would do it.

State Attorney Bach: Was this what Rabbi Weissmandel said to Wisliceny?

Witness Freudiger: Yes. Rabbi Weissmandel said this to Wisliceny, and the proof of it was that Mr. Freudiger already had 250 trucks which they could begin to deliver on account of the 10,000.

Presiding Judge: Were they already in the possession of the Germans?

Witness Freudiger: No, in the possession of Mr. Freudiger.

State Attorney Bach: Wisliceny said to Mr. Freudiger that he had learned from Rabbi Weissmandel that he (Mr. Freudiger) had 250 trucks?

Witness Freudiger: Yes. And he summoned me and asked whether this was true. I said it was true. Of course, I had neither 250 trucks, nor even one, but since he asked me whether I had them, I told him that I did – the Almighty would help me. After that he said to me: “Fine, if Eichmann calls you – I have spoken to him – confirm this, and in this way the question of the deportation of Jews from Budapest will be removed from the agenda.”

“Very well,” I said to him, “I am going to Eichmann.” It was about five to ten minutes from there. He was living at the Hotel Majestic. He said to me: “Eichmann must not know that I have spoken to you – do you know that he is angry with you and also with me? We have not spoken to each other – go down into town, and he will call you.”

I returned to the offices of the central executive, where there was already an uproar. They asked me: “Freudiger, where have you been? They are looking for you all over the city – Eichmann has already telephoned for you twice.” Of course, I was unable to tell them where I had been. I went back to the Hotel Majestic. Eichmann was not in his office.

I waited outside, and some minutes later he arrived in his car. He saw me waiting outside and came up to me and said: “Come in.” I went to him and stood there at attention. He said to me – perhaps I may repeat this, too, in German: “Ich habe die Verstaendigung bekommen, dass Sie 250 Lastautos zu Ihrer Verfuegung haben?” (I have received information that you have 250 trucks at your disposal). I replied: “Yes.”

After that he said to me: “Go to Obersturmbannfuehrer Becher, tell him about it and arrange with him for their delivery.” I said: “Very well.” He then said: “And see that he is satisfied,” and then – this was the first time that he had not shouted at me – “you, too, will be satisfied” (Schauen Sie, dass Sie ihn zufriedenstellen, Sie werden auch zufrieden sein.) (Endeavour to satisfy him; you, too, will be satisfied.)

Q. Mr. Freudiger, one other question connected with the matter of Kistarcsa. You said before that you had a member of the executive named Janos Gabor. A day or two after the incident which you recounted to us about the return of the train and its seizure for a second time, were you also informed of something by Janos Gabor?

A. I said that Janos Gabor was a liaison officer before he was appointed to be a member of the second executive, but after he was appointed as a member, he continued in that role, and day after day he used to go to the Hotel Majestic in order to deal with current matters. He came back and said that he had spoken to Eichmann and had received a telling-off – it was something awful.

Eichmann shouted at him and said: “What is this – you people are interfering in my affairs, you are here to assist us and not to meddle in our business.” He said that Eichmann was very nervous, and after that there were days when he did not want to go to the Schwabenberg any more, and he said that Eichmann had shouted at him in such a way that he was afraid to go. After that, nothing happened in this connection.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: Here, Your Honours, we have to distinguish between two periods – the first period, up to 19 March 1944, and the second from that date onwards, when the German army entered Hungary and the Accused operated within Hungary itself. At the outset I should like to submit a small number of documents relating to the first period, that is to say, until 19 March 1944.

The first document is our No. 163 – it was submitted to the Accused and was given the No. T/37(88). The question arose whether there was any point in deporting Jews who had fled to Hungary, from the region east of the Dniester river.

And the Accused, as he had already done in the case of Romania, was opposed to a partial operation regarding Hungary, and he says: “It would not be appropriate to set the whole evacuation apparatus in motion in order to remove those Jews alone who escaped at the time to Hungary” – and subsequently this apparatus would have to be stopped again. He thinks it desirable to delay this operation until Hungary would be ready to include in these measures the Jews of Hungary as well.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1136.

State Attorney Bach: That was a letter to the Foreign Office, dated 26 September 1942.

Our next document is No. 1242. Here Luther writes a detailed note to the German legation in Budapest and asks that influence be exercised on the Hungarian Government to show understanding for the German plan for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question and to agree to the designation of the Jews and to their deportation to the east.

Presiding Judge: There is something missing here. This is a document of two pages, is it not?

State Attorney Bach: A document of three pages, actually three.

Presiding Judge: There are two incomplete copies here – one with the first page missing, and one with the second page missing. The Hebrew translation is complete.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps I can submit at least one German copy intact.

Presiding Judge: We now have two and two-thirds copies. This document will be marked T/1137.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be permitted to make a comment on this document? There is an important passage here. We have to treat this matter in the light of this passage.

Presiding Judge: From what page are you quoting?

Dr. Servatius: I was not quoting it – it is on the first page – it is merely in keeping with the meaning of the words. On page two it says:

“The handling of the Jews of Hungary itself appears to be more complicated, but even more urgent. Therefore, I would ask you to explain to the Hungarian Government the reasons that have motivated us to strive, in compliance with the wishes of the Fuehrer, towards an early and complete solution of the problem of the Jews in Europe, and to request the Hungarian Government, for its part, also to promote the operations necessary to that end.”

State Attorney Bach: I am thankful to Defence Counsel for drawing your attention to this passage, which is also of importance in our view.

The next document is our No. 510. It was submitted to the Accused and was marked T/37(164). This document is signed by Mueller, but was drawn up in IVB4. Mueller here seeks authority to permit individual Jews to depart from Slovakia and Holland, in exchange for a payment of 100,000 Swiss francs. This money would enable the recruitment of volunteers for the Waffen SS in Hungary.

Presiding Judge: One copy of the translation is missing here. Instead of the translation, we have an extra copy of the German original, but let us leave that. I have said this because I was unable to read the marking IVB4 on the original. Where did you get it from?

State Attorney Bach: I will tell Your Honour. The original is actually attached to the statement, and there, evidently, the mark IVB4 is very clear. It is only on this copy that it is somewhat blurred. But the number is evidently absolutely clear on the original.

Presiding Judge: How does it appear here in the translation?

State Attorney Bach: The translation was prepared according to the original – according to the photostatic copy which is to be found in T/37(164).

Presiding Judge: Yes, we can see it there.

State Attorney Bach: There we are able to see it clearly. Incidentally, Your Honour, it is also found in the supporting reference, where it says: “The order…IVB4a on the same subject.”

Presiding Judge: Yes, that is clear. Will we receive a further copy of the translation at a later stage?

State Attorney Bach: We shall gladly let you have it, Your Honour. He also mentions that in Holland there were eight cases of this kind affecting 28 Jews who indeed made use of – let us express it this way – this right.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1138.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 972. Here Klingenfuss of the Foreign Office reports to Eichmann on 7 December 1942 on a debate in the Hungarian parliament on the question of labour camps for Jews and the work of Christian women in Jewish homes. He indicates that this legislation was not proceeding satisfactorily.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1139.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is No. 1341. It is a letter signed by Guenther of IVB4a on 5 April 1943. This document illustrates the blind hatred of these people.

It mentions the fact that 150 Jews, who included lawyers, factory owners, merchants, and other intellectuals – and this is what Guenther stresses – were working in a labour camp near the railway line, in a place not far from the border, and once a day they were allowed to purchase a hot meal in a restaurant, the same restaurant where German railway officials were also entitled to eat – they were obliged to have their meals there, at the same place.

He asks them to take steps to put an end to this practice, both for security reasons and also – as he puts it – “since it is impossible to demand of these officials that they should be obliged to come into constant contact with Jews.” The emphasis is on “Jewish intellectuals.”

Presiding Judge: “Intellektuelle“?

State Attorney Bach: Intellektuelle, yes. He specially stresses “lawyers, factory owners, merchants and other intellectuals.” I should like to emphasize that this was in the period when Hungary had not been occupied, and the German army was not yet there.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1140.

State Attorney Bach: Our following document is No. 519. It is a letter signed by the Accused, to the German Foreign Office, in connection with a Jew named Oskar Trenk, evidently of Hungarian nationality, so it says here. He says that there were no documents proving his Hungarian nationality. Consequently, such people were considered to be stateless and were sent to the east for “forced labour.” Their whereabouts are not known at the moment.

Presiding Judge: Was this in the time of Horthy? Did it belong to the Horthy period?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1141.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 523, which was submitted to the Accused and given No. T/37(160). Here there is reference to methods of evacuating Jews possessing Hungarian nationality.

Presiding Judge: Evacuation from the German Reich?

State Attorney Bach: Here it talks of evacuation from the Reich. But evidently there was some intervention on the part of the Hungarian Government which, via the German Foreign Office, took an interest in these Jews.

And it says: “The present whereabouts of the Jews who were sent to the east cannot be determined at present. It is not possible, for reasons of principle, to grant the demand of the Hungarian Consulate-General or the Hungarian embassy to repatriate those concerned to Hungary.” Obviously the reference is to Hungarian nationals who were in the Reich at that time and who had been deported to the east.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1142.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 546, which shows the control of the Accused over the camps of Terezin and Bergen-Belsen. The issue here was whether Jews possessing Hungarian nationality ought to be in a detention camp in Bergen-Belsen, or whether they should be transferred to Theresienstadt.

For various considerations of convenience and location, the Accused decided that there were more suitable conditions in Theresienstadt. And I especially underline the last sentence: “Accordingly I have instructed the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Prague to leave the Jews in question in Theresienstadt for the time being.”

Clerk of the Court: This document has already been submitted and was given No. T/851.

State Attorney Bach: If that is the case, I draw the Court’s attention to T/851. Possibly it was submitted in connection with Theresienstadt.

The next document is No. 521 – it was submitted to the Accused and given No. T/37(157). Here the reference is to a Jew named Goldberger who, together with his family, emigrated to Belgium as Czechoslovakian citizens, and they were taken to the labour effort in the east. It is not possible to ascertain their present whereabouts. He, too, possesses Hungarian citizenship. This is a letter that Eichmann writes to von Thadden on 25 January 1944.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1143.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 1644. This is a rather lengthy report by Veesenmayer, dated December 1943. Its importance is actually in the very last page of this document, to which I draw your attention, in paragraph 7. In fact, throughout the document Veesenmayer hints that it is desirable that the German army – the German forces – should take control over the whole of Hungary. But the seventh paragraph indicates that one of the principal reasons for that proposed action is, as he calls it, the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Hungary.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1144.

State Attorney Bach: And now, Your Honours, we come to 19 March 1944, the day the Germans entered Hungary. Our document No. 1021 constitutes Veesenmayer’s report to the Foreign Office, to the effect that he had safely reached Budapest and had taken over control of matters.

He describes his entry into Budapest and adds: “After this I spent three quarters of an hour alone with the Regent; I introduced myself to him and informed him that I had been entrusted, together with him, with the task of setting up the new government. The spirit of the conversation with the Regent was a positive one – and we began making changes in the structure of the government.”

Presiding Judge: Was there also an exchange of ambassadors here? Is it not it a fact that Veesenmayer was the ambassador later on?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. Actually he had then arrived for the first time. He came together with the army. Prior to that the name of the ambassador was Jagow.

Presiding Judge: I see that here it says “through Minister
Ritter.”

State Attorney Bach: Yes, but I do not know if he was then in Budapest or whether this was simply a means of delivering the letter to Ribbentrop. For Your Honour will notice that in paragraph two it is stated that Ambassador von Jagow informed the Regent today of such-and-such. This means that the German ambassador was then von Jagow, but the notification to Ribbentrop was passed on by Ritter.

Judge Halevi: Did the meeting between Horthy and Hitler not precede this?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. Such a meeting had taken place. This episode is mentioned in the Kasztner report. This was on 19 March. I believe that the meeting took place on 17 March. Immediately afterwards there was this operation, the entry of the German army.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1145.

State Attorney Bach: At this stage, with your permission, I should like to lead the evidence of Mr. Pinchas Freudiger.

[The witness makes an affirmation.]

Presiding Judge: What is your name?

Witness: Pinchas Freudiger, previously Philip von Freudiger.

Presiding Judge: Please answer Mr. Bach’s questions.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Freudiger, you are a native of Budapest?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. You first studied in Budapest and then went to work at a factory which had been founded by your grandfather, of blessed memory?

A. Yes.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: This report was published in Geneva in June 1946. It says, starting on page 99:

“On 5 April I went to Prague, in order to contact the authorities of the security services of this town, and to inspect the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

“On 6 April we visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto, where we were to hold important talks with Dr. Weimann, Chief of the Security Service of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and with Oberfuehrer (as he is called here) Eichmann, the specialist for all Jewish questions. The latter had come from Berlin to Prague, in order to examine various questions concerning the Jews with the representatives of the Committee of the International Red Cross. Oberfuehrer Eichmann had played a prominent role in the concentration camps of Lublin and Auschwitz. As he also informed me, he was the direct plenipotentiary of the Reichsfuehrer SS for all Jewish questions.”

After this, there is mention of a reception in Prague, which was held in the Hradcany (Castle). He says that the Committee of the International Red Cross was not so much interested in the living conditions and installations of the Theresienstadt Ghetto, but rather in finding out whether this ghetto served only as a transit camp for the Jews, and to what extent deportations to the East (Auschwitz) had taken place. “In accordance with what I was able to find out in Theresienstadt, the Jewish Elder, Dr. Eppstein, the foreman of the camp, had also been deported to Auschwitz.”

Then there is mention of 10,000 Jews who had been put to work for the enlargement of the camp in Auschwitz, and who were employed in administrative work, for the most part.

Towards the end of the page and at the beginning of page 100, we read:

“In the course of the evening Eichmann expressed his theories concerning the Jewish Question. In his opinion, the Jews of Theresienstadt were in a much better state than many Germans, insofar as food and medical assistance were concerned. ‘

He said that Theresienstadt was a creation of Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, who wanted to enable the Jews to organize a communal life under Jewish management in the ghetto of this camp, where they would enjoy almost complete  autonomy. It was intended to engender a sense of racial community. Later on the Jews of Theresienstadt were to be deported to a district where they would live completely apart, separated from the body of the German population.

As for the Jewish Question in general, Eichmann felt that Himmler was at that moment about to consider humane methods. Eichmann personally did not entirely approve of these methods, but as a good soldier, he was, of course, blindly following the orders of the Reichsfuehrer.”

At the end, there is mention of the request of the representative of the International Red Cross to visit not only Theresienstadt, but also Bergen-Belsen, and Eichmann, to whom this request is addressed, promises to visit the camp together with him in the next few days. “This visit did not come about, because it was impossible for me to reach Eichmann in Berlin any more.”

“On the basis of this promise by Oberfuehrer Eichmann, and Dr. Weimann’s word of honour that no more Jews would be deported from Theresienstadt, I parted from my interlocutors.” This is how he ends his report.

Presiding Judge: In the Hebrew translation of the Red Cross report, the name Paul Dunant is mentioned. In the German I do not see this name at all.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The name does not appear. The reports of the Red Cross are published anonymously. We know who the people were, not from the report which I have produced, but from witnesses and other documents which I shall produce. The report itself is anonymous, like all the reports of the Red Cross. This is one of the explanations for the refusal of this organization to help by summoning witnesses who would give evidence.

Meanwhile, the document has arrived, and I conclude the Theresienstadt chapter by submitting Prosecution document No. 1197. It is a card containing the list of those invited to the meeting on 6 April 1945, mentioned in the Red Cross report. Here we meet “good friends” with whom we are already acquainted: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther from Prague, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. I also mention Counsellor of Legation von Thadden and some others.

Presiding Judge: This document is not complete.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is one page, marked 69, from a diary. Many such notes go into one diary and are marked from No. 1 on.

Presiding Judge: Whose diary, Mr. Bar-Or?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The diary of the Central Office in Prague; maybe this comes from the BdS in Prague; this document comes from Guenther’s offices in Prague; it was sent to us from Prague. We have received several documents of this kind, which were seized immediately after the liberation, through the intermediary of the Czech Government. This document refers, of course, to the report from which I have just quoted.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/866.

Judge Halevi: If you are about to complete the submission of documents on Theresienstadt…

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have completed it.

Judge Halevi: I wanted to ask: Perhaps the Prosecution would like to submit something from the publication by Rabbi Baeck about Theresienstadt; his name is frequently mentioned as a leader of the Jews of Germany who went to Theresienstadt.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I did not omit this important personality. In fact, I quoted from his writings at the very beginning of the trial.

Judge Halevi: I do not think he published anything specifically about Theresienstadt.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It think he published something in London about his experiences there. To tell the truth, there is, for instance, the well-known book by Dr. John Adler, which the Court is aware from his written declaration we submitted this morning. This is the outstanding book about Theresienstadt, and it is called Theresienstadt.

Judge Halevi: Was he there?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He himself was in Theresienstadt. I simply hesitate to burden the Court with material. This is an excellent, authentic book. It is based on impeccable sources. It is a thick volume, and it is at the disposal of the Court. I simply hesitate to submit it. Much has been written about Theresienstadt. I try to submit material which refers to the Accused, without impairing the general picture. We are faced with the difficult problem that one has somehow to compromise and to select, otherwise there is no end to it.

With your permission, we shall now hear two more witnesses, before I go on to the three Balkan countries – Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. We shall hear two more witnesses about what happened during the final days in Theresienstadt. The first witness is Mr. Viteslav Diamant.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew? What language do you speak?

Witness: German.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your name?

Witness: Diamant.

Presiding Judge: What is your first name?

Witness: Viteslav.

State Attorney Bar-Or: You were born in 1901?

Witness Diamant: Yes.

Q. You were born in Czechoslovakia?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you in Prague in 1939 at the outbreak of the War?

A. Yes.

Q. On 14 December 1941, you were sent from Prague to Theresienstadt on one of the first transports?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your trade before you came to Theresienstadt?

A. Electrician.

Q. Were you also employed in this trade in the camp?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you remain in Theresienstadt until its liberation by the Red Cross?

A. Yes. And later the Soviets came.

Q. Where was your place of work in Theresienstadt?

A. Where the Council of Elders was, in the barracks, and all  round were the workshops.

Q. Do you remember your friend Pollak?

A. Certainly.

Q. What can you tell the Court about what happened between the two of you in connection with certain documents?

A. I worked there as an electrical technician, where the Council of Elders was. It was a barracks of the dragoons before, and it had a lock-up for soldiers. I turned the lock-up into a workshop for myself, and in the Registry I had a friend who wrote down everything, all orders which came from the Commandant’s office, people who were sent on, people who died, and the copies, which were of course kept secret, he gave to me, and I kept them in my workshop in a certain inaccessible place. Before the end of the War, he came to me and saidthat it may well be that they will be discovered, and that I should give them up. They were hidden in the dragoon barracks behind a rafter, so that after the War this friend was able to hand over the copies to the Czech Government.

Q. In connection with what you have just told us, do you perhaps know how many persons were in Theresienstadt camp in the autumn of 1944?

A. About 35,000.

Q. In September-October 1944, something happened in Theresienstadt and you had a part in it. Perhaps you will tell the Court about it?

A. In the autumn, a day or two before Rosh Hashana 1944, an order came, and it was said that Eichmann had also arrived, and he made all of us who were there stand at attention, as we had been taught at school to stand before the teacher. There were several other SS men, people from the administration were also present, and they ordered us to appear, each of us was given a slip, and we had to stand in line.

Q. Did you know the Head of the SS in the camp?

A. Yes. Rahm?

Q. That is the answer. Do you remember the SS man who spoke
to you about this?

A. At that time, the SS chose a barracks for themselves, which was turned into a drawing-and-dining-room, a building for the SS. I worked there as an electrician, and I had an assistant, a Mr. Aschenbrenner, an elderly man who helped me with the more difficult work.

Q. He helped you with the electro-technical jobs?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened?

A. Every day I went to work at 6 o’clock in the morning, and we worked till late at night. One day I came and found a slip of paper on the table in the workshop where I was, saying that I should appear before Eichmann the next day like all the others. So I thought to myself: Well, if I work there, that’s alright. So I went to work again at 6 o’clock. There was a SS man guarding us who was an Austrian; I reported the matter to him, and he said to me “you will not go anywhere, you have to work.” So I did not go anywhere, I continued to work, and late in the evening I came home.

Q. You did not appear as ordered on the slip?

A. I was a soldier, wasn’t I, and the last order given was an order for me, and he also was an officer, and thus I stayed at work. In the evening, I came home, and the ghetto guard told me: “They will hang you, the SS is looking for you.”. So I said: “Well, so they’ll hang me; I won’t be the last.” I did not attach much importance to this, and I went to work again, because that officer had said to me: “You are not to listen to anyone, only to me, this must get finished.” So I went to work again in the morning.

At about 9 o’clock, an SS man appeared with another ghetto guard looking for “the pig, the stinking Jew No. M 534,” and I was to go with him at once. That is what I was for those gentlemen. And so I went, and the one who guarded us on behalf of the SS came along. At the door the man who had come to fetch me stood to attention and reported: “Stinking Jew-pig M 534″ and also the other name, I do not know any more now what number he had – that he had brought us in – well…

Q. Before how many persons did you appear?

A. I cannot say this with certainty, I think there were about ten people there.

Q. Did you see anybody whom you recognized immediately?

A. Yes, there was Rahm, he was the Camp Commandant, and there was one from the technical administration, a certain Mr. Sever, an engineer, a Jew from Prague. He was also there.

Q. Was Sever one of the Jewish Elders in the ghetto?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was sitting in the middle?

A. I was told one of them was Eichmann.

Q. Who told you that?

A. Sever.

Presiding Judge: When were you told?

Witness Diamant: Later, when we came home.

State Attorney Bar-Or: How many hours later?

Witness Diamant: At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon.

Q. When you returned from there?

A. No. I asked for permission to go home earlier, because I wanted to know what had been decided.

Q. Where did you go?

A. To Sever. The same day. And Sever said to me: “You will live, and my brothers will not live.” I said: “How do you know?” He told me: “Did you not see that they wrote a zero?’

Q. You have told us that you were made to stand in front of a row of people. You recognized Rahm, and you told us that you knew Sever. I asked who was in the middle. You said that Sever told you that this was Eichmann?

A. Yes.

Q. Who spoke? Did anybody speak to you there?

A. Yes. I was asked: “Where were you? Why did you not come?” I did not reply. But the SS man who was my superior said that he ordered me not to go, that I should go to work, and that therefore I did not come.

Q. Did he answer in your place, that SS man?

A. Yes.

Q. Who chaired the meeting?

A. At the time it was said that it was Eichmann.

Q. Who said that?

A. Sever, and others as well, also the people of the Council of Elders.

Q. On what day were you told that this was Eichmann?

A. On that same day, because I was very curious after all, I went to ask.

Q. When this SS man, who told you to work and not to go, when he had given his reply to the question, what happened?

A. I went back to work with him.

Q. Did anybody write down anything? Did you see any notes?

A. I looked at the table, and there were such papers, the size of those on this table; there were all the names and numbers, they were read out, and then either a little cross was added, or something like a zero.

Q. When you were standing before the commission, when you were being discussed by the commission, did you know whether notes were taken and what was noted down? Did you see anybody write at that moment?

A. I saw there that these signs were added.

Q. Who wrote these signs?

A. Either Eichmann or Rahm, I do not know this for certain.

Q. You said that you then went to your friend Sever from the Council of Elders. Why did you go there?

A. I wanted to know what was going to happen to me, whether he knew anything.

Q. Did you know why you were made to appear before the commission?

A. Of course I knew.

Q. What did you know? What was the reason?

A. The purpose was to deport the people from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz, because immediately after everybody had been registered, they were all taken into a barracks and then immediately sent on in (railway) carriages.

Q. Was this the first time that this happened?

A. Yes, the first time. Many transports had left before, but not one in this manner.

Q. What did Sever tell you, that he knew what had been written down concerning you?

A. He told me: “You will go on living,” and his two brothers were with me and they were sent to Auschwitz. “And my brothers will not live.” I asked him: “‘How do you know this?,” and he replied: “You have a round sign and my brothers have a cross.”

Q. Are you quite certain that Sever was present at the commission?

A. Quite certain.

Previous | Index | Next

3 Sivan 5721 (18 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the forty-fifth Session of the trial open.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court’s permission, I have reached Prosecution document No. 1369. I should like to ask the Honourable Court for a decision on this under Section 15 of the Law. We are here submitting parts of the record of the main interrogation of Karl Rahm, on 25 March 1947, as recorded by a Czech court in Leitmeritz. Rahm was put on trial for having commanded the Theresienstadt camp. He was the third commandant there. As we have heard, the first was Seidl, followed by Burger, and he (Rahm) was the third and last one, and he remained in the camp until it was handed over to the Red Cross. Karl Rahm was sentenced to death; the death sentence was carried out.

Rahm enumerates very briefly before his judges the most important events which connected him with his superiors, among them the Accused, during his period of administration as commandant of Theresienstadt. And here we do not have to rely on second- or third-hand evidence, here we have a most important source for the understanding of the relations between the Accused and the Dienststellen, the various offices in Prague and Theresienstadt.

We are aware that Rahm was far from being “an upright man,” not in his generation,* {*After Genesis 6:9.} and not in Theresienstadt, but it seems to me that certain details will be of value. I ask the Court to accept this record of court proceedings.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 38

We accept the record of the court proceedings of Rahm’s evidence for the reasons given in our Decision No. 7.

State Attorney Bar-Or: As I said, this is our document No. 1369. I shall briefly outline the contents of this document. In the excerpts submitted here, Rahm first gives a general description of the staff of the Central Office in Vienna, whom he knew well.

Presiding Judge: Before you continue, Mr. Bar-Or, I see the text in Czech, and then a German translation.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have no German translation. [After looking at the documents before him] That is correct, Your Honour, we received this document from Prague in a translation which had been prepared by the Czech authorities. I submit the Czech text to the Court, together with the Hebrew translation.

Presiding Judge: Will you keep this [one of the copies which were handed to him] in your file?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not intend to submit this. This letter is part of the document as we received it from Prague. It might perhaps be better if it were kept with the rest.

Presiding Judge: What is in the file of Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Counsel for the Defence has received a summary of this testimony, in German of course.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you will hand a copy to Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not mind this copy being handed to Counsel for the Defence, I shall not need it.

Presiding Judge: Then perhaps you will give it to Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/864.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With your permission, I shall continue. In this record of the court proceedings, Rahm gives a bodily description of the Accused, whom he knew as Head of the Central Office in Vienna, and also describes the people who were there with him at the time.

He speaks about Obersturmfuehrer Guenther (the brother of Hans Guenther), i.e., the Accused’s permanent deputy. He talks of Alois Brunner, who was employed in Guenther’s office. And then he speaks about his posting to Theresienstadt and mentions that he replaced Burger. When he took over the command, present was not only Burger but also the Accused, as well as the Head of the Central Office in Prague, Hans Guenther.

Further on he says – and I emphasize this passage, in view of what we heard today – that “from the administrative-technical point of view, I was subordinate to the Central Office in Prague, and from the political point of view, to the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin,” and that “political questions were within the field authority of Hauptsturmfuehrer Moes of Berlin, who would come to Theresienstadt in case of need and give me appropriate orders and instructions.”

And he continues:

“Until about March 1944, I knew nothing about the prohibition according to which women in the ghetto were forbidden to bear children. One day the Jewish Elder Eppstein came to inform me that a certain woman was in her eighth month of pregnancy, and drew my attention to the order issued earlier by Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, whereby women in the ghetto were forbidden to bear children.

Eppstein told me then 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 this agreement was exploited by Eichmann, in order to force Jewish women in the ghetto to have abortions, and afterwards this became the usual procedure.

On this occasion, Eppstein drew my attention, in fact, to the duty of performing abortions on Jewesses, 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 this personally, because it was already a matter for the Jews themselves, and that the Elder of the Jews had received notification about it from Eichmann directly.”

There follows another passage which is important to us, in which he says:

“In my opinion, 21,000 persons of all ages were deported from Theresienstadt to various places” (he refers, of course, to his period). “I was never informed that anybody had died on the transport. I put the responsibility for carrying out these transports on Moes and/or Eichmann and the whole Head Office for Reich Security.”

Then – I read from the bottom of page 2 – he says:

“When the transports were first organized, I learned during a conversation in which Moes, Guenther and I took part, that Eppstein would also have to leave on one of the transports for some place in central Germany, a town whose name I do not remember.”

He continues to talk about Eppstein and relates finally that he was taken away.

On page 3 he gives most important information about the visit of the Red Cross in June 1944. He says:

“Before the inspection by the International Red Cross, about which advance information had been given, the ghetto and its installations were examined by State Minister Frank, Eichmann from Berlin, the Minister of the Protectorate, and others. I did not have close contact at all with these personalities. They dealt directly with Eichmann.”

At the bottom of this page he says:

“It is a fact that these international delegations were shown only the best. What these delegations were allowed to see in Theresienstadt was decided in advance, in detail, by the representative of the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin on the one hand, and by the representative of the BdS (Dr. Weimann and Guenther) on the other. The person responsible on behalf of the BdS, as well as Moes and Guenther from Prague, were also personally present during these inspections… The explanations were given to the members of the delegation by Weimann, Eichmann, Moes, and also by Guenther and Guemmel from Prague.”

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I ask, for the sake of clarity, to read one sentence from the record of court proceedings, since it is important in principle for the  position occupied by Eichmann. This does not refer only to Theresienstadt. It says here at the bottom of the first page:

“At this transfer of the management Eichmann informed me that I was subordinate to the Central Office in Prague, and therefore to the BdS, the Commander of the Security Police in Prague from the administrative-technical point of view, and from the political point of view to the Head Office for Reich Security in  Berlin, and that political questions are within the field of authority of Hauptsturmfuehrer Moes from Berlin, who will come to Theresienstadt in case of need to give me appropriate orders and instructions.”

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is unnecessary to translate this passage for the record, because I just read the paragraph in full in the Hebrew translation.

Presiding Judge: All right, this was only emphasized by Dr. Servatius on his part, as I understand it.

Dr. Servatius: I think the words “and therefore to the Commander of the Security Police in Prague” were omitted from the reading. This was the essential part of the sentence. From the document one can see that this Commander, i.e., Weimann, is constantly being mentioned.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to our document No. 1197 – an invitation to a dinner in Prague. – I see that we are not ready with the copies. I apologize to the Court, we shall submit the document at a later stage.

Judge Raveh: I should like to ask something in connection with the previous document. On the third page, where the deportation of Eppstein is mentioned, what is the place mentioned in the eighth line?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Moes took him to the railway station at Bauschewitz. That was the station belonging to Theresienstadt. The Court has before it a drawing of the great procession from Bauschewitz to Theresienstadt. In the end the Jews in Theresienstadt built an extension of the railway track from Bauschewitz into the ghetto.

With your permission, I will go on to the last document on the Theresienstadt chapter, our document No. 855. In respect to this document, too, I request your permission to submit it in accordance with Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law.

This is a short section of the report about the activities of the International Red Cross in the concentration camps in Germany during the years 1939-1945. It was prepared by a Red Cross official whose name we know by now: M. Dunant.

Presiding Judge: In what connection was his name mentioned?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Mrs. Salzberger mentioned him. She heard about what was to have happened to the transport from this representative, who took over the Theresienstadt camp from the SS.

I shall submit yet another document. I said that on 6 April 1945, just a few days before the entry of the Red Cross into Theresienstadt, an apparently final meeting was held between the SS people and the representative of the Red Cross, in which the Accused took part. At a later stage I shall submit the invitation card together with the list of the participants.

I beg to submit here a small part of the official report issued by the International Red Cross in Geneva, which concerns two camps that interest us in particular, namely Theresienstadt, and a short passage dealing with Bergen-Belsen. The Red Cross was, in fact, not able to enter and visit Bergen-Belsen. This report actually constitutes an official document. We have explored the possibility of inviting the official of the International Red Cross who was responsible for the preparation of the report, and whose name I have mentioned.

We were told that, in accordance with the accepted practice of the International Red Cross, its officers are not allowed to testify about the contents of official documents published by the International Red Cross. But it seems to me that this fact does not diminish the value of this document for the purpose of producing evidence against the Accused in the trial. To a certain extent, this is not only an official report, but certain statements by the Accused himself are also contained in it.

I therefore feel that I am not entitled to ask for permission to submit this part of the report only. I am, of course, not submitting only part of it; I have, of course, the whole report in my hand, and Counsel for the Defence has also received it. Because of the references to the Accused, it seems to me that I have to request your permission under Section 15.

Presiding Judge: To which parts do you wish to refer?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have prepared a printed copy of the part, beginning on page 99.

Presiding Judge: And do you wish to submit all this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are actually a little over three pages of the report which cover the whole period of the War. This is what I wish to submit.

Presiding Judge: Do you also have the complete report?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is also the complete report,
and it is at the disposal of the Court, of course.

I wish to add only one thing: We have shown this passage to the Accused in the German translation – the report was written in French, of course – and the passage is therefore before you, marked T/37(240). The Accused speaks about it in his statement on page 2967. He was given an opportunity to state his opinion on these three pages. I therefore request permission to submit it.

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection to the submission. I should only like to request that the complete document be handed to me for perusal, and that I be permitted to revert to it if something further should emerge to the benefit of the Defence.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Obviously the whole report is at the disposal of Counsel for the Defence.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 39

We permit submission of the excerpts from the report of the International Red Cross which were mentioned by Mr. Bar-Or, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

This will be Exhibit T/865.

Previous | Index | Next