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

State Attorney Bach: The situation is always as follows:

Since the telegram goes to the German Foreign Ministry, Killinger has to sign it. But it always says at the top in brackets: “Richter, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer,” in order to point out who actually drafted the telegram.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1058.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 148. It was also shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(43). Again a telegram from Killinger, but in brackets it says: “Richter.”

It says that Lecca has informed him that Filderman has been arrested and deported on orders from the marshal, without consideration as to whether he is sick. The telegram was forwarded to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1059.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 133. It was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(15). There are actually two documents here. The second one is signed by the Accused, who writes to the German Foreign Ministry and asks to inform Richter that the emigration of the Jew Max Ausschnitt, who lives in Bucharest, be prevented by every possible means, and he asks to be informed of the action taken.

Von Thadden transmits Eichmann’s request to Richter. The Court will remember that this is the same Max Ausschnitt who was first mentioned in 1941, when the Romanians wanted to allow him to emigrate, on condition that they could confiscate his property. The Accused comments on this document on page 588 ff.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1060.

State Attorney Bach: The reply is contained in von Thadden’s letter to Eichmann, our document No. 993, informing Eichmann that Ausschnitt has been arrested and sent to a camp.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1061.

State Attorney Bach: I should now like to submit to the Court a set of documents under our No. 979, all of which are reports by Richter to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. The intention is to show the various types of reports, what was reported to Eichmann – about emigration of Jews from Romania, about a Jewish information service, about an exchange of letters with Jewish youth movements, about Portuguese consuls, about Filderman, etc. – in fact, everything about the Jews in Romania, and also about the Romanian authorities, insofar as it might concern the Jewish question in any way.

Presiding Judge: There are only the subject headings of the letters here.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, the letters themselves are not included. We are submitting the subject headings simply in order to point to the kind of things which were reported.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/1062.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 581. It concerns six Jews who were released from forced labour, because of their employment at the Romanian Commercial Bank. Richter asks Lecca to revoke the release immediately.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1063.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 996. Eichmann writes to von Thadden and complains about the French commercial attache in Romania who has taken a stand against the levy of four billion Lei which the Jews were required to pay.

Eichmann expresses his displeasure and says that there is a rumour that this attache is a Jew. This is checked in the first document appended here and the conclusion is reached that this is not so, that the man is not a Jew.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1064.

State Attorney Bach: The first document says that the German legation in Paris was contacted in this matter, and that there it was confirmed that the man was not a Jew.

The next document is No. 517. Guenther informs the German Foreign Ministry that the Jewess Koenig has meanwhile been transferred from Auschwitz to the east for a work assignment, and that her present whereabouts are unknown.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1065.

State Attorney Bach: Now we have three documents which deal with a Jew named Hans Erwin Wolff who is of mixed parentage.  In document 634 von Thadden proposed to give this man three months’ time to liquidate his property, and then he would be able to return to Germany.

This was the arrangement at that time, that persons of mixed parentage, citizens of the Reich, could return to Germany within a specified period. The document says that a copy was sent to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, asking for his agreement.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1066.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 635. Here is the reply of the Accused, who says that he is not opposed in principle, but that he objects to these three months, and that the period should be shorted to one month and a half. He also wants to know where this Mr. Wolff will be living in future.

And here we see a note by von Thadden who says that, since the liquidation of the property will take three months, there is no point in shortening the time limit to a month and a half, and he fixes the time limit nevertheless at three months.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1067.

State Attorney Bach: Document No. 363. Here it is again Richter (Killinger signed the letter, but Richter wrote it) who sends Eichmann the final report about this Jew. He summarizes Wolff’s biography, saying that he has a Christian mother and a Jewish father and is therefore of mixed parentage in the first degree.

He says that Wolff left for the Reich on 14 October and adds that during his stay in Romania he acquired “Balkan habits”: He published a letter to his friends in the Bukarester Tageblatt, in which he wishes them au revoir on the occasion of his return to the Reich. Finally it says here:

“In view of the conduct of the half-Jew Dr. Hans Erwin Wolff, I request that, after his return, he be subjected to suitable Security Police measures.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1068.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1231. This is a report by von Thadden about the arrest, in the south of France, of Dr. Filderman’s son, and he says that Filderman is the son of the organizer of the Jews of Romania who lives in Bucharest.

He says that this son is a close collaborator of his father’s, and that the Head Office for Reich Security expects to obtain important information from him during his interrogation. He says that Filderman junior is suspected of espionage, but that there is no proof so far. There are objections to Filderman’s return to Romania, although he is on the list of Jews who are entitled to return to Romania from France. Von Thadden has asked to keep his place of detention secret.

“Furthermore, I have received Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann’s agreement to include us in Filderman’s interrogation, which will be held in Berlin. To the extent that it will be possible to discover interesting details about the activities of the Jews in Romania from Filderman, it will have to be considered how far these results may be used as an opportunity to raise the Jewish question in Romania anew, whether by utilizing it for propaganda purposes, or for a diplomatic intervention.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1069.

State Attorney Bach: Our No. 1232. Kryschak, of the office of the Accused, writes to the German Foreign Ministry about Filderman’s son and suggests that his place of detention not be divulged to the Romanian legation, and to tell the legation instead that Filderman is not in a detention camp. He says, by the way, that he is still in Berlin, since it has not been possible to transfer him to Sachsenhausen because he has come down with diphtheria.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1070.

State Attorney Bach: There is a note by von Thadden on the letter saying that he has interrogated Filderman. And there is also attached a request by the government of Romania asking for Filderman’s release.

The next document is our No. 150. Here Guenther informs [the German Foreign Ministry] that the International Red Cross again has plans for bringing Jews to Palestine, and that it has three ships at its disposal for this purpose.

“This matter is brought to your attention with the request that you urge the Romanian Government again to prevent the emigration of Jews not only in theory” (nicht nur theoretisch zu unterbinden).

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1071.

State Attorney Bach: And now I should like to ask the Court to accept as evidence the last document about Romania – the declaration given by Dr. Alexander Safran, today the Chief Rabbi in Geneva, who was then the Chief Rabbi of the Union of Jewish Communities in Romania, about his activities during those days.

Presiding Judge: Was he Chief Rabbi at that time?

State Attorney Bach: He was Chief Rabbi of the Union of Jewish Communities in Romania. As we have already heard from Dr. Loewenstein, Dr. Safran worked most actively in order to avert the deportation planned for 10 September 1942. We did not think it necessary to trouble the rabbi [to come here].

He describes in particular the background to those events, his intercession with the Catholic clergy and his contacts with the Romanian royal family. By virtue of section 15, I request that this declaration be accepted in evidence.

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge: This is a sworn declaration?

State Attorney Bach: The declaration was made before our consul, but I think that it is not a sworn declaration. It says: “I, the undersigned, declare the following.”

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 46

We accept the declaration by Chief Rabbi Dr. Safran in accordance with our authority under section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.

State Attorney Bach: At the outset of his declaration, Dr. Safran says that he is now Chief Rabbi of the Community of Geneva, that he was the Chief Rabbi in Romania, and that in the past he was a senator in the Romanian parliament.

Presiding Judge: Is his name Safran or Shafran?

State Attorney Bach: The spelling we have is Safran, but it is pronounced Shafran. In the beginning he describes the crimes of the years 1941, 1942, when hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered. We have already heard evidence about this. Then he speaks of Lecca’s visit to Berlin where he was invited to go in August 1942. Safran goes on to describe Richter’s activities and his influence over Mihai Antonescu.

He relates that Richter himself used to deal with the provision of railway carriages and with schedules, especially for the deportation trains for the Jews of southern Transylvania, where the deportation was to begin at the end of 1942. That was when he turned to the head of the church in Transylvania, the Metropolitan, Monsignor Balan, who responded to his personal request and came to his office in Bucharest.

The meeting was very dramatic, he says. “Metropolitan Balan informed me after only a few hours that he had succeeded in obtaining from Marshal Ion Antonescu the annulment of the decision to deport the Jewish population from Transylvania.” But, he says, the Germans did not acquiesce in this step, as he learned from King Michael and Queen Mother Helena who always listened attentively to his requests.

Killinger declared in high circles that he did not accept the non-participation of the Romanian authorities in the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Richter meanwhile made every effort to undo the lenient orders given by the government leaders by means of administrative orders for deportation, which he tried to obtain from General Vasiliu, the Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior who headed the department for deportation of Jews.

In the autumn of 1942 the subject of deportations was raised again, and more urgently. Again Safran approached Marshal Antonescu, but this time without success. This time Antonescu was more favourably inclined towards the demands of the Germans. At this point Safran alerted Monsignor Cassulo, the representative of the Pope and head of the diplomatic corps in Bucharest. “I was the only representative of the Jewish population who was in direct and constant contact with him during the whole period of Nazi oppression in Romania,” says Safran.

The representative of the Pope did his utmost in order to persuade the two Antonescus – Ion, the marshal, and Mihai – but without success; this time the marshal was not willing to make any concessions. In my conversation with Monsignor Cassulo, after his stormy Session with the Antonescus, I was given to understand that “our fate was sealed,” and that the deportations would begin in the autumn.

At that point, Safran says, he asked that a representative of the Pope travel to Rome and bring a special message from there to the Antonescus, which might still impress them, shake them, before it would be too late. “I told the Nuncio that I impose this on him in the name of the respect he owes to the Creator and to his creatures.” The Nuncio did, in fact, go to Rome and then he returned to Bucharest. Safran says that the appeal by the Nuncio, which was not publicized, was energetically supported by the representatives of Sweden, Switzerland and the International Red Cross, and this intervention resulted in the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Romania.

The Germans suffered a defeat when, at the very last moment, Marshal Antonescu objected to the deportation of the Jews. The Council of Ministers stopped the deportations officially in the middle of October 1942. The representatives of the German Government reacted sharply to the decision of the government of Romania, and Richter excelled in his brutality on this occasion.

And further on he says:

“We had become used to Richter’s impudence and cruelty. He is the one who succeeded in imposing on the Romanian civil and military authorities the formula of deportation `with family’ of Jews who were to be expelled because of `transgressions’ relating to obligatory or forced labour and other `laws’ affecting the Jews. He took pleasure in persecuting, arresting, deporting and condemning to death Jewish children, pupils, students and halutzic youth, and this was confirmed to me by Radu Lecca himself, when I went to see him in order to intervene on their behalf. It was he who impeded the rescue operations and the return of the orphans and other surviving deportees from Transnistria. He asked for severe sanctions against the Zionist leaders who were under arrest, and he did so even towards the end of the War, when the Romanian authorities were looking for an `honourable’ way out of their vicious policy against the Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1072.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, with this document I have concluded the Romanian chapter. I should like to ask for a break here. In the afternoon we shall submit documents about Slovakia.

Judge Halevi: What was the end of this Richter?

State Attorney Bach: Richter lives in Germany now. He was in Russia for about ten years, in Russian captivity, I believe. Then he was released and returned to Germany. I understand that now an investigation is under way against him, in order to bring him to trial, even at this stage.

Presiding Judge: The next Session will be at 3.30 p.m.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. Where did you send this?

A. To Istanbul, and also to Switzerland, to Geneva.

Q. When?

A. In 1944 or 1943. And this messenger, Welitsch, and another one whose name I do not remember, were also Gestapo agents, and they handed over these reports.

Presiding Judge: To whom?

Witness Loewenstein: To the Romanian Secret Service, the Romanian police. After this they arrested the halutzim, the leaders of the Federation of Youth; and it is very interesting that, when they were questioned, Richter was present together with Radu Lecca. Immediately after the War, in 1945 or 1946, a booklet was published by “Gordonia” which contains all the testimonies.

We did not yet know details about the revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto, we did not yet know much about the situation in Poland, what exactly happened there, but these were testimonies of refugees, which we sent here [to Palestine].

In Geneva there were Dr. Richard Lichtheim, Dr. Silberstein from Poland, as well as Nathan Schwalb. And in Istanbul there were representatives as well. This correspondence can be found in the files of the Zionist Archives.

Judge Halevi: When you were preparing for self-defence in Bucharest – the underground of the halutzim, as you said – did you know then what was in store for you?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes, we knew from the refugees. I remember only one expression we had not yet heard of terms such as Entlausung (disinfection) and others, but in 1943 we already heard the expression Aktionstage (days for operations), and we had heard about Aktionen (operations) in Poland; about this we had heard from the refugees who came from Poland.

Q. Did Dr. Filderman survive?

A. Yes, he is now in Paris.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Dr. Loewenstein. You have completed your evidence.

State Attorney Bach: In order to conclude the chapter on Romania, I still have a number of documents. The first one is No. 401. Killinger says here that Antonescu has given an order permitting the emigration of 70,000-80,000 Jews to Palestine in return for payment to the Romanians. Killinger thinks that this is objectionable, in view of, among other considerations, the agreement with the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1041.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 987. Here Luther of the German Foreign Ministry writes to the legation in Bucharest and says that the fact that the deportation of the Jews has been interrupted for the moment is not very tragic since, in any case, the matter is not so easy during the winter months. But he hopes that in the spring it will be possible to resume operations.

And he adds: “In this connection your opinion is requested concerning the idea of a reciprocal visit in January by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, which was raised by the Romanians.” And he thinks that, “since Lecca is no doubt well-intentioned, it is hardly possible to deny him this request, which could possibly help him advance in his own work.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1042.

State Attorney Bach: In Prosecution document No. 988 Killinger replies by telegram that he agrees to Eichmann’s visit in Bucharest, and that Antonescu also agrees to it.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1043.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is numbered 994.

Klingenfuss informs Guenther that the legation in Bucharest would like to hear from Eichmann though which Stapostellen (regional headquarters of the State Police) Jews of first-generation mixed parentage have to be deported from the Reich.

Clerk of the Court Bodenheimer : This document has already been submitted.

Presiding Judge: How was it marked?

Clerk of the Court Bodenheimer : T/857.

State Attorney Bach: What was our number?

Clerk of the Court Bodenheimer : 994.

State Attorney Bach: It is hard to imagine that this document, which belongs specifically to Romania, should have been submitted here.

Presiding Judge: [reading from the document] Deportation of the Descendants of Mixed Marriages…no, it seems that you are mistaken.

Judge Raveh: Mr. Bach, I should like to ask something in connection with document No. 988. It says here: “…Gegenbesuch Eichmanns...” (reciprocal visit by Eichmann)  – what visit is meant?

State Attorney Bach: This refers to the earlier visit by Lecca.

Judge Raveh: Which was not especially successful?

State Attorney Bach: When Lecca was received by Eichmann, but Killinger said that the visit was not so successful, because Lecca was not received by the officials of the German Foreign Ministry. Nevertheless, we saw that Lecca immediately asked for a return visit, that Killinger had to agree to it, and that Antonescu also indicated his agreement.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bodenheimer is right: This document deals with the descendants of mixed marriages.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps it was submitted in this context, in connection with the offspring of mixed marriages, but what is meant is a correspondence with Richter about persons in Romania.

Presiding Judge: In this case there is no need to submit it.

State Attorney Bach: There is no need to submit the document, but we draw attention to it, document T/857.

The next document is our No. 224. It was shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(47). Eichmann writes that, to his regret, he has to postpone his visit because of pressure of work.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1044.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 481. Richter sends Eichmann the copy of a letter from Filderman to a Romanian by the name of Bursan, describing the desperate situation of the Jewish orphans in Transnistria, of five thousand Jewish children aged between two and sixteen.

“Five thousand orphans are in a dreadful state,” says Filderman, “innocent children lying naked in beds without linen, in unheated rooms whose windows have no panes, so that they cannot even get out of bed to relieve themselves, so they live in totally polluted air. They all suffer from eczema, boils, scabies and other diseases, and are badly undernourished.” He says that there is no possibility of buying food for these children, that the daily wage is not sufficient to buy bread for them, and that even these wages are not being paid to people.

Filderman asks most urgently to see to it that these children be brought back, since otherwise they are condemned to die. In his letter to Eichmann, Richter adds that he has spoken with Lecca about the matter and that nothing will be done.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1045.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 580.
Richter writes to Lecca, indignant because a certain newspaper wrote about a Jewish journalist whom it had employed, favourably mentioning his work in the past, so it seems. In his letter to Lecca Richter says:

“I should like to draw your attention to the fact that in 1942 it could be regarded as a lack of sound instinct (Instinktlosigkeit) if an erstwhile Jewish penpusher is eulogized after his death in a leading Romanian newspaper.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1046.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 184, which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(45). Richter informs Eichmann about the replacement of the Undersecretary of State for the Navy who was instrumental in Jewish emigration and was dismissed from his post.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1047.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 231, a letter to the German Foreign Ministry signed by Eichmann by his own hand, saying that: “In accordance with reliable information, which must be kept confidential, one thousand Jewish children, together with one hundred accompanying staff, are about to be taken to Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey.” “Es wird gebeten, die geplante Auswanderung nach Moeglichkeit zu unterbinden” (You are requested to thwart this emigration project, if possible).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1048.

State Attorney Bach: These documents are of course connected with the documents about Bulgaria which my colleague, Mr. Bar-Or, submitted yesterday. All this belongs to the same complex of problems. I believe the Court has asked: Who actually gave the order? I shall now submit several documents which show that the order came directly from the Accused.

Our next document is No. 200. This letter is signed by Guenther, and he says: “Within the next few days 150 children are about to emigrate from Romania overland through Bulgaria…may I ask you to make every effort, in order to cause Romania to renounce this incomprehensible emigration project, or, alternatively, to put obstacles in the way of transit through Bulgaria, if possible (“…sofern wie moeglich der Durchreise durch Bulgarien Schwierigkeiten engegengestellt werden“).

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1049.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 980.

Here Killinger, or rather Richter – this is clear from the telegram – informs Eichmann that a transport of 74 Jewish children from Romania via Bulgaria to Palestine is being planned. They were of the opinion that this was not in the interest of the Reich, in view of the general solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.

He also reports that he has informed the travel agency that the transport would be stopped in Bulgaria and re-directed to a different destination if it should arrive there, and therefore this transport of 74 children was not sent. And here, on the second page, the Court will see that it says in handwriting, “Telephonisch an Parteigenossen Eichmann durchgegeben” (Passed on to Party comrade Eichmann by telephone).

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1050.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 981.

Here Beckerle, the German minister in Sofia, reports about the same subject, about the same 74 children. He says that he received the information, and that the emigration of the 74 children has been prevented. The German Foreign Ministry transmits this letter again to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. This actually constitutes the liquidation of the project, i.e., they made sure of it from the Bulgarian as well as the Romanian end.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1051.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 482. Richter sends a letter to the German consuls in many cities in Romania and asks for information about copies of Jewish manifestos. Furthermore, he wants to know which Jews are still in possession of radio sets.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1052.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is numbered 483. Richter sends Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann a detailed report about the Romanization procedures of Jewish property.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1053.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 982 and it was marked T/37(282). This is again signed by the Accused personally, and he writes to the German Foreign Ministry about two projects for the transfer of Jews to Palestine – one transport of 1,500 Jews on a boat under Greek flag, named “Smirnik,” and the other on a boat of 300 tons holding 350 Jewish emigrants from Bessarabia and Bukovina, under the protection of the Red Cross.

He adds that the Jewish institutions in Bucharest have already contacted their organizations in Istanbul on this matter. In conclusion Eichmann says: “It is requested that this emigration also be prevented to the extent possible.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1054.

State Attorney Bach: As far as the children are concerned, our crucial document is perhaps No. 220, which was marked T/37(44). Von Thadden reports here that Eichmann has informed him about the attitude taken by the highest echelon of his ministry on the departure of Jewish children from Romania: The emigration of Jewish children must be refused as a matter of principle. “The emigration of five thousand Jewish children from the occupied zones of the east would be granted, if German internees abroad could thereby be exchanged at the rate of 4:1, i.e., twenty thousand Germans against five thousand Jews. This did not mean twenty thousand old Germans, but twenty thousand Germans still capable of propagation, under the age of forty.”

He adds that, if this was to be carried out, the negotiations would have to be conducted speedily, since the time was approaching when the departure of five thousand children from the east would no longer be technically possible, because of the implementation of our measures against the Jews. If the departure of Jewish children from Romania, or from other Balkan states, was to be approved at all, it was important to ensure that this would not be done without reciprocity, as mentioned above.

The Accused was asked about this matter on page 1131. On page 1132 Inspector Less asks him what he meant when he said that the negotiations had to be conducted speedily, because the time was approaching when it would no longer be technically possible to carry out the matter. Eichmann’s reply is on page 1133, where he says:

“This was in 1943, in accordance with the order from the Reichsfuehrer, which was given to the police one had to know that up there, ‘…das oben von den Einsatzkommandos hier alles – so nehme ich also an – enschuldigen Sie bitte, Herr Hauptmann, den brutalen Ausdruck – getoetet wird. Das und nichts…’ (It was known, was it not, that by the operations groups up there – and forgive me for the brutal expression, Inspector, all are being killed. This and nothing else…”

Presiding Judge: Does he quote this as an order from Himmler in the letter?

State Attorney Bach: No, he invokes Himmler’s orders about killing in general.

Presiding Judge: From “Meine Frage” (my question) in this document, in the last but one passage?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. Von Thadden says that: “To my question whether this attitude could be reported to the Reich Foreign Ministry as final, and as the attitude of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Eichmann answered yes.”

State Attorney Bach: The next document, No. 214, is signed by Guenther and deals with the emigration of five thousand Jewish children from Romania and Bulgaria to Palestine. He mentions a ship which is to sail under the Red Cross flag and which would transport one thousand children on each voyage, and that von Papen has been approached in Turkey, and that the organizers of the project are of the opinion that the emigration of the remaining Jewish children will pass with tacit agreement. But Guenther says:

“In the interest of the most comprehensive possible seizure of all the Jews in Europe, it is requested that steps be taken to prevent the departure of Jews, especially of Jewish children from the Balkan countries, by every means.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1056.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1229, and it was also marked T/37(307). Here there is mention of Bosshammer, also from the office of the Accused, and the question is raised by the German Foreign Ministry whether it is possible to transfer Romanian Jews to camps in Transnistria, to open camps.

The answer comes from Guenther, who objects and says: The difficulties cannot be solved by transferring Jews to open camps in Transnistria. German camps can always be named which can accept these Jews immediately.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1057.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 222. Here Richter informs Eichmann that he has ordered the arrest of Filderman because of his protest against the payment of four billion Lei as a special levy. He says that Filderman pretends to have fallen ill and has therefore not yet been arrested, but a request for his release has been rejected.

Presiding Judge: Does Richter write this together with Killinger?

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: The way it was asked, at any rate, it could be something else, let us hear it.

State Attorney Bach: I am entitled to ask this witness also in his capacity as a researcher also about conclusions, in particular as they are not his conclusions alone. It seems that both the literature and other researchers have reached the same results.

Presiding Judge: I would suggest, at any rate, to keep this as brief as possible.

Judge Halevi: In what year was this pogrom?

Witness Loewenstein: At the end of January 1941.

State Attorney Bach: How did Richter’s influence, or Richter’s arrival, make itself felt in practice? What was the change which you felt?

Witness Loewenstein: First of all, after the revolt of the Iron Guard, there came a new wave of laws against the Jews. Previously there had been no laws; now laws appeared, all kinds of laws, against the professions, against Jewish tradesmen, against Jewish officials, full Aryanization in all fields of economic and public life. Apart from this, the Jewish Centre.

Richter appeared there openly, and he was all the time in contact with the secretary general of the Centre.

Q. Dr. Loewenstein, before we continue describing the functions of the Jewish Centre, what can you tell us about the physical measures taken against the Jews in Romania in the broad sense, including the districts of Bessarabia, Bukovina, etc.?

A. After the pogrom in Bucharest in January 1941, there was the pogrom in Jassy following the outbreak of the War. Over ten thousand people were killed. We know this also from the trials of the war criminals held after the War.

The murderers were units of the German army, together with Romanian soldiers. But it must be assumed that the men of Einsatzgruppe D were also involved. This is where they crossed into Bessarabia.

Q. In addition to the pogrom in Jassy?

A. During the course of the conquest of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, an almost complete extermination took place. Only from Bessarabia do we have the reports of the Romanian local constabulary: From the beginning of June 1941 until September 1941, 160,000 persons were killed in Bessarabia. Then there followed a second wave in Bukovina.

Q. What was the nature of this second wave?

A. Those who remained alive were deported to Transnistria.

Q. Do you know about an operation in Czernowitz?

A. We know that in Czernowitz large-scale slaughter took place from the moment the Germans entered, and after that – the deportation.

Q. The deportation to Transnistria?

A. Yes, the deportation to Transnistria.

Q. What can you tell us about the deportation to Transnistria and about the life of the Jews in this district of Transnistria after the deportation?

A. Transnistria was Auschwitz for us, it was the grave of the Jews of Romania. Almost all the deportees, that is to say the majority of the deportees, were liquidated. I do not know how many local Jews there were, but there were Ukrainian Jews, too. Conditions were the very worst. There were camps, extermination camps, forced labour camps, and then there were camps such as Bogdanovka.

Q. Where was the Bogdanovka camp?

A. In Transnistria. In Bogdanovka animal fodder peas were given out as food, and all the people became paralysed. That was in the German sphere of influence. There were Germans, SS men, also on the other side of the Bug, the border. And we have reports from the constabulary – I know this also from witnesses who told me – that the Germans crossed the Bug, seized Jews and killed them. Many of the Jews were sent to the other side of the Bug to forced labour. They knew that there would be no choice, only death. Hardly anybody returned from the other side of the Bug.

Q. What were the living conditions of the Jews in Transnistria and the sanitary conditions?

A. There were epidemics all the time, there was no food, and only during the later period were the Jewish institutions able to send help, both medicines and money.

Presiding Judge: When was that?

Witness Loewenstein: In 1943, 1944.

Q. Where was this sent from, from Romania?

A. From Romania, yes.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Loewenstein, I know that it is very difficult to talk of exact figures where such things are concerned, but can you give us an approximate estimate of the extent of the extermination of this Jewish community during that period, how many perished according to the estimates you have?

Witness Loewenstein: There are various estimates, but I can state that almost half the Jews of Romania perished during that period.

Q. What does this mean in figures – approximately?

A. Almost 300,000, not counting Northern Transylvania.

Q. Without Transylvania?

A. The part that was under Romanian rule. But these figures
do not include the local Ukrainian Jews in Transnistria.

Q. As far as you know, were there many Jews who managed to escape to USSR territory at the time of the deportation, for instance from Bessarabia?

A. There was no time. The deportation was carried out so fast that there was no time. And we know that there were those who returned. There were some thousands who returned from the other side of the Bug, from the other side of the Dniester, to Romania, to Bessarabia. The Germans caught them.

Q. Let us now return to the subject of the Jewish Centre. When was it actually established?

A. In January 1942.

Q. Who ordered it to be created, how was it set up, at whose initiative?

A. At the initiative of Radu Lecca. There was also a law which appeared in the official government gazette.

Q. Who was at the head of this Centre, and did you have any function within it?

A. At first Streitman, a well-known journalist, headed the Central Board, and later on the secretary-general was Dr. Gingold.

Q. Did you have any function in the Central Board of the Jews?

A. I held the post of director of the Department for Education and Culture, in accordance with a decision by the Zionist leadership in Romania, the Zionist Organization.

Q. Were you an active member of the Zionist movement in Romania?

A. Yes, I was also a member of the Zionist executive.

Q. Were you also on the executive of the Zionist movement in Romania?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in accordance with a decision by the executive, you were given this post on the Central Board of the Jews?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the nature of your function on the Central Board?

A. There were difficult problems at that time, because all Jewish students, from elementary school to university level, including the students at the university, were expelled from the official schools. So there was, first of all, the problem of organization. Then there was another important matter: In the course of time the Jewish population dwindled, and there were also fewer children.

We also dealt with assistance to the pupils; at that time we founded the Mother and Child Centre, which, after the War, became OSE in Romania, with soup kitchens, canteens, also a hostel for Jews, and all kinds of aid, such as clothing, etc.

Q. Did the Zionist movement also organize emigration to Palestine during that period?

A. Yes, and now I should like to tell you about all the activities of the Zionist Organization.

Q. Perhaps you will first answer the question I asked you: Did the movement actually deal with emigration to Palestine, and how? Perhaps you can say something about this in brief?

A. We sent about fifteen or eighteen ships. The interesting and important thing was that the Romanian government insisted on this policy of Aliyah from beginning to end. And finally, in 1944, the chairman of the Aliyah Committee also received official confirmation from the government.

Furthermore, at that time there was the most difficult problem of refugees from Poland and from Hungary. In May 1944 a law was promulgated by Ion Antonescu, the dictator Antonescu – the death penalty for every refugee from Poland or Hungary.

It was then that the chairman of the Aliyah Committee obtained the official confirmation from Mihai Antonescu. That same month he took part in two meetings of the government and was given permission to provide the refugees with identity papers from the Aliyah Committee, the Palestine Office, as it was called then.

Q. Do you know how Richter reacted to this matter of the Zionist movement and the emigration to Palestine, and what he did about it?

A. We always felt the involvement of Richter and of Lecca. In 1944 Lecca almost agreed, and there was some kind of consent that he should be given fifty per cent of the money received for the voyage. He said that this was for charitable works of Mrs. Antonescu.

Presiding Judge: I do not understand: What expenses for the voyage are you now talking about?

Witness Loewenstein: Not expenses for the voyage.

Q. This is what you said.

A. I made a mistake. I meant the receipts for the voyage. Everybody had to pay for his place…

Q. To whom?

A. To the Aliyah Committee.

State Attorney Bach: Did every Jew who wanted to leave the country pay?

Witness Loewenstein: Not every Jew, only those who had means.

Q. Did they pay this to the Aliyah Committee?

A. To the account of the Aliyah Committee.

Q. And Lecca demanded fifty per cent of these sums?

A. Yes.

Q. You said that Richter’s influence made itself felt. What was this influence which you felt, with regard to the Zionist movement in general, to the Zionist office in general, and especially with regard to Aliyah?

A. First of all, in the spring of 1941 Richter officially invited representatives of the Zionist Organization to the German embassy. Those who went were the chairman of the Zionist Organization, Advocate Misu Benvenisti, and Dr. Yancu Coronel, the chairman of Keren Hayessod in Romania and chairman of “Tarbut” (Cultural) Association for the Hebrew language.

At the German embassy Richter told them expressly: “The German Reich is opposed to emigration to Palestine, and we are also against the activities of the Zionist Organization in Romania.”

Following this, the Bukarester Tageblatt, the official organ of the German embassy, began to attack the Zionist Organization. I have it here [shows the paper].

And in August 1942 the Zionist Organization was dissolved. The Romanian Government dissolved the Zionist Organization.

Q. Did you think at that time that the liquidation of the Zionist Organization was initiated by the Romanian Government?

A. No. We read the German papers, and we knew what Richter’s position was. He told us, the Jewish representatives, quite explicitly.

Q. What was the Bukarester Tageblatt?

A. The Bukarester Tageblatt was the daily newspaper of the German embassy. In it there appeared certain articles in 1941, and especially in the summer and autumn of 1942. There is one article here about the programme.

Q. Please look at this newspaper and tell us whether you can identify it.

A. There is an article here, dated 8 August 1942: “Rumaenien wird judenrein” (Romania is being cleansed of Jews). It contains the complete programme of the deportation. One month later we came to feel it.

Q. In September 1942 you actually felt it. Just one more question about the Bukarester Tageblatt: What was the meaning for you of an article which appeared in the Bukarester Tageblatt, any article, not this one in particular?

A. We knew, when an article appeared in the Bukarester Tageblatt, we knew that unpleasant things would happen to us.

Q. I did not quite understand: When something was written in the Bukarester Tageblatt, when it said that something would happen, you knew that this particular thing was likely to happen to you?

A. Yes. This was 1942, when the Germans had not yet reached Stalingrad.

Q. How were these articles signed in the paper?

A. There was only the initial “R,” but everyone in Romania said that this was Gustav Richter personally. Once there also appeared an article signed “Gustav Richter.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1040.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Loewenstein, you have told us about an article of August 1942 in the Bukarester Tageblatt which spoke of the deportation abroad of the Romanian Jews. By the way, did it say in that article where the Jews were going to be sent?

Witness Loewenstein: I don’t quite remember now – but to Poland.

Q. Were you actually aware of an intention to expel the Romanian Jews at that time or shortly thereafter?

A. Yes. In September, or at the end of August, we received several indications: Benvenisti, the chairman of the Zionist Organization, happened to be at a meeting with Radu Lecca when he overheard a telephone conversation about the deportation. After this Dr. Filderman also received some information and, in addition, a Jewish engineer who worked for the Romanian railways saw the detailed plans, stating that the deportation was to begin in western Romania in the towns of Timisoara, Arad and Turda.

Q. That is to say, southern Transylvania?

A. Southern Transylvania. (The information) reached the Jewish leaders, and steps against the deportation began immediately.

Q. Steps taken by whom?

A. By the Jewish leaders. Dr. Safran…

Q. Who is Dr. Safran?

A. Dr. Safran was the Chief Rabbi of Romania. He approached the Apostolic Nuncio, Monsignor Cassulo, and the Metropolitan of Transylvania, Nicolae Balan, that is the highest-ranking Romanian clergy. Nicolae Balan was an anti-Semite himself, but nevertheless he extended his help at that time.

Q. We shall perhaps submit further proof of this. So what you said is that Dr. Safran took active steps.

A. And also Dr. Filderman.

Previous | Index | Next