The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Did you talk to Judge Musmanno about Eichmann?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, I remember that conversation.

Q. What did Goering say then?

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

Q. Does this appear in your book?

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

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

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

Q. Did you speak to Oswald Pohl about Eichmann?

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

Q. What did he say to you?

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

Q. What did Hoess say about Eichmann?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, that would be about right.

Q. And it has not yet been published?

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

Q. Is this the original handwriting of Hoess?

A. This is the original.

Q. Signed by him?

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1169.

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

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

Presiding Judge: Please also give him the German original.

Attorney General: Certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes. He was a witness for Kaltenbrunner.

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. That is correct.

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

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

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

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

Q. And then, what did you do?

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

Q. What did you do, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. What was Hoess’ reply?

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

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney 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-fourth Session of the trial open.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court. When I submitted Exhibit T/649, Mr. Moritz Henschel’s notes, it turned out that one of the pages of the copy was somewhat difficult to read, and I promised to provide the Court with cleaner copies. I have photographed the document again and now hand three photostatic copies to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now I shall complete the documentation on the German chapter. I understand that in the meantime Counsel for the Defence has looked at our document No. 455, the affidavit given in Nuremberg by Rudolf Hermann Emil Brandt. I request a decision from the Court to accept this affidavit in accordance with Section 15. The affidavit was given under oath in Nuremberg on 10 December 1946. Brandt was sentenced at the Doctor’s Trial, in Case No. 1 of the Subsequent Trials; he was sentenced to death and hanged. He had belonged to the headquarters of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.

In this deposition, he gives details about sterilization experiments carried out in concentration camps. He refers to three earlier depositions given by him on 30 August 1946, which are of no interest to us. In this affidavit, he describes the experiments connected with the name of Adolf Pokorny, experiments which were made with a North-American plant known in German under the name of “Schweigrohr.”

For some time they believed that it would be possible to grow this plant, apparently a tropical one, in Germany, too, and it seems that they wanted to use it for sterilization on a large scale. Here he describes the experiments and the negotiations connected with this matter. It seems to me that this evidence is highly relevant.

Presiding Judge: Is the Accused mentioned in it?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Accused is not mentioned here, but there are other things in connection with sterilization where the Accused is mentioned, some of which have already been submitted to the Court. The Court will well remember at least one Session at which methods of sterilization were mentioned. These experiments were, of course, brought to the attention of the Accused, and it is out of the question that sterilizations are discussed as a method in the field of activity of the Accused without also taking into account what went on in Germany in this field from the scientific point of view.

Presiding Judge: Is this not described in the judgment of the Doctors’ Trial?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the Doctors’ Trial there is, of course, a full description of all these subjects. The sterilization experiments were, after all, one of the main subjects at the Doctors’ Trial. But, of course, you do not have that trial before you, and I have to select from it what I think is relevant for our proceedings.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your position?

Dr. Servatius: My position is that this matter is dealt with in the judgment of the doctors, and I am of the opinion that the document is not relevant. But if it will be submitted – I have no objection to it.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 34

We allow the submission of the affidavit by Brandt in accordance with our authority under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950.

This document will be marked T/816.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I direct the attention of the Court to two passages in the affidavit which particularly concern the matter before us. They are paragraphs 6 and 7. In paragraph 6, Glauberg is mentioned. This is Dr. Glauberg who committed suicide in the end, after the War. And it says here that in Auschwitz concentration camp he performed large-scale experiments on Jewish women and Gypsy women for the purpose of sterilization, and that he used mainly the method of injecting certain solutions which he was trying out.

In paragraph 7, the name of Dr. Schumann is mentioned, a doctor who has apparently not been found to this day, who carried out experiments of sterilization by means of X-rays on men in Auschwitz. The Court will hear viva voce evidence from witnesses about such experiments later in the trial.

And now, with your permission, we shall continue the Austrian file, on which we started yesterday. I proceed to Prosecution document No. 1152. This is a minute, again by Dr. Loewenherz, dated 29 December 1941, about a meeting with Brunner. The main point in this document seems to me to be a prohibition by Brunner, whereby the term “Evakuierungstransporte” (evacuation transports) is no longer to be used and the term “Abwanderungstransporte” (emigration transports) is substituted for it.

Presiding Judge: Where is this to be found?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2, paragraphs 5 and 7.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/817.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now go on to document No. 1153, a minute about the meeting* {*This was a telephone conversation} in January 1942. Dr. Eppstein of the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany has informed Loewenherz by telephone that Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther has approved the sending out of a circular letter concerning the wool collection, whereby all fur articles, all footwear and woollen garments, insofar as they are not absolutely needed for personal use, have to be handed over. Offences against the obligation to hand over these articles are punishable, or rather, severest punishment is threatened for it.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/818.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1154, a minute by Dr. Loewenherz on a meeting with Brunner in Vienna on 1 April 1942. Brunner informs Loewenherz that persons who are Jews, or who are regarded as Jews, in accordance with Paragraph 5, Article 1, of the Reich Citizenship Law must be made to wear the Jewish Star. Here the obligation to affix the Jewish Star to the outside of the entrance door of (Jewish) homes comes into force for Austria, too.** {**According to the document: Persons who are obliged to wear the Jewish Star must now also mark their dwellings with the Jewish Star.}

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/819.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to Prosecution document No. 1155, a letter from Dr. Loewenherz to the Gestapo in Vienna, dated 4 April 1942. He repeats the instructions received from the Reich Governor in Vienna concerning the obligation to wear the Jewish Star. In the second passage, he expressly mentions the exemptions from these instructions. In the end – and to this I should like to draw your attention – he says that orders have been given “to refrain from publication; notice has to be given to the Jewish population through posting in the Jewish offices and institutions, and through word of mouth.”*** {***The document actually refers to a prohibition to use municipal tramlines.} By the way, I made a mistake – this letter is signed by Dr. Murmelstein and not by Loewenherz.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/820.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1156 is a minute about a meeting in the office of the Accused, dated 1 June 1942. He says that he appeared before the Accused together with Murmelstein, Eppstein, Menschel, Kozower, Kreindler and Lilienthal, and that Messrs. Weidmann and Friedmann from Prague were also present at Section IVB4. Then he relates what we already heard from Moritz Henschel’s notes, about the attack on the exhibition “The Soviet Paradise” in Berlin.

In paragraph 2 he says that, at the interview with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, he reported about conditions in Vienna, and about the estimated number of Jews over 65 years of age who were designated to be taken to Theresienstadt for permanent residence; and that Eichmann informed Loewenherz on the same occasion that the total evacuation of all Jews from the Old Reich, from Austria, and from the Protectorate was to be expected, and that Jews under 65 would emigrate to the East, while those over that age would be taken for permanent residence to Theresienstadt.

In the middle of page 2 we find that “For the purpose of financing the upkeep of the Jewish population settled in Theresienstadt, funds have to be mobilized from the three organizations (the Reich Association of the Jews in Berlin, and the Jewish Religious Communities of Vienna and of Prague).”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/821.

State Attorney Bar-Or: From this document, it clearly appears, so it seems to me, that there were two meetings on that day. The first one, which is also mentioned by Henschel, under the chairmanship of Mueller, and there the killing of the 250 hostages was made known; and afterwards the meeting with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about internal matters.

Presiding Judge: This is apparent from the title.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I wanted to emphasize it.

I should like to revert to T/154, a report by Loewenherz, which has already been submitted. I do not intend to read additional passages from it, but I wish to point out that the Court will, in fact, find in it what is contained in the records of the Community about the chapter with which we are dealing at the moment. Here the Court will find, in summary form, the course of events up to the closing of the Community’s offices in Vienna.

I shall therefore proceed to document No. 1157, a minute by Loewenherz of 22 June 1942. Again a meeting with Brunner. I should like to read paragraphs 6 and 7. Hauptsturmfuehrer Brunner repeats his instructions that demand to hand over dogs, birds, etc. must not be published in the Information Bulletin. And now paragraph 7: “Letters from the Red Cross in Geneva about the place of residence of Jews must not be answered, in view of the fact that the German Red Cross is very busy with forwarding the mail of prisoners of war. Private enquiries from abroad concerning the whereabouts of Jewish emigrants are not to be answered.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/822.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1158, a minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 24 July 1942. In paragraph 2 it says that “with respect to the refunding of the amounts advanced by the Jewish Community for the emigration transports, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann has decided that repayment will be made only at the end; as hitherto, the Community has to enter separately all expenses connected with the emigration, and to present a bill for every five transports to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/823.

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1159 is a minute by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting he had with Brunner on 5 November 1942. And here Brunner informs him that, as of 31 October 1942, the Jewish Religious Community is to be regarded as dissolved. It is transformed into an institution to be called “Council of Elders of the Jews in Vienna,” and the draft regulations of the Community are to be changed accordingly.

This follows organically after the dissolution of the Community and, of course, after the settling of the Community’s accounts in the way we know already from these records.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/824.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now on to document No. 1160, a minute by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner, dated 2 December 1942. Here we find, in paragraph 5, instructions for the transfer of the assets of the Jewish Religious Community of Vienna to the Emigration Fund for Bohemia and Moravia. We shall come across this special fund again when we deal with matters of the Protectorate; the Fund was, in fact, intended not only for the Protectorate. Here it is clear, at any rate, that the assets were to be transferred  to Prague.

I move on to paragraph 14. Here Loewenherz is asked, in fact is instructed by Brunner, to write to the Jewish Religious Community in Budapest, in order to find out how many Jews have immigrated into Hungary since 1 January 1941, and to ask the Community for the names and dates of birth of these immigrants. The reason to be given: These data are needed, in order to bring the tax register and the card index up to date.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/825.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 927, a letter from the Accused to von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry, dated 23 August 1943, about the stateless Jew Karl Israel Klinger. I draw the attention of the Court only to the last sentences on page 2, where the Accused says: “Since Karl Israel Klinger has been informed by his uncle Rudolf Israel Klinger about different occurrences in the various offices, there is an imminent danger that he will pass on what he knows to foreign authorities, and that in this way he will seriously endanger state security. For this reason I ask that extradition procedures be initiated against the above-mentioned without delay.”

Eichman, in fact, asks the Foreign Ministry to have this Jew extradited to the Reich.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/826.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In our document No. 928, we shall find von Thadden’s reply on this matter. It is his letter of 3 September 1943, and he simply informs the Accused that the existing rules of extradition between the Reich and Hungary do not apply to persons who are said to have committed offences of the kind he describes, and he asks Eichmann to give him additional information which would justify the request for extradition to the Hungarians.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/827.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have thus completed the chapter on Austria, and I go on to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The Court has before it the volume of weekly reports of the Jewish Community of Prague, and I should like to draw your attention to some additional ones among them.

Presiding Judge: What have we already received?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have submitted weekly reports about the period up to Nisko.

Presiding Judge: How were they marked?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I believe that each weekly report was marked separately. Here I have No. T/163 which refers to the weekly report of 16 February 1940. I think they were all numbered T/163. I believe that the Court numbered the volume from which I submitted…

Presiding Judge: We have marked two volumes: T/162 and T/163.

State Attorney Bar-Or: So here I submit additional volumes from the archives of the Community of Prague which cover the period of the War itself, and from these I should like to submit some weekly reports to the extent that they concern our subject. Three volumes altogether.

Presiding Judge: We shall mark them T/828, T/829 and T/830.

State Attorney Bar-Or: First our document No. 1331, taken from these volumes, which is the report for the week ending 16 February 1940. It is page 89 in the original, which begins on page 77. I read from page 89: “In the week under review, an order by the Reich Protector was published about the exclusion of the Jews from the economy of the Protectorate.”

Presiding Judge: What is the heading of what you have just read?

Previous | Index | Next

Presiding Judge: Where is this? In which paragraph?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2. In paragraph 5 it says that in this connection, Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann declared that he had taken over the direction of the Reich Authority for Jewish Emigration, and that he was determined to let the emigration offices in Berlin, Vienna and Prague operate separately.

None of these offices would be superior or subordinate to the other, Vienna would preserve its independence, and it was expected that the character of the Religious Community under public law would be assured until the end of 1940. This was, of course, a matter of special interest to Dr. Loewenherz.

In paragraph 7 he says he told Eichmann that the progress in emigration depended in large measure on the release of prisoners in protective custody in Buchenwald and Dachau.

He also told him about the news arriving from there about cases of death, and that in the Community there were unprecedented scenes of despair among the bereaved. In reply to a question by Eichmann in this matter, Loewenherz said that since the autumn 355 deaths were reported, and that the burial of the urns was being carried out by the cemetery office of the Community, which caused feelings of shock.

Eichmann said that he did not deal directly with the concentration camps, but asked Loewenherz to inform him in writing about the matter by 27 December. Eichmann also informed Loewenherz that he would divide his time, spending two weeks every month in Berlin and the other two weeks in Vienna, Prague, and the Generalgouvernement in Poland. This is in paragraph 13.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/798.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to No. 1140. Again a memo by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Eichmann on 26 January 1940. I direct your attention to paragraph V: The Jewish Community in Moravska Ostrava has informed Eichmann that they have spent 300,000 Reichsmark for setting up the camp in Nisko; Loewenherz says he was told to contact the Community in Moravska Ostrava and to demand from it, on the basis of this report, an exact summary of the expenses and the purpose for which the various sums were used.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/799.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And finally, in paragraph VII, one  more question – whether the Jews who were taken to the territory of Poland would be given a chance to return to Vienna.

I go on to document No. 1411, a minute about a meeting which took place in Eichmann’s office in Berlin. Again there is mention of the release of the officials of the Community and the Palestine Office, who are still under arrest in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Eichmann asks that a request for their release be transmitted to him to Berlin (paragraph 5).

Paragraph 7 is also of interest. Loewenherz says:

“I asked for the release of Rabbi Dr. Arnold Israel Frankfurter from the Buchenwald concentration camp and stressed that he is apparently in protective custody only because of the name Frankfurter, but no doubt he has no connection with the attack on Gustloff. Eichmann gave me permission to submit a request for the release of Rabbi Dr. Frankfurter to him through the intermediary of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/800.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1142, a meeting between Loewenherz and Brunner at the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna. Brunner told him what he had heard in a telephone conversation with Eichmann about what is here called “the impending return of 152 persons from the relocation area in Poland.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/801.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1143, again a meeting of Loewenherz with Eichmann in Berlin on 3 July 1940. Loewenherz is told to submit to Eichmann, within four weeks, statistics about the Jews living in Austria, their institutions, etc. As regards the financial affairs of the Community, Dr. Loewenherz is asked to appear before Eichmann on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m. Again an urgent request is made for the release of the detainees in the concentration camp. Eichmann says that this is not possible now: “The same applies also to the further request that young detainees should be released from protective custody.”

What is said here, in paragraph 4, about migration is of some interest:

“Eichmann said that efforts in connection with emigration via the Far East, and also via Lisbon, must be continued. However, after the end of the War, a comprehensive solution of the European Jewish question would presumably have to be sought. This would be a matter of about four million Jews. Eichmann then asked whether ideas or plans with this in view had already been discussed.”

Today we know already what Loewenherz was asked to submit to Eichmann, what kind of data. During those months Eichmann was actually occupied with preparations for what was called “the Madagascar Plan.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/802.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to a minute in document No. 1144. I do not want to dwell on its contents, it is about a meeting with Untersturmfuehrer Brunner on 26 June 1940, and is of interest only because it has an annex. The annex shows how these minutes were transmitted to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. The document is a covering letter with two annexes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/803.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will perhaps notice that this office transmits the minute on the same day on which  the conversation was held, when everything was absolutely fresh in the minds of the writers.

Now we move on to document No. 1145. It is a letter from Loewenherz to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration dated 4 July 1940. He writes: “Concerning the visit of the undersigned Head of the Jewish Religious Community, Dr. Josef Israel Loewenherz, to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann in the Head Office for Reich Security, Berlin, on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m.” Finally, “The attention of Mr. Brunner, of the office of the Special Plenipotentiary, has to be drawn to the need for submitting to Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann without delay the petition made in accordance with the latter’s instruction.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/804.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1146, a minute of 15 July 1940, signed by Dr. Benjamin Israel Murmelstein on behalf of the Head of the Jewish Community, about a meeting with Brunner on 13 July. Brunner requests that in future the minutes he has to receive, be submitted to him without a covering letter. This has to be understood in the light of what I have just submitted.

Presiding Judge: I do not follow that.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Until that date, it was apparently the custom to submit these minutes with covering letters. I can only assume that these annoyed Brunner, and therefore he asks for transmission of the minutes without addition.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/805.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 126, a letter from the Accused to Rademacher dated 13 May 1941.

The subject is “Letters of Recommendation for Jewish Emigrants via, or to, the Far East.” This is only submitted  in order to show the Court that Eichmann, although transferred to Berlin long ago, continues actively to control matters in Vienna as well, and not only in a general manner, as was the case with other Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/806.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us go to document No. 548. The document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(165). The Accused speaks about this document, and another one which I shall submit immediately afterwards, in his Statement, beginning on page 2038.

The subject of this correspondence is a Professor Emil Fleischmann, an academically qualified painter who lives in Vienna – his address is indicated. It is reported here that information has reached the German authorities by chance that applications have been submitted to the Minister of Culture of Afghanistan, apparently in connection with the employment of this man, or, at any rate, with his emigration from Vienna to Afghanistan.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/807.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now let us look at document No. 549, in which Eichmann, on 28 February 1941, replies to the Foreign Ministry. It was marked T/37(166). Eichmann writes:

“With reference to your letter of 18 February 1941, I  inform you that, in the meantime, I have instructed the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Vienna, that the Jews Fleischmann and Kollmann, who are mentioned in the report of the German Legation for Afghanistan of 14 December 1940, are to be deported by one of the next trains, in the framework of the deportation of Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The matter may thus be regarded as settled.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/808.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now – we made an effort to locate this Jew, Emil Fleischmann. In October 1960, we applied to the Austrian authorities, and especially to the Jewish Community in Vienna, and here, in Prosecution document No. 1240, it becomes clear what happened to Emil Fleischmann. These documents are proof of his deportation to the East. And thus he appears to this day in the Population Register in Vienna.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/809.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1147, a minute from Dr. Loewenherz about his meeting with Brunner and Ebner dated 1 February 1941. The Court will remember that Ebner was the opposite number in the Gestapo in Vienna. Brunner was Head of the Central Office, and Ebner headed the Gestapo.

The conversation deals with the deportation of 10,000 persons from Vienna to the East: “It is intended to transfer part of the Jews who are living in Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The Religious Community will be kept out of this operation, it will merely have to carry out the instructions given to it. 1,000 persons shall be dispatched with each transport.”

Paragraph 2 says: “The Central Office for Jewish Emigration is responsible for seizing the Jews who can be allotted to the individual transports, and for carrying out these transports in accordance with the orders it has received from higher authority.” There follow specific instructions for carrying out the transports.

In the second part of paragraph 6 we read: “The proceeds of the sale of these properties is earmarked for covering the costs of relocation and emigration, as well as of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.” Thus writes Loewenherz. In paragraph 9 it says: “The Jews are forbidden to leave Vienna without special permission from the Central Office for Jewish Emigration…” Meanwhile, the retraining courses are to be dispersed.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/810.

Mr. Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1634, an urgent letter dealing with the evacuation of the Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. It is of interest because it shows that the implementation of these measures remained actually concentrated in the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. This document comes from Section IVD4 and is signed by Eichmann. A copy was sent to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Potsdam, for their information.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/811.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, document No. 1148, another minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on May 14 1941. Here Brunner says again that he will have to obtain instructions from SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann with respect to payments in connection with the relocation to the Generalgouvernement.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/812.

State Attorney Bar-Or: 1149, a minute from Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 21 May 1941: Concentration of the Jews of Vienna in certain districts. This is actually the measure closest to the creation of a ghetto in Vienna that we know, the concentration of the Jews in the 2nd, 9th and 20th Districts of the city.

Presiding Judge: Which paragraph of the note is this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The last one, paragraph 6.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/813.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1150. Dr. Loewenherz and Dr. Eppstein of the Reichsvereinigung have been ordered to appear before Guenther and Suhr on 8 September 1941.

This is what they were told:

“In connection with the publication of the Police Order for the designation of the Jews…” – which I have already submitted to the Court – “the following is announced:

(1) The designation signs will be delivered to the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany on 16.9.1941 and to the Jewish Religious Community in Vienna on 17.9.1941. For the time being, one piece per person will be handed out. Until 15.10.1941 additional pieces will be delivered… At the time of distribution, the needs of individual cases have to be taken into account…”

And in paragraph 7 we read the following:

“It is pointed out expressly that exemptions from the compulsory designation are out of the question, and that therefore all applications in this matter are useless.”

And attention is drawn to the penal provisions.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/814.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This was the first joint appearance of representatives from both Vienna and Berlin before officials of the office of the Accused in Berlin.

No.1151, a meeting with Brunner: The vacating of Jewish homes, which is explained by air attacks and deportations, this time to Ghetto Lodz. The first transport is to leave on 15 October and the last one on 11 November 1941. Altogether 5,000 Jews.

“Before departure,” it goes on to say, “every Jew has to sign a power of attorney, similar to the procedure at previous transports. The property left behind by the relocated persons will be invested in their names, as was done before. The monies left behind at that time were deposited with the Laenderbank in the name of each individual by the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/815.

Are there many more documents about Austria, Mr. Bar-Or?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are more than ten. We could break off here.

Presiding Judge: It is possible to break off at any stage, is it not?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: So we shall break off here. As I said this morning, the afternoon Session is cancelled. I should also like to announce that on Friday we shall begin at 8.30 a.m. and finish earlier, at about 12.30.

The next Session is tomorrow, at 09.00 o’clock.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: It should also to be noted that it says in the document: “A request for protective arrest is not necessary for transfer to the concentration camp. However, the Commandant’s office has to be informed that the transfer to the concentration camp is carried out within the framework of the deportation measures.”

I go on to document No. 538. This is only part of a document. Actually, it only proves that the document was sent to the Foreign Ministry, for its information, and that it was received at the Foreign Ministry on 5 October 1943.

Presiding Judge: What do you wish to prove by this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The document itself, as I pointed  out, is signed by Mueller. Its transmission to the Foreign Ministry is signed by Hunsche from the office of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Well, for what purpose is it submitted?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We want to show that usually the level of the correspondence determines who signs the letter. The identity of the person signing does not at all indicate – this is our view – who writes, who formulates the letter, who makes the decision.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/785.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And one more document, No. 539, of 12 October 1943, according to which the orders which we have just seen are transmitted by von Thadden to those Missions in Europe named here in this document.

Presiding Judge: Here also I do not understand what this is supposed to prove.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We have to demonstrate how the special, extraordinary operations in Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald and Ravensbrueck were organized. This is not a matter of prisoners in concentration camps, seized in ordinary police operations; it is a matter of special prisoners, sent to these camps by order of the Accused himself, whether they were called exchange camps or by any other name.

Presiding Judge: But we do not know what letter is being referred to.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We have here, in oblique script: “Bzf. Fotokopie d. Schrbs. d. Chef Sipo v. 23.9.43″ (Photocopy of the letter from the Chief of the Security Police of 23.9.43, to be attached).

Presiding Judge: And do we have this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We have it, I have submitted it, it is our document No. 537, which was marked T/784.

Presiding Judge: Do you wish to demonstrate how this was circulated by the Foreign Ministry?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, that is right.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/786.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 547, a letter of 2 March 1943, from von Thadden, informing the Accused that, according to information from the Turkish legation, two Jewish secretaries, Lewin and Hammerschmidt, have not reported for work already since 25 February, apparently because they were arrested and deported. The Turkish legation asks for the return of these two Jewesses.

I direct the attention of the Court to a remark in the margin; this is what it says: “Remark: According to oral information from a member of Department IV, it is known that the Jewesses Lewin and Hammerschmidt were apparently arrested because they participated in the spreading of demoralizing and defeatist writings.” Copy goes to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/787.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now document No. 751, a letter from Kryschak in the office of the Accused to von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry, dated 6 September 1944. The subject is the Jew Heinz Lewin. It says:

“The Jew Lewin was formerly a German citizen and became stateless on the basis of Regulation 11 under the Reich Citizenship Law. As a matter of fact, when he was arrested at the beginning of this year, because he was using false identity papers and had not been wearing the Jewish Star, he himself said that he was stateless. Thereupon he was deported to the East. His present whereabouts are not known here. As for the nationality certificate issued by the Consulate General of St. Salvador in Geneva, this is obviously a so-called ‘courtesy passport’.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/788.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, with the permission of the Court, before I complete the chapter of the documents from Germany, I intend to submit a sworn declaration, document No. 455, which was given by Rudolf Emil Brand.

But I want to say at once that if this document is not before Counsel for the Defence, and if he perhaps wishes to have its submission postponed until he has had a chance to look at it more closely – he has it in his office, I do not know whether he has it with him at this moment – I am prepared to defer its submission. I had thought that I would thereby complete the documentation about Germany.

Dr. Servatius: It may be that the document is in my file, but we did not know that it will be submitted today, and I should be grateful if it were to be submitted at the next session.

Presiding Judge: Alright, we shall postpone this.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court, I now turn to a number of documents dealing with the setting up and management of the Bergen-Belsen camp, following the exchange of letters I submitted this morning.

The first document I wish to submit is No. 1592. It is a secret note by von Thadden, dated 12 June 1943, and it is of interest because it reports the view of a colleague of the Accused, a man named Oberregierungsrat Kroening from the Aliens’ Police Department of the Head Office for Reich Security. Kroening has informed von Thadden of the Foreign Ministry in the strictest secrecy how people from the Head Office for Reich Security intend to set up the camp which is intended for 30,000 Jews who have to be kept for the purpose of exchange against German citizens.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/789.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court’s permission, I should only like to quote two sentences from this interesting document. His confidant had been informed – writes von Thadden – that these Jews would not be made to work so hard that thereby they would perish (“dass sie dabei draufgingen“), but after looking at the programme under preparation for the camp regulations, it was his impression  that they would be very harshly dealt with, to say the least. At the end, von Thadden asks that the source of this information be kept strictly secret.

Judge Halevi: How do we know who Kroening is?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We know Kroening from the organization chart of the Head Office for Reich Security. He is quite a well-known personality and had a fairly high grade. He was, in fact, in charge of the Aliens’ Police, and in this capacity he was interested in those Jews, because the subject discussed was the reception of alien Jews into this camp, not of Jews of the Reich.

Judge Halevi: But where is the connection with the Accused?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is no direct connection with the Accused. The interesting point here is that Kroening does not go to the Accused, but goes secretly, clandestinely in fact, and tells von Thadden: “Look what is being planned here in the course of implementing a proposal that came from you.” The idea of Bergen-Belsen came from the Foreign Ministry, not from the Accused.

I pass on to document No. 1418. On 12 August 1943, von Thadden of the Foreign Ministry reports to Eichmann about his visit to Bergen-Belsen. As we know, the location of the Bergen-Belsen camp was not proposed by the Foreign Ministry, the location was proposed by the police; however, the plan was that of the Foreign Ministry. Von Thadden says, inter alia:

“The Foreign Ministry had requested that a fairly large  number of Jews be held in readiness in a camp, for possible exchange against civilian internees in enemy states. It had been envisaged that, in the first instance, Jews having special connections abroad would be chosen for this purpose, for whose exchange there might therefore be an interest in the enemy states. For the accommodation of these Jews, the Head Office for Reich Security has envisaged the Bergen-Belsen camp. However, a visit to the camp has shown the following…”

And now he reports in brief about his impressions and says that the absorptive capacity of the camp in its present state is only 3,000 persons, etc. Further on he says, and I quote one passage:

“…The Jews will unavoidably come to know the fact that, as the Camp Commander mentioned during the inspection in the (adjoining) camp for Russian prisoners of war – which is a tuberculosis station – 17,000 out of 18,000 inmates have already died. Under these circumstances, the Jews will actually be provided with material suitable for atrocity propaganda abroad.”

“From this point of view also, the immediate evacuation of the Russians from that concentration camp is urgently indicated. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that both the Camp Commander and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Seidel, who is in charge of the group of Jews at present housed in this camp, are quite aware of its serious weaknesses and shortcomings and are trying to provide solutions within the means at their disposal.”

Presiding Judge: This will be T/790.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 550, again a note by von Thadden, directed to Weizsaecker, his immediate superior. He reports about a press conference, during which it was suggested that Red Cross representatives should visit Bergen-Belsen, in order to satisfy themselves that the arrangements are indeed satisfactory.

Presiding Judge: Theresienstadt is also mentioned here. Is this relevant?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The document is dated 7 October 1944. That was several months after the first visit of the Red Cross to Theresienstadt, which took place in June 1944. At the end of the document, a similar visit to Bergen-Belsen is mentioned, and there is a request to submit the matter to Weizsaecker, in order to find out whether the Foreign Ministry has any special interest in a visit to Bergen-Belsen, and here it is pointed out that in both these cases there will presumably be serious objections to the proposed visit on the part of the Head Office for Reich Security.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/791.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, document No. 766.

Judge Halevi: Who signed this minute? (the previous document).

State Attorney Bar-Or: We can see at the top of the document: “Jr. Inland Ref. LR I Kl. v. Thadden.”

Judge Halevi: Who says that he was in Bergen-Belsen not long ago and found there the same conditions as in Theresienstadt?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We know exactly who he is, Your Honour. A few minutes ago I submitted von Thadden’s report to Eichmann, in which he dwells on his visit in Bergen-Belsen. That was document No. 1418, T/790. Von Thadden knew the situation in Bergen-Belsen precisely.

I move on to document No. 766. This, too, was a minute by von Thadden intended for the Foreign Minister and dated 12 October. It deals with a request by von Otter of the Swedish legation in Berlin who was trying to obtain permission to emigrate to Sweden for two children by the name of Bondi.

I only wish to draw your attention to the two last paragraphs, on page 4 of the document, where he says that “the Head Office for Reich Security refuses to enter into any discussion about these cases, as the competent specialist informed me, because, in accordance with the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Jews who have already been confined to a ghetto must not be released.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/792.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 688 also refers, inter alia, to the Bergen-Belsen camp. It is a letter from the Accused to von Thadden, dated 18 January 1945. It should be said in parenthesis that this is the latest document to reach us which bears the signature of the Accused. This was already after he returned from Hungary on 24 December 1944. Here the subject is a Jew who had been sent to Bergen-Belsen from Salonika.

Eichmann says that his body was cremated and the ashes were buried in Bergen-Belsen. No will was found. It seems that the authorities protecting this Jew approached Eichmann through the intermediary of von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry, in order to clarify what happened to this Jew. His estate, so it says here, passed to his sons who are in the Aufenthaltslager (sojourn camp) Bergen-Belsen. The death certificate is enclosed. Eichmann suggests that suitable information should be given to the vice-consul on this matter.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/793.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We shall hear about the situation in the camp immediately after its liberation by the British army from a witness whom I shall call at a later date.

Now I proceed, with the Court’s permission, to the chapter of Austria. First I shall submit the “Second Decree about the German Citizenship in the Region of Austria (im Lande Oesterreich) of 30 June 1939,” our document No. 1610. The meaning of this decree, which was signed by Frick, the Minister for the Interior, on 30 June 1939, was, in effect, the application of most of the orders in force in Germany at that time to the territory of Austria.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/794.

State Attorney Bar-Or: As regards the Austrian chapter before the War, the Court is already familiar with the minutes drawn up by Dr. Loewenherz, of which the original had to go to the Zentralstelle, and the copies were kept. I should like to submit several of these minutes, insofar as they concern the period under discussion.

Presiding Judge: Did we not receive all of them in the volumes which have been submitted?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We have received the report of Dr. Loewenherz, Your Honour. I dealt with that report only up to a certain time, and I shall still return to it, but I do  not think that the Court has received all the minutes. These minutes are not bound, they are, each one of them, a separate document.

No.1136 is signed by Dr. Loewenherz, a memo about a conversation he had with Brunner. This is the same Stillhaltekommisar (Interim Commissioner) Brunner who was eventually transferred and became head of the Zentralstelle fuer juedische Auswanderung (Central Office for Jewish Emigration) in Vienna, until the end of the deportation of the Jews from Vienna. This minute is dated 28 October 1939. The Accused is mentioned in connection with instructions that from the Hachshara places 500 to 600 persons are to be sent to Palestine, but the rest have to be included in the transports to Poland.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/795.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next minute, No. 1137, is also signed by Dr. Loewenherz. It is a memo about a visit by Loewenherz to the Accused. He says that the Accused accepted a report from him and authorized him, Loewenherz, to negotiate with Troper on the basis of this report. He also said he was prepared to refrain from sending transports from Austria to Poland if the Joint Distribution Committee would declare itself ready to provide the Jewish Community in Vienna with foreign currency until the end of 1940.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/796.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to No. 1138, a memo by Dr. Engel of the Vienna Community about his conversation with Eichmann on 11 December 1939. He also writes about information received from Eichmann by telephone that all the males (living in a certain hostel) have to obtain exit visas, otherwise they will be sent to Buchenwald.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/797.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to No. 1139, a memo by Dr. Loewenherz about his visit to Eichmann’s offices in Berlin, Kurfuerstenstrasse 116, on 19 December 1939. Among other things, it says here that Eichmann expressed appreciation for the achievements of the Community, on the assumption that the above-mentioned conditions would be fulfilled, and declared that there would be no further transports from Austria to Poland.

Previous | Index | Next