The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Is there a precedence for that?

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Halevi: What do the films contain?

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

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

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

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

Judge Halevi: Where do these films come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This is a sort of vicious circle.

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

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

Attorney General: Yes.

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

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: He begins his statement with the words “I know that a specially appointed Standartenfuehrer,” he calls him Standartenfuehrer “named Eichmann dealt with the implementation of the measures against the Jews in the headquarters of the SIPO (Security Police), and that the instructions about the treatment of the Jews were passed on through him.” At the end, in the last paragraph, he mentions the camp in Sabac, about which we heard this morning. However, this witness does not know details.

Judge Halevi: Excuse me, in connection with the previous document: Mueller, who is mentioned there, is he not the same Mueller who was head of the Gestapo?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is the Mueller who was the superior of the Accused. It says here: “Diese Meinung hatMueller, der Gruppenfuehrer in Hauptstab der SIPO in Berlin …” (this is the opinion of Mueller, the Gruppenfuehrer in the headquarters of the SIPO in Berlin). There is no doubt that he was the superior of the Accused.

I go on to document No. 1437.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/895.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The importance of this testimony (by Teichmann) lies in the last passage on page 2. He speaks about the Sajmiste camp there. He knows that it was used for military purposes at the time of the operation on the Kozara. Later on the camp was used for housing Jews, whose concentration was ordered by the military administration and implemented by German and Serbian police. The Jews arrived in the camp in the autumn of 1941, and he says:

“Among the measures taken against the Jews in the camp itself, I do not remember that great numbers were shot in the course of reprisal executions; on the other hand, I know that part of them were transported to the Eastern zones, to the area of Lodz, and part were suffocated in gas chambers. I estimate the number of Jews killed by gassing in Sajmiste camp at 7,000 persons, taking into consideration that part had already left.”

This is not a reference to gas chambers. We know from other evidence that gas vans were sent to Serbia by the Germans, and that these were taken into the camps, and it is about these that he speaks here. The 7,000 killed by gas were killed in gas vans in Serbia. They had been brought to Serbia from the East.

Presiding Judge: Do we have other evidence about these vans? Has it already been submitted?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. If it was not submitted in the chapter dealing with the Einsatzgruppen, it will still be submitted. There is evidence independent of this testimony that five such vans were indeed sent to Serbia.

And now the examination of the SS and Polizeifuehrer, August Meisner, document No. 1435.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/896.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Here I should like to base myself on the last part of the document, Fortsetzung der Vernehmung (continuation of the interrogation), and I should like to draw your attention to certain sentences. He says here in the continuation of his interrogation:

“At the time when I was appointed Commander of the Police, there existed a section for Jews within the framework of the BdS, and I know that this section implemented the legal instructions about the procedure against the Jews, i.e., that it arrested the Jews.”

Then he goes on to testify:

“For the treatment of the Jews, the BdS received orders directly from Berlin from the head office of the SIPO. The BdS informed me in general terms about all the instructions given, so that I was informed about how one had to deal with the Jews.”

This passage is interesting: He is the Senior Commander of the SS and the Police, directly subject to the authority of the Reichsfuehrer SS, it is true, but, where the treatment of the Jews is concerned, he receives information about instructions given by the office of the Accused – not from the head office, but through the BdS, who is of course one of his subordinates. He mentions Schefer, whom we shall meet again, who was in the top echelon of the BdS. He also mentions Teichmann and Weimann from among the senior assistants of the BdS.

The most important part is what comes next. He says:

“I know that Schefer informed me, I believe in 1942, that a special unit with a gas van had arrived in Sajmiste from Berlin, and that its task was to gas only Jews. The vehicle was used for two months or thereabouts, and in it Jews were killed by suffocation. Schefer and the so-called special unit were under strict orders to kill only Jews in the gas van. When the van with the gas chamber left Sajmiste, there were no Jews left there, as all of them had been liquidated in this way.”

It should perhaps be said in parenthesis that some of these officers sometimes put forward the peculiar defence abroad, not only in Yugoslavia, that they had only killed Jews, a defence which of course generally did not help them.

I should like to direct your attention also to the end, where he says:

“I also learned from Schefer that in 1943 a special unit for the burning of bodies arrived, which had the task of burning bodies from mass graves. I do not exactly know the reason for this, but I assume that at that time, in the course of what he calls ‘the Katyn campaign,’ they wanted to remove all traces of mass murder. I do not know the numbers of bodies which were burned for this reason, but I assume that Schefer (of the BdS) took note of them…”

And finally, document No. 1493, Aleksander Benak. Here I shall refrain from giving details. Here we have a good description by one of the Ustashi about their methods of operating in Croatia in cooperation with the Germans.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/897.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now some documents about Croatia and Slovenia, mostly Slovenia, after the German occupation. First, document No. 423.

Presiding Judge: Was Slovenia an Italian occupied area?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Slovenian part was under Italian occupation.

Presiding Judge: As we heard?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: All of Slovenia?

State Attorney Bar-Or: What is called “Untersteiermark” (Lower Styria). They reverted to the old imperial Austrian name of that region, and this was under German occupation. We shall find documents about the activities of the Accused and his assistants, mainly in Untersteiermark. The Court may remember letters sent to Marburg – this is not Marburg in Germany, it is the capital of Untersteiermark, and it was part of the Great Reich just like Austria, not an occupied area. This document was shown to the Accused and was numbered T/37(162).

A letter from Heydrich to the Minister of Finance under the marking IVB4(neu) (new). We shall find this marking on a number of documents – it appears after the change-over from IVD4 to IVB4. The date of this letter is 21 April 1941. The Accused speaks about this document on page 2046 ff.

Heydrich writes:

“…in accordance with an order from the Fuehrer, the settlement of the ethnic question in the areas newly added to the Reich in the South East has to be undertaken immediately. This is mainly a matter of evacuating the Slovenes from those areas to Serbia.

“According to provisional figures, some 260,000 Slovenes are eligible for this purpose. In order to discuss all questions and difficulties arising in the course of implementing these tasks, especially those regarding transport, I have called a meeting for 6 May 1941 at 10.30 a.m. in Marburg.”

A meeting in which the Accused took part.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/898.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we shall proceed to document No. 1080, a telegram from the Accused, following these activities, under the marking RSHA, Berlin IVB4, dated 26 April 1941, to the representative of the office of the BdS in Untersteiermark. It says that “Ulrich from the SD in Posen cannot be spared. As commandant for the camp that is to be established, a suitable official from the Regional Headquarters of the Security Police in Graz who is assigned to Section III of the relocation staff must be made available.” Signed – Eichmann, SS Sturmbannfuehrer.

Presiding Judge: That is to say that he dealt with the uprooting of populations at that time?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, this is correct, Your Honour. This is actually a somewhat later period. He started operations of uprooting populations under IVD4. The Court will remember that on matters of evacuation he continued also when it became IVB4. Together with the concentrated attention on the Jewish Question, he is still in charge of evacuation operations. Here it is a matter of deporting Christian Slovenes from the area which has been transferred to the Reich.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/899.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now I shall go on to document No. 1079, a number of Regulations, or rather announcements, by the assistants of the Accused in Marburg, Untersteiermark, addressed to the Accused. We shall find here, for instance, Dr. Seidl, whom we know later from Theresienstadt, as well as SS Standartenfuehrer Lurker.

We should also mention Dr. Fuchs, whose testimony we have just seen, and Abromeit from the office of the Accused. There are several announcements here about the expulsion of Slovenes to the Serbian and Croatian parts of Yugoslavia, out of the Yugoslav area which has been annexed to the Reich, out of Steiermark.

I shall not tire you with the details in each of these documents. For each transport there is a detailed account of how many Slovenes were deported. Occasionally there is one Jew, occasionally one Gypsy. For instance, the letter of 20 June 1941 mentions 300 persons, including 298 Slovenes, and one Jew – as well as one Gypsy – was also included and expelled; furthermore, the amount of bread sent along, how much jam, etc.

Presiding Judge: Since you are mentioning this, you might also add “two bottles of Slivovitz for the accompanying doctor.”

State Attorney Bar-Or: Sometimes expelled Slovene clergymen are also included in these transports. I draw special attention to Dr. Seidl’s letter to Section IVB4, attention Eichmann, of 7 June 1941. Here it is mentioned that SS Sturmbannfuehrer Hoeppner is on the deportation train on his way to its destination. The office of Dr. Fuchs has to be informed immediately by radio that Dr. Hoeppner will arrive at the final station on deportation train I. Reference must be made in the telegram to be sent to the assignment of Hoeppner and of Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey. In brackets it says: “The last paragraph on instruction of Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.”

I should also like to direct attention to the letter of Standartenfuehrer Lurker, dated 18 July 1941 from Marburg to the Accused. He reports that transport No. 20 left Marburg on 18 July 1941 for Slavonska Poz and says that there are 422 Slovenes on it, among them one priest and 28 Carmelite nuns. Also 1,000 kilogrammes of bread. The Slovenes have taken dinars with them – that appears in each report – and he asks that the office of Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Fuchs be informed about the departure of deportation train No. 20.

In the various reports, one clergyman or another is mentioned occasionally. Here I have drawn attention to it, because a larger number of nuns has been included in this transport of Slovenes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/900.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With your permission, I now go on to document No. 1093, a letter on the same subject, dated 23 June 1941, from Lurker to the Accused. Here we learn that there was also strict customs control at the transit points into the Yugoslav areas.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/901.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now document No. 558, which brings us to Croatia proper. It is a Vortragsnotiz (note in preparation for oral reporting) to the Foreign Minister, signed by Luther on 24 July 1942. He says, inter alia, that the question of the attitude of the Italian Government towards measures against the Jews was again brought up in Agram, where it was particularly acute because of the current preparations for the expulsion of the Jews.

Further on he says that the expulsion can only be carried out with German help, since difficulties are to be expected from the Italians. He mentions that the Italian Chief of Staff in Mostar has declared that he could not agree to the expulsion, since all inhabitants of Mostar had been assured equal treatment.

The Inspector General for the German Roads Administration (O.T.) had also reported about this. The Italian Chief of Staff had told him that it was “incompatible with the honour of the Italian army to take special measures against the Jews, such as those demanded by the O.T. for the purpose of vacating homes for their own urgent needs.”

Presiding Judge: What is O.T.?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is the big work organization Organisation Todt.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/902.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 87, a letter from Klingenfuss of the Foreign Ministry to the Head Office for Reich Security dated 16 October 1942, which quotes a telegram from the German legation in Zagreb. It says, inter alia, that preparations for the expulsion of the Jews from the territories occupied by the Italians are made by the police attache through the secret seizure of all the Jews. The legation requests that the Head Office for Reich Security be informed of this.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/903.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 661 is a telegram from Kasche, the German Minister in Zagreb, to the Foreign Ministry, together with a handwritten draft (of a covering note) by Rademacher, with which he transmits the text of the telegram to the Accused, IVB4, in November 1942.

The telegram itself from Agram is dated 20 November, and it says that a reliable rumour has come from Mostar and Dubrovnik that the concentration of Jews was being made under German pressure. The Italians, it says further, intend to concentrate the Jews on several islands.

In the opinion of the Italians, the implementation of the measures is a delicate matter because the Jews in America, who are assisting the Jews here (in Dalmatia) financially, have to be taken into consideration. Any interference by the Croats, or their participation in the implementation or in the seizure of Jewish property, is also being refused by the Italians. And Kasche of course asks that the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, be informed of this.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/904.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall now go on to document No. 1046. On 6 December 1942 Klingenfuss passes on to the Accused a telegram received in the Foreign Ministry from Zagreb, dated 4 December 1942. Kasche in Zagreb requests of course also in this case that the contents of his telegram be brought to the attention of the RSHA, IVB4. It is again about the expulsion of Jews from the Mostar area in November 1942.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/905.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1047, again a telegram from Minister Kasche in Zagreb to the Foreign Ministry with the request that IVB4 be informed, in which he says that “the Italians have taken all the Jews who have arrived from Dubrovnik and from places in Herzegovina and transferred them to the islands of Lopud and Brac and to the Kupari hotel. Kupari belongs to the Protectorate.”

He says further: “The Italians have refused the use of the Kupari hotel for German soldiers in need of recuperation. Jews who are local residents were allowed to remain in Dubrovnik. The Italians made numerous exceptions at the time of the deportation. Good-looking Jewesses and well-to-do Jews were allowed to stay behind.” This apparently angered Kasche, and he asks that the Accused be informed about it.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/906.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1081, a letter from SS Sturmbannfuehrer Helm to the Chief Administration of Croatia. At the top we find that a copy of this document was sent to RSHA IVB4, for the attention of the Accused.

It says here, in paragraph 1: “Implementation of an immediate operation for the complete freeing of Croatia of wholly-Jewish elements, without consideration of age, sex, as well as religious adherence.” The writer refers in the letter to a conversation with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit from the office of the Accused on 19 January 1943.

In paragraph 8 Helm writes that “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit takes full responsibility for the immediate deportation of the Jews from the Stara-Gradiska camp, once the inmates have been registered by lists. The deportation train will be made available by the German Reich Railways at the initiative of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/907.

Can we still finish these documents? If not, we shall stop here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I thought I would finish the file this morning. But it is not a matter of two or three documents.

Presiding Judge: I adjourn the Session here. As I have announced, the next Session will take place next Monday, at 15.30. This Session is closed.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. When did you receive this letter?

A. We received the letter at the end of 1943.

Q. Who received it?

A. The mother of an acquaintance, a woman who lives here, alone, today. She received the letter from her daughter; what was called a “black” letter, not through the official mail. She had an opportunity to send the letter from there, and thus we knew already what was going on. When I objected, one of my acquaintances in the management told me: “You do not have to go, they cannot do this, six hours before the departure of the transport they put you in – but what will happen in another week? You will be in the East, and you know what that means.”

Q. Did you meet your wife in the end?

A. My wife remained in Theresienstadt until the end of the War, until I came back.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Engelstein, you have
concluded your evidence.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court, I shall now deal with the chapter of Yugoslavia. It is divided into different parts. Not all of Yugoslavia was treated in the same way, and I shall attempt to deal with each part separately, in accordance with the chronological order.

First, document No. 1043, a letter from the Accused, dated 25 April 1940. He still signs under IVD4, and again there is the additional marking 2(RS), the Reichszentrale (Reich Centre). He writes to Schumburg at the Foreign Ministry on the subject of illegal border crossings into Yugoslavia by German Jews, and he says:

“State police measures have been taken against various persons who made preparations for illegal crossings by Jews into Yugoslavia for reasons of material gain, and who assisted in the crossing. From time to time Jews are returned over the border by Yugoslav authorities.

Official delivery of Jews by Yugoslav authorities has  not taken place so far. The Jews who are returned in this way are made to emigrate in the normal way as quickly as possible.”

This letter was written before the entry of the Germans into Yugoslovia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/867.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We go on to document No. 1042, a letter from the German legation in Belgrade, addressed to the Foreign Ministry and dated 26 October 1940. It reports about the exclusion of Jews in Yugoslavia from the wholesale trade in foodstuffs. Already then, on 26 October 1940, the Foreign Ministry transmits to the Accused a copy of that report which it had received. This is a further document in Rademacher’s handwriting, which is attached to the report from the German leagtion.

Presiding Judge: Where is this Banschaft?

A. This is apparently the district administration in Neusatz. We find this expression also when the Germans enter Hungary. I think that all these are terms used by the Austro-Hungarian government before 1918 which are all known from that period only.

Presiding Judge: This is not a geographic term, only a district?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/868.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1339. We are now after the beginning of the occupation, we are already on 11 May 1941. It is a letter from the military commander to the head of the operational group of the Security Police and the Security Service, Standartenfuehrer Fuchs. Here we shall also now meet the Einsatzkommando. He says:

“On Wednesday, 14 May 1941, at 16.30 o’clock, a consultation on Jewish affairs will be held in the small conference room of the Parliament Building, under the chairmanship of the Military Commander. The Military Commander requests you to participate and to prepare for a discussion of the afore-mentioned questions.”

The people of the operational group were, of course, experts on the Jewish Question, which was not really a military one.

Presiding Judge: Did they operate in Yugoslavia as well?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We shall immediately submit the organization chart of the Einsatzgruppen – they bear the same name here. The reference is not really to those groups. But an organization similar to that in the East is also found here in Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/869.

Judge Raveh: I regret that I have to revert once more to document No. 1042. A new address is mentioned in it, the “Antisemitische Aktion” – what is this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Foreign Ministry transmits the report from the German legation in Belgrade not only to the Accused, but also to the Antisemitische Aktion (Antisemitic Action) in Berlin. It seems to me that this was the organ of the Party in Berlin which dealt with questions of European Jewry in general. We must not forget that at that time there is as yet no German regime in Belgrade; Belgrade is not yet in a state of war. The Foreign Ministry informs  them about what is being done in this field, and what is being planned. Here, the Jews are being excluded from economic life.

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that this is an institution of the Party?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct. As far as I know, this was not part of the government, but only of the Party.

I come to document No. 642, a letter from Benzler, the Minister in Belgrade, to the Party, dated 8 September 1941. We find that two persons sign here under the heading “Secret Reich Matter” – Veesenmayer, whom we shall meet again, and Benzler. The telegram sent says:

“Jews have demonstrably been found to be accomplices in numerous acts of sabotage and riot. It is therefore urgent to see to the rounding up and removal of at least all male Jews. The number in question could be around 8,000.”

And further on:

“It seems advisable to remove these Jews from the country as speedily as possible, i.e., in empty freight barges down the Danube, to be unloaded on Romanian soil or on an island in the Danube delta.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/870.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We pass on to document No. 643. Here we have a note by Sonnleithner of Foreign Minister Ribbentrop’s bureau, which refers to this telegram which I have just submitted and says:

“Concerning the transfer of 8,000 Jews from Serbia to the territory of Romania, the Foreign Minister has indicated that such a measure cannot be taken without the agreement of the Romanians, and that another way would have to be found to get rid of these Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/871.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Still on the same subject, document No. 644, a telegram from Luther of the Foreign Ministry, dated 11 September 1941, which says:

“The deportation of Jews to the territory of a foreign state cannot be approved. A solution of the Jewish Question will not be achieved in this way. It is left to your discretion to detain the Jews in work camps and to employ them on essential public works.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/872.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Matters are not arranged so quickly, at any rate not to the satisfaction of the representatives of the Reich in Belgrade. Hence document No. 645, a telegram, dated 10 September 1941, from Veesenmayer and Benzler to the Foreign Ministry.

Incidentally, it is perhaps worthwhile mentioning that Benzler was the permanent Ambassador of the Reich, whereas Veesenmayer appears here as roving ambassador, who is temporarily attached to the work of the legation in Belgrade. In the telegram it says that

“Quick and draconic settlement of the Serbian Jewish Question is a most urgent and practical need. Request suitable orders from the Foreign Minister, in order to be able to intervene with extreme emphasis vis-a-vis Military Commander of Serbia.

No resistance is to be expected from Serbian government and population, especially since partial measures taken so far have proved most successful. Identical orders from Reichsfuehrer SS to Chief of Special Operations Group of Security Police and Security Service Standartenfuehrer Fuchs would expedite matter considerably.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/873.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 647. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(193). It is a letter from Benzler to the Foreign Ministry, dated 12 September 1941, in which he says:

“Housing in work camps impossible under present circumstances, as security not guaranteed. Camps for Jews impede and endanger even our troops. Thus immediate evacuation of camp of 1,200 Jews in Sabac necessary, since Sabac is battle area, and in surroundings rebellious gangs several thousand men strong identified. On the other hand, Jews contribute demonstrably in large measure to unrest in the country. After Jews were removed from Banat, especially harmful rumour-mongering stopped immediately here in Serbia.

“Deportation first of all male Jews is essential precondition for restoration of orderly conditions. Therefore urgently repeat my request. In case of renewed refusal only immediate deportation to Generalgouvernement or Russia remains, which might, however, cause considerable transport difficulties. Otherwise operation against Jews must be deferred for the time being, which contradicts the orders given me by Foreign Minister.”

I direct the attention of the Court to the remark in the margin. It says here, over Rademacher’s initials: Section III D: Please speak to the RSHA and report. Signed – Luther, 12 September. And Rademacher adds:

“In the opinion of Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, RSHA IVD4, there is no possibility to take them to Russia or to the Generalgouvernement. Even Jews from Germany cannot be accommodated there. Eichmann proposes to kill them by shooting.”

I draw the Court’s attention to the Statement of the Accused concerning this document, which begins on page 2352, and  especially to two passages on pages 2355 and 2356.

Presiding Judge: What did he say there?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall gladly read these sentences. On page 2355 he says:

“Yes, I must have apparently passed this matter on. According to what is said, that is also perfectly clear to me. Then it was apparently said: There is no choice except killing by shooting.”

In the next passage, on page 2356, he says:

“Yes, certainly. So I just want to add this for the sake of clarity, although it should actually be superfluous: It was not I who gave this order to kill by shooting on my initiative, but like all such matters, I dealt with it through official channels, and the reply from my superiors was: Kill by shooting.”

The Accused could find no rest after he was interrogated on this matter, and on 14 September 1960, he wishes to say more regarding the document. The additions begin on page 2417 in his Statement. He mainly expresses his astonishment at the strange minute which, in his opinion, was not an ordinary minute that one would write down as laconically as Rademacher had done.

Rademacher was interrogated about this subject in Nuremberg. The letter was shown to him, and he made a statement, which he wrote himself, before an interrogator on behalf of the American authorities by the name of Dr. Max Mandellaub, Prosecutor on behalf of the American authorities. I should like to submit a photocopy of this statement, together with a written declaration by Dr. Max Mandellaub, contained in document No. 1244.

This written declaration actually reproduces, word by word, these exhibits, which were documents of the N.G. in Nuremberg. Dr. Mandellaub says here that when he had asked Rademacher: “Give an explanation for this,” there followed a lengthy discussion. In the end this lengthy discussion was put on paper by Rademacher, and this document contains everything that he added on this subject.

There are other matters here, which are connected with Trial No. 11, in which all this formed part of the Wilhelmstrasse Case, and these are of no interest to us. Of interest to us is mainly the last passage on page 3 of Rademacher’s Statement, a general description of the functions of the Foreign Ministry as against the functions of the Accused.

This was explained in concise form by Rademacher on the last page of our document. It should be mentioned that this was written by Rademacher in Nuremberg on 26 July 1948. The trial was the last one of the Supplementary Trials, No. 11, which brought to an end the American Military Trials in Nuremberg. Rademacher himself was put on trial in Germany.

Judge Halevi: By whom?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He was put on trial by a German court, was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, if I am not mistaken, was released on bail until sentence – and escaped before the punishment could be carried out. We do not know his whereabouts today. There are various rumours, but I can say nothing definite about him.

I should just like to add two points, in order to support my request that this document be accepted at the present stage. First, the document is of no small value for the Accused also. The simple words “Eichmann proposes” find their place against a certain background of events in Belgrade which I can only demonstrate in this document. I hope that, for this reason, there will be no strong objection on the part of the Defence to the submission of the document in accordance with Section 15.

The Court is certainly familiar with Rademacher and his cooperation with the Accused, and I think that it appreciates the probative value inherent in this statement of his. It therefore seems to me that this document deserves to be accepted on the basis of the special power of the Court, and I request that this be done.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection. I shall express my  opinion as to the value of the document at a later stage.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 40

We decide to accept the statement by Rademacher by virtue of Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

This document No. will be marked T/875.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour. The Court will perhaps permit me to read two short passages from the document. One is the penultimate passage on page 3, which says:

“I was called for 13 September in order to give my report concerning BLTS/ 3552 based on Luther’s note of 12 September” – the one which I already quoted before the Court from the previous document. “I still remember exactly,” says Rademacher, “that I was sitting opposite him when I telephoned the Head Office for Reich Security, and that I wrote down key words from Eichmann’s reply and passed them over to Luther during the telephone conversation. Eichmann said words to the effect that the army was responsible for order in Serbia, and that it would just have to kill rebellious Jews by shooting. In reply to my further question, he repeated simply: ‘Kill by shooting’ and hung up” (i.e., hung up the receiver).”

On the last page it says:

“In addition to the German Section (Referat), Luther headed the Special Section, i.e., the reorganization of the Foreign Ministry. In this position Luther was directly responsible to Ribbentrop as the liaison with the Ministry of Propaganda. I should like to point out that the German Section – as distinct from other sections in the Foreign Ministry – was not only a liaison office with various civilian agencies, but that it was the section which had the real authority over the various functions mentioned above.

For instance, it was generally responsible for Jewish questions, with the exception of matters having economic or propaganda character. These belonged to what was called the Central Authority for Jewish Emigration.

“The authority for German Jewish policy in Europe as such was, in accordance with a decree by the Fuehrer (Fuehrererlass), Eichmann’s section in the Head Office for Reich Security alone. The Foreign Ministry could only submit objections to this section, if they were based on foreign policy considerations, and if the objections in individual cases were well founded. I myself worked in Section D III from the beginning of 1940 until the beginning of 1943.”

Presiding Judge: We will stop now. As I announced yesterday, we shall begin tomorrow at 8.30 and finish at 12.30.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. When did you receive this letter?

A. We received the letter at the end of 1943.

Q. Who received it?

A. The mother of an acquaintance, a woman who lives here, alone, today. She received the letter from her daughter; what was called a “black” letter, not through the officialmail. She had an opportunity to send the letter from there, and thus we knew already what was going on. When I objected, one of my acquaintances in the management told me: “You do not have to go, they cannot do this, six hours before the departure of the transport they put you in – but what will happen in another week? You will be in the East, and you know what that means.”

Q. Did you meet your wife in the end?

A. My wife remained in Theresienstadt until the end of the War, until I came back.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Engelstein, you have
concluded your evidence.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court, I shall now deal with the chapter of Yugoslavia. It is divided into different parts. Not all of Yugoslavia was treated in the same way, and I shall attempt to deal with each part separately, in accordance with the chronological order.

First, document No. 1043, a letter from the Accused, dated 25 April 1940. He still signs under IVD4, and again there is the additional marking 2(RS), the Reichszentrale (Reich Centre). He writes to Schumburg at the Foreign Ministry on the subject of illegal border crossings into Yugoslavia by German Jews, and he says:

“State police measures have been taken against various persons who made preparations for illegal crossings by Jews into Yugoslavia for reasons of material gain, and who assisted in the crossing. From time to time Jews are returned over the border by Yugoslav authorities. Official delivery of Jews by Yugoslav authorities has not taken place so far. The Jews who are returned in this way are made to emigrate in the normal way as quickly as possible.”

This letter was written before the entry of the Germans into Yugoslovia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/867.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We go on to document No. 1042, a letter from the German legation in Belgrade, addressed to the Foreign Ministry and dated 26 October 1940. It reports about the exclusion of Jews in Yugoslavia from the wholesale trade in foodstuffs. Already then, on 26 October 1940, the Foreign Ministry transmits to the Accused a copy of that report which it had received. This is a further document in Rademacher’s handwriting, which is attached to the report from the German leagtion.

Presiding Judge: Where is this Banschaft?

A. This is apparently the district administration in Neusatz. We find this expression also when the Germans enter Hungary. I think that all these are terms used by the Austro-Hungarian government before 1918 which are all known from that period only.

Presiding Judge: This is not a geographic term, only a district?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/868.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1339. We are now after the beginning of the occupation, we are already on 11 May 1941. It is a letter from the military commander to the head of the operational group of the Security Police and the Security Service, Standartenfuehrer Fuchs. Here we shall also now meet the Einsatzkommando. He
says:

“On Wednesday, 14 May 1941, at 16.30 o’clock, a consultation on Jewish affairs will be held in the small conference room of the Parliament Building, under the chairmanship of the Military Commander. The Military Commander requests you to participate and to prepare for a discussion of the afore-mentioned questions.”

The people of the operational group were, of course, experts on the Jewish Question, which was not really a military one.

Presiding Judge: Did they operate in Yugoslavia as well?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We shall immediately submit the organization chart of the Einsatzgruppen – they bear the same name here. The reference is not really to those groups. But an organization similar to that in the East is also found here in Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/869.

Judge Raveh: I regret that I have to revert once more to document No. 1042. A new address is mentioned in it, the “Antisemitische Aktion” – what is this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Foreign Ministry transmits the  report from the German legation in Belgrade not only to the Accused, but also to the Antisemitische Aktion (Antisemitic Action) in Berlin. It seems to me that this was the organ of the Party in Berlin which dealt with questions of European Jewry in general. We must not forget that at that time there is as yet no German regime in Belgrade; Belgrade is not yet in a state of war. The Foreign Ministry informs them about what is being done in this field, and what is being planned. Here, the Jews are being excluded from economic life.

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that this is an institution of the Party?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct. As far as I know, this was not part of the government, but only of the Party.

I come to document No. 642, a letter from Benzler, the Minister in Belgrade, to the Party, dated 8 September 1941. We find that two persons sign here under the heading “Secret Reich Matter” – Veesenmayer, whom we shall meet again, and Benzler. The telegram sent says:

“Jews have demonstrably been found to be accomplices in numerous acts of sabotage and riot. It is therefore urgent to see to the rounding up and removal of at least all male Jews. The number in question could be around 8,000.”

And further on:

“It seems advisable to remove these Jews from the country as speedily as possible, i.e., in empty freight barges down the Danube, to be unloaded on Romanian soil or on an island in the Danube delta.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/870.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We pass on to document No. 643. Here we have a note by Sonnleithner of Foreign Minister Ribbentrop’s bureau, which refers to this telegram which I have just submitted and says:

“Concerning the transfer of 8,000 Jews from Serbia to the territory of Romania, the Foreign Minister has indicated that such a measure cannot be taken without the agreement of the Romanians, and that another way would have to be found to get rid of these Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/871.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Still on the same subject, document No. 644, a telegram from Luther of the Foreign Ministry, dated 11 September 1941, which says:

“The deportation of Jews to the territory of a foreign state cannot be approved. A solution of the Jewish Question will not be achieved in this way. It is left to your discretion to detain the Jews in work camps and to employ them on essential public works.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/872.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Matters are not arranged so quickly, at any rate not to the satisfaction of the representatives of the Reich in Belgrade. Hence document No. 645, a telegram, dated 10 September 1941, from Veesenmayer and Benzler to the Foreign Ministry.

Incidentally, it is perhaps worthwhile mentioning that Benzler was the permanent Ambassador of the Reich, whereas Veesenmayer appears here as roving ambassador, who is temporarily attached to the work of the legation in Belgrade. In the telegram it says that

“Quick and draconic settlement of the Serbian Jewish Question is a most urgent and practical need. Request suitable orders from the Foreign Minister, in order to be able to intervene with extreme emphasis vis-a-vis Military Commander of Serbia.

No resistance is to be expected from Serbian government and population, especially since partial measures taken so far have proved most successful. Identical orders from Reichsfuehrer SS to Chief of Special Operations Group of Security Police and Security Service Standartenfuehrer Fuchs would expedite matter considerably.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/873.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 647. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(193). It is a letter from Benzler to the Foreign Ministry, dated 12 September 1941, in which he says:

“Housing in work camps impossible under present circumstances, as security not guaranteed. Camps for Jews impede and endanger even our troops. Thus immediate evacuation of camp of 1,200 Jews in Sabac necessary, since Sabac is battle area, and in surroundings rebellious gangs several thousand men strong identified. On the other hand, Jews contribute demonstrably in large measure to unrest in the country. After Jews were removed from Banat, especially harmful rumour-mongering stopped immediately here in Serbia.

Deportation first of all male Jews is essential precondition for restoration of orderly conditions. Therefore urgently repeat my request. In case of renewed refusal only immediate deportation to Generalgouvernement or Russia remains, which might, however, cause considerable transport difficulties. Otherwise operation against Jews must be  deferred for the time being, which contradicts the orders given me by Foreign Minister.”

I direct the attention of the Court to the remark in the margin. It says here, over Rademacher’s initials: Section III D: Please speak to the RSHA and report. Signed – Luther, 12 September. And Rademacher adds:

“In the opinion of Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, RSHA IVD4, there is no possibility to take them to Russia or to the Generalgouvernement. Even Jews from Germany cannot be accommodated there. Eichmann proposes to kill them by shooting.”

I draw the Court’s attention to the Statement of the Accused concerning this document, which begins on page 2352, and especially to two passages on pages 2355 and 2356.

Presiding Judge: What did he say there?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall gladly read these sentences. On page 2355 he says:

“Yes, I must have apparently passed this matter on. According to what is said, that is also perfectly clear to me. Then it was apparently said: There is no choice except killing by shooting.”

In the next passage, on page 2356, he says:

“Yes, certainly. So I just want to add this for the sake of clarity, although it should actually be superfluous: It was not I who gave this order to kill by shooting on my initiative, but like all such matters, I dealt with it through official channels, and the reply from my superiors was: Kill by shooting.”

The Accused could find no rest after he was interrogated on this matter, and on 14 September 1960, he wishes to say more regarding the document. The additions begin on page 2417 in his Statement. He mainly expresses his astonishment at the strange minute which, in his opinion, was not an ordinary minute that one would write down as laconically as Rademacher had done.

Rademacher was interrogated about this subject in Nuremberg. The letter was shown to him, and he made a statement, which he wrote himself, before an interrogator on behalf of the American authorities by the name of Dr. Max Mandellaub, Prosecutor on behalf of the American authorities. I should like to submit a photocopy of this statement, together with a written declaration by Dr. Max Mandellaub, contained in document No. 1244.

This written declaration actually reproduces, word by word, these exhibits, which were documents of the N.G. in Nuremberg. Dr. Mandellaub says here that when he had asked Rademacher: “Give an explanation for this,” there followed a lengthy discussion. In the end this lengthy discussion was put on paper by Rademacher, and this document contains everything that he added on this subject.

There are other matters here, which are connected with Trial No. 11, in which all this formed part of the Wilhelmstrasse Case, and these are of no interest to us. Of interest to us is mainly the last passage on page 3 of Rademacher’s Statement, a general description of the functions of the Foreign Ministry as against the functions of the Accused. This was explained in concise form by Rademacher on the last page of our document.

It should be mentioned that this was written by Rademacher in Nuremberg on 26 July 1948. The trial was the last one of the Supplementary Trials, No. 11, which brought to an end the American Military Trials in Nuremberg. Rademacher himself was put on trial in Germany.

Judge Halevi: By whom?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He was put on trial by a German court, was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, if I am not mistaken, was released on bail until sentence – and escaped before the punishment could be carried out. We do not know his whereabouts today. There are various rumours, but I can say nothing definite about him. I should just like to add two points, in order to support my request that this document be accepted at the present stage. First, the document is of no small value for the Accused also.

The simple words “Eichmann proposes” find their place against a certain background of events in Belgrade which I can only demonstrate in this document. I hope that, for this reason, there will be no strong objection on the part of the Defence to the submission of the document in accordance with Section 15.

The Court is certainly familiar with Rademacher and his cooperation with the Accused, and I think that it appreciates the probative value inherent in this statement of his. It therefore seems to me that this document deserves to be accepted on the basis of the special power of the Court, and I request that this be done.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection. I shall express my opinion as to the value of the document at a later stage.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 40

We decide to accept the statement by Rademacher by virtue of Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

This document No. will be marked T/875.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour. The Court will perhaps permit me to read two short passages from the document. One is the penultimate passage on page 3, which says:

“I was called for 13 September in order to give my report concerning BLTS/ 3552 based on Luther’s note of 12 September” – the one which I already quoted before the Court from the previous document. “I still  remember exactly,” says Rademacher, “that I was sitting opposite him when I telephoned the Head Office for Reich Security, and that I wrote down key words from Eichmann’s reply and passed them over to Luther during the telephone conversation.

Eichmann said words to the effect that the army was responsible for order in Serbia, and that it would just have to kill rebellious Jews by shooting. In reply to my further question, he repeated simply: ‘Kill by shooting’ and hung up” (i.e., hung up the receiver).”

On the last page it says:

“In addition to the German Section (Referat), Luther headed the Special Section, i.e., the reorganization of the Foreign Ministry. In this position Luther was directly responsible to Ribbentrop as the liaison with the Ministry of Propaganda. I should like to point out that the German Section – as distinct from other sections in the Foreign Ministry – was not only a liaison office with various civilian agencies, but that it was the section which had the real authority over the various functions mentioned above. For instance, it was generally responsible for Jewish questions, with the exception of matters having economic or propaganda character. These belonged to what was called the Central Authority for Jewish Emigration.

“The authority for German Jewish policy in Europe as such was, in accordance with a decree by the Fuehrer (Fuehrererlass), Eichmann’s section in the Head Office for Reich Security alone. The Foreign Ministry could only submit objections to this section, if they were based on foreign policy considerations, and if the objections in individual cases were well founded. I myself worked in Section D III from the beginning of 1940 until the beginning of 1943.”

Presiding Judge: We will stop now. As I announced yesterday, we shall begin tomorrow at 8.30 and finish at 12.30.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. I now come to the hearing of evidence in Trial No. 9, in which you, Sir, sat. There you spoke about the accused Bieberstein, Ohlendorf and Blobel. Did any of these accused allege that Eichmann was the one who caused him to perform the acts that he committed? Did he allege that in his favour, against his conviction or to mitigate his punishment?

A. They were accused of actual, premeditated murder. You mention only three – there were twenty-three. They were charged with having killed one million unarmed human beings – men, women and children; and their defence was directed along the line of exculpating themselves in the best fashion they could. Now, in that respect Ohlendorf introduced as part of his case all the testimony that Wisliceny had given in the I.M.T. trial, so that there was an attempt on the part of Ohlendorf to indicate that, to a certain extent, he was under the domination of Eichmann.

Q. Would it be correct to say that no such argument of any one of the accused was included in your judgment, and that you yourself did not mention Eichmann in your judgment by so much as one word?

A. That is true. I did not mention Eichmann in my judgment because I did not see any necessity to do so. Eichmann’s power came by speaking through Himmler and through Heydrich, so in my judgment I referred to what Heydrich did, what Himmler ordered, and I did not mention Eichmann in my judgment because Eichmann was not on trial – he was not a defendant. There was no point in…

Presiding Judge: Excuse me, Justice Musmanno, the question also was whether you mentioned any such defence on the part of any of the accused, that they had acted under orders from Eichmann or under the influence of Eichmann.

Witness Musmanno: I did not.

Dr. Servatius: Judge Musmanno, you said later that there had been a possibility of being released from these Einsatzgruppen, that a man was freely able to get out of this duty and be transferred, let us say, to another department. Do you know what the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg said on this question? I shall quote it to you:

Here it states as follows:

“Throughout the war men of the security police and the SD had no chance to clarify for themselves their position and their duty, and if there were anyone who refused to take upon himself any duty at all, mainly in the occupied zone, the matter was likely to result in heavy penalties.”

Do you concur with this determination of the facts by the International Military Tribunal?

Witness Musmanno: This is a general statement made by the I.M.T. I sat for seven months presiding over the Einsatzgruppen Trial and we took up case for case, and I told you about Erwin Schultz who refused to go along with his superior orders and asked that he might be released. And he was released by no one less than Heydrich. And not only was he released from carrying out these onerous, bloodthirsty deeds as a colonel, but later on he was even promoted to general. So, therefore, he did not suffer by refusing to obey these orders to kill in cold blood.

The same thing was true with Franz Six – and a document has been introduced along that line. The same thing was true with regard to Noske. Noske was in the East as a leader of an Einsatz-Kommando, and then returned to Germany. In Germany he was assigned to Duesseldorf and there he was ordered to kill the Jews and half-Jews.

He refused to obey the order because he felt something quite revolting from his point of view, at killing a person at one German camp. But he refused the order and nothing happened to him seriously. He was subjected to some inconvenience, but he was not even degraded; certainly he was not shot.

Ohlendorf himself stated that he could have gotten out of this assignment by simulating illness, but that he felt that he should not do that. And – well – I can give you a number of illustrations. I do not know just how far Dr. Servatius has asked me to speak on this subject…

But if there is one thing that was demonstrated in this trial of the Einsatzgruppen, it is that, if one really did not feel capable of killing in cold blood, he could be released. That was stated a number of times.

Q. You said this morning that it was possible to extricate oneself from the Einsatzgruppen. Would it not be correct for me to say that there were various ways of doing so: Either a man had good connections or he had already acquired many privileges in the course of his past work in this field, or a man could have feigned illness. But there was no possibility to declare: I object to this on principle; this is an enormous crime and I protest against it. Would you agree with me?

A. I do not agree with you, and the facts are to the contrary. There are many ways to evade performing these horrible deeds. There was one instance where a man got out of it by becoming drunk all the time.

Presiding Judge: Excuse me Justice Musmanno, the question was not about feigning all sorts of excuses, making excuses, for being excused from this service. But the point of the question was, if I understand it correctly, perhaps it did not come through in translation, that you could not say: “I object to this on principle, to killing Jews on principle, because this is a crime.” Nobody got out, or tried to get out of the Einsatzgruppen or any other service on such a ground.

Witness Musmanno: I thank you Mr. Presiding Judge for clarifying the question. Certainly in military discipline no subordinate officer or soldier could say outrightly to his superior officer: “I absolutely refuse to carry out this order!” But he could say to him, and there were many who did say that: “I am incapable of shooting anybody down in cold blood, and so I would like to be excused.” And that of course is what I had made reference to.

One of the defendants, Willi Siebert, Colonel Willi Siebert, who was in Ohlendorf’s Einsatzgruppe, began his testimony by saying that he had to obey his superior’s orders. His attorney put the question to him, Dr. Raul, that isn’t it a fact that the Kaiser once declared that if a soldier is ordered to shoot his own parents, that he must obey. And Siebert agreed with that. He said: “Yes, that is what we understand in the German Armed Forces.”

After he had made that statement, then I said to the defendant: “Let us assume that you are ordered to shoot your mother and your father. Would you shoot them?” He did not reply directly. He said: “I’ll have to think this over a while.” I said: “Take as much time as you wish.”

Then he gave some tentative, ambiguous response and he indicated that he still wanted a great deal more time to deliberate, and so I said: “We will adjourn court and you reflect on this as much as you wish and then tomorrow morning we would like to have your answer, because after all it was not the tribunal who put this question, it was your own attorney and you accepted that that was the norm and the criterion, that you had to obey superior orders regardless even if it meant killing your own parents.”

The next morning he arrived and the question was put to him. “Let us suppose a military situation where you are ordered to shoot your parents, your mother and your father, will you do it?” He said: “No, I wouldn’t do it.”

Dr. Servatius: The reply of the witness is sufficient for me. I have a few questions on another subject. You certainly knew very well the conditions in the Nuremberg gaol. You were there on repeated occasions for interrogations. Who was in charge of security there? Soldiers or prison guards?

Witness Musmanno: Soldiers.

Q. Did the witnesses and the accused have a chance to talk to one another and were they able to try and reach mutual agreement concerning the evidence to be given by them?

A. Sometimes they could shout across the corridor – Schellenberg told me of an episode when Goering admitted to him when they were in the Nuremberg Gaol that Schellenberg was correct in some division of opinion that they had before as to who was right or not, so that evidently at times they could communicate with each other.

Q. Did not a very strict discipline prevail between the accused which ensured that no one could take a line of his own, and if someone had been found taking a line of his own, was there not someone there who would see to it that reprisals would be taken against members of his family and that vengeance would have been visited upon them?

A. Are you speaking of conversations between…

Presiding Judge: No, that there was discipline in the sense that everybody had to toe the general line.

Witness Musmanno: Is he speaking of the prisoners now?

Presiding Judge: No, the accused at the Nuremberg Trial or  Trials.

Witness Musmanno: I was thinking about the prison itself. I did not quite understand. Would you please repeat that question then?

Dr. Servatius: Would I be correct in saying that among the prisoners in Nuremberg there was a general strict agreement as to the taking of one line. If anybody would not take that line in his defence, his relatives outside would be made to pay for it.

Witness Musmanno: I do not know of any such thing.

Q. On another occasion I shall submit to the Court a document from which it will appear that such things happened – it is specifically stated there.

When an accused passed from the accuseds’ wing to the witnesses’ wing, was there any advantage in that? Would he receive any privileges? Did they regard this as one step towards liberty? Do you know anything about that?

A. I know nothing about the prison regulations. I could not comment on that.

Q. On this point, too, I shall submit a document to the Court at a later stage.

You wrote a book, if I understand correctly, about the last days of the Reich Chancellery?

A. The book was called Ten Days To Die.

Q. When was this book published?

A. I think in 1950.* {*First published by Peter Davies in 1951.}

Q. Did you interview many witnesses with a view to obtaining the relevant material?

A. Oh yes, yes. I testified this morning there were over one hundred. It was really over two hundred.

Presiding Judge: The question was, did you bring before you many witnesses in order to obtain material for your book? That was the question.

Witness Musmanno: Well, in this investigation I saw many witnesses and it ran into about two hundred of them.

Dr. Servatius: This was a private research, so to speak, for writing your book, was it not?

Witness Musmanno: My situation was very similar to that of Trevor Roper. Trevor Roper, a professor at Oxford University was in the British Air Corps during the War and he was directed by his General to conduct an investigation regarding the circumstances surrounding the disappearance or death of Hitler.

I was not aware that he was conducting an investigation about the same time that I was. After he had made his report to the British Government, he then published a book and it was called The Last Days of Hitler. My situation was quite similar.

Presiding Judge: But if I may ask, did you make additional investigations with a view to publishing your book, in addition to what you had already investigated on behalf of the United States Navy?

Witness Musmanno: That is true, Mr. Justice.

Dr. Servatius: Is its true to assume that you especially invited all the secretaries of all personalities concerned and that you questioned them?

Witness Musmanno: Oh yes. I spoke to the secretaries, the dentist, the barber, the housekeeper, the butler – all of them, because I wanted to get information about Hitler.

Dr. Servatius: Thank you very much. I have no more questions.

Attorney General: Shall I begin at the end? With regard to the alignment of the accused in the case of the main war criminals at Nuremberg; is it true that there were several groups among the accused, one of which wanted to put the blame on Hitler and another which wanted to keep faith with him to the end?

Witness Musmanno: You are speaking of the I.M.T. trial?

Q. The I.M.T., that is correct.

A. That is correct.

Q. And you spoke to people of all these groups?

A. I was not interested in any schism between the witnesses, and at the time I was not aware of it – and after all – these visits were not long ones: I would go to them, I would put to them two or three questions, three or four, and that was it. Some volunteered information.

Q. No, I am driving at another point. Who was the exponent of the “faithful and loyal” group to Hitler? – Goering?

A. Yes.

Q. And the exponents of the group which denounced Hitler were Frank and Speer?

A. Yes.

Q. These were the two main exponents, weren’t they?

A. Also von Schirach, Schacht…

Q. I see. Now, you wanted to add something, Justice Musmanno?

A. Yes. I spoke to Goering shortly after he had testified, and in his testimony had defended Hitler throughout. I asked him why he did this, in view of the fact that Hitler had degraded him, ordered his arrest and, in fact, was on the verge of ordering him to be shot; and I said to Goering: “Marshal, I do not understand why you would defend a man who would have shot you had we, the Allied troops, not captured you; and you know that he has mistreated Mrs. Goering…”

And he said to me: “Commander, I stood with Hitler when he was alive – I’ll stand with him when he is dead.” And the remark was so insincere, to me, and so pompous and so utterly…annoying, that I could not restrain myself – I laughed in his face. Then he looked about furtively, and he said: “Commander, some day I’ll tell you the real truth.”

Q. Now, Justice Musmanno, did any of those accused people you spoke to, who were awaiting their judgment and sentence at the I.M.T. – did they stand to gain anything by what they told you or by what they said to Professor Gilbert?

A. No. Nothing whatsoever.

Q. You said you did not mention in your judgment the instructions or orders of Hitler to Ohlendorf, but did you mention in your judgment anything about RSHA?

A. I did.

Q. What was that?

A. Well, I indicated, of course, that the Einsatzgruppen were a special operation of the RSHA.

Previous | Index | Next