The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Q. Do you know a place called Sabac? What does it remind you of?

A. Austrian, German and Czech refugees, who were on their way to Israel via the Danube at the beginning of 1941, and who were stopped at the Yugoslav-Romanian border when war broke out between Germany and Yugoslavia, were taken to Sabac. In Sabac 900 of these refugees were shot.

Q. Mr. Arnon, do you remember an extradition request from the Zagreb authorities while you were in Ljubljana?

A. I was in hospital in Ljubljana after an operation when two Italian officials, one in uniform and one in civilian clothes, came and wanted to examine my status after an extradition request had been received from Zagreb. They asked me to report to the police station after leaving the hospital.

When I appeared before the prefect, he told me that he had let my file disappear since, formally, the law had not been adhered to: The extradition request from Croatia was sent directly to the District Government in Ljubljana, without passing through the official channel via the Foreign Ministry.

Q. You were not extradited?

A. No.

Q. You told the Court how many Jews there were in Yugoslavia before the outbreak of the War in 1941. How many were left after the War?

A. As I said, there were 75,000 Jews in Yugoslavia, of whom 60,000 were killed. Thanks to the generous gesture of Marshall Tito, 8,000 Jews were able to come to Israel from Yugoslavia with all their movable property. 2,000 may now be in various parts of North and South America, Canada and Australia. 5,000-6,000 live in Yugoslavia today.

Q. I should like to remind you of an article. Tell the Court, please, whether you remember it. It is Prosecution document 1624. It is an article which was published by the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Artukovic, in the Croatian “People’s Journal,” No. 26, of 26 February 1942. It deals with the solution of the Jewish Question. Do you remember it?

A. Yes. I heard the speech by Andre Artukovic on the radio, and besides, I read it in the papers.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I should like to submit the text.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/891.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have completed my questioning.

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

Dr. Servatius: Here, also, I have no questions.

Judge Raveh: You told us that you had to report many times to the Gestapo office in Zagreb. Was this the only Gestapo office in Croatia, or were there other offices in Croatia?

Witness Arnon: In Zagreb there was the central office of the Gestapo in the very well-known Nasicka building. In other parts of Yugoslavia we know only about Gestapo branch offices in Osijek and Sarajevo.

Q. Were there representatives of the Gestapo in the camps?

A. No.

Q. Did you remain in Ljubljana until the end of the War?

A. No. In August 1942 I was sent to the so-called Libero Confino, in Alba near Cuneo.

Q. Was this under Italian authority?

A. It was in Italy.

Q. And you remained there until the end of the War?

A. No. After the surrender of Italy I fled to a small village called Robbi near Alba and went into hiding with a peasant. On 20 September 1943 I escaped to Switzerland with my family.

Judge Halevi: Mr. Arnon, you mentioned Artukovic several times as a persecutor of the Jews. How did he escape from liberated Yugoslavia?

Witness Arnon: He fled like all other ministers of the Pavelic government, he reached Italy, obtained a passport under an assumed name and fled to South America.

Presiding Judge: Where are you living now?

Witness Arnon: In New York or in California.

Judge Halevi: Did he carry out the measures against the Jews at the order of the Germans?

Witness Arnon: I cannot say definitely that it was at the order of Germans, because I have no proof. But this was generally known.

Q. You mentioned your activities on behalf of the Joint several times. You visited the Representative of the Joint in Budapest three times. What was his name?

A. Mr. Blum, who lives now in Israel.

Q. You said that both he and Dr. Joseph Schwartz in Portugal gave you, or sent you, money?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the request of the Joint you were released from detention?

A. Probably.

Q. How could the Joint make that a condition? You say they made it a condition, that they would not give money unless you were released. Did the Gestapo have an interest in these funds which were to be turned over to the Jews in Croatia?

A. Yes, it did, because it was a matter of dollars.

Q. One more question: I am not sure that I heard correctly when you said that in one camp hundreds of thousands of Serbs were exterminated?

A. Hundreds of thousands.

Q. In what year was that?

A. Beginning in 1941, and until the end.

Q. And who killed them?

A. The Ustashi.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Arnon. You have completed your evidence.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1432, and I request that it be admitted in accordance with Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. It is one of those government reports some of which have already been submitted to this Court. This time it is a report by the Staatskommission, the State Commission for Establishing the Crimes of the Occupiers and their Helpers.

This commission was established by the Government of Yugoslavia, which had been reconstituted after the expulsion of the German occupier. The report was submitted in June 1945, and I should like to submit only that part which deals with the crimes of the Germans against the Jews.

We know the identity of the author of this part of the Commission’s report; his name is Milan Marcovic. The importance of the report lies in the fact that it quotes figures on all parts of Yugoslavia and that it gives a survey about the development of the most important events.

It does not primarily deal with the personal responsibility of this or that person from among the Germans and their helpers, such as the Ustashi, etc., but provides a good and exact general survey about the anti-Jewish activities in the various parts of Yugoslavia during the War. I request that it be accepted.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 41

We accept as evidence the part dealing with the fate of the Jews in the report of the commission set up by the Government of Yugoslavia.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour, I submit an original official photograph, together with a translation into German certified by the Yugoslav authorities. I have not been able to prepare a Hebrew translation in time, and I apologize. Counsel for the Defence has also received the German translation of the document which was made in Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/892.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall not go into every detail of this important document. From the titles of the sections the Court will see that it deals with all the questions which also arose in the evidence of Mr. Arnon, and there are also some additional episodes. There are, of course, more details here, but Mr. Arnon actually went over most of the subjects described in detail by the commission.

I now have to ask your permission, Your Honours, to submit a number of additional documents which are only admissible under Section 15.

A number of Gestapo personnel, the Nazis responsible for anti-Jewish and anti-Serbian activities, were in the end put on trial in Belgrade before a military court of the Yugoslav army.

I have before me document No. 1434 which contains the Vernehmungsprotokoll, the record of the examination of Obersturmbannfuehrer Hans Helm. We located him on the organization chart of the operational groups; he was one of the chief subordinates of Fuchs, about whom we shall hear in a moment. It is a record dated 18 September 1946, which was drawn up in Belgrade.

Helm was not directly connected with the Accused; he was directly connected with Fuchs. He was Police Attache in Croatia – this will emerge from a number of documents bearing his signature, which I hope to submit to you in the course of this morning’s sessions. It seems to me that Helm’s evidence is of value, and I ask you to permit me to submit this record.

Presiding Judge: Is Helm still alive?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am convinced that he is not alive. At any rate, we know nothing about him.

Presiding Judge: Are there more documents of this kind?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are. If it is possible to combine my requests, I should gladly do so.

Document No. 1433 deals with the evidence of Dr. Wilhelm Fuchs, who was already mentioned, of 4 September 1946. Here the name of the Accused is already expressly mentioned. The man was executed. He had been Helm’s superior.

Presiding Judge: Was the evidence given before that same court in Belgrade?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Before the same military court in Belgrade.

Presiding Judge: Does he mention the Accused?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He speaks about him, already in the second line he mentions the Accused.

A third request concerns document No. 1437. It contains the record of the evidence of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Ludwig Teichmann before the same Yugoslav military court, dated 17 September 1945; he was also one of the group active in Serbia on behalf of the Gestapo and the SS. He refers of course again to Helm and Fuchs. These things are all connected with one another to a certain extent.

Presiding Judge: What was the fate of this Teichmann?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not know his exact fate, I know that he is not alive.

The fourth request concerns document No. 1435. There are actually two records here from Senior Commander of the Police and the SS, August Meisner. From the administrative point of view, he was SS und Polizeifuehrer (Head of the SS and the Police), and he had therefore the highest rank of all those whom I have mentioned.

His evidence was taken on 31 August 1946 before the same Yugoslav military court. The importance of this record lies in the fact that it is the only one that connects the actions of the SS in his region directly to Berlin.

Presiding Judge: What does Berlin mean here?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It means to the Head Office for Reich Security. He mentions the word “Kurfuerstenstrasse.” The man was executed.

And finally document No. 1493, a record dated 26 May 1945 oft the examination of Aleksander Benak on the chapter of Croatia – this one relates to the Croatian side. The significance of the document lies in the fact that it mentions the representative of the Accused in this region.

Presiding Judge: What was Benak’s position?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He was in contact with the Gestapo on behalf of the Directorate about which we have heard.

Presiding Judge: He, a Croat?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, in the main Directorate for Public Order and Security, the internal Croatian administration which acted parallel with the SS.

Judge Halevi: On behalf of Mr. Artukovic?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. Or Kvaternik. The director was Kvaternik. He mentions Abromeit from the office of the Accused, who was active in this region. We shall see him appearing in a number of documents which I shall submit today.

Presiding Judge: Was this also before the same court?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Before the same court.

Presiding Judge: Is Benak alive?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Benak is not alive. He was executed.

These are the five requests. They all belong, in fact, to one group, the same personnel plus Benak, who are active in the area about which the Court heard witnesses this morning.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what about these five requests?

Dr. Servatius: In my opinion these testimonies are irrelevant, they only show the establishment, but not who operated it and bears the real responsibility. There will be other documents to show this. But I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 42

We accept as evidence the testimonies of Helm, Fuchs, Teichmann, Meisner and Benak, according to the details given to us by Mr. Bar-Or. We do so by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, for the reasons given in our Decision No. 7.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With your permission, I shall discuss them one by one. First, document No. 1434, the Helm record, in which I shall draw the attention of the Court to two passages.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/893.

State Attorney Bar-Or: One passage is in the middle of page 3. He speaks about a conversation between himself and Gruppenfuehrer Mueller in Berlin, actually about two conversations. In the first one there is mention of the need to proceed ruthlessly and resolutely against the Yugoslav population, against the Serb elements in Croatia.

He says that, in 1944, he reminded Mueller of that conversation and told him that, already at that time (in 1941), he had objected to this, that there was no use, no sense, in this manner of proceeding; and that Mueller then agreed, that, indeed, in 1944 it seemed to him that in 1941 he (Helm) and not Mueller had been right. So much about the general activities of the Special Operations Group.

As for the Jews, he refers to them specially in the second passage on page 4 and says that “the Special Operations Group received orders from Berlin to transfer them to a ghetto, in cooperation with the Military Administration.”

He mentions the camp near Sajmiste, which was under the control of the Special Operations Group, by order of the Military Administration. He also mentions that sometimes Jews were chosen as victims from among camp inmates and executed, shot in reprisal.

Now, document No. 1433, the examination of Dr. Wilhelm Fuchs.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/894.

Previous | Index | Next

10 Sivan 5721 (25 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the fifty-second Session of the trial open.

Mr. Bach, in connection with the dispatch of questionnaires abroad, there are a number of matters which, it seems to me, are not progressing as required.

State Attorney Bach: We are making progress – I do not know whether it is really at the required speed – but these questionnaires which we have to submit to the Court are almost ready.

Presiding Judge: This refers to Becher, Hoettl, and Huppenkothen.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. As far as I could see this morning, the questionnaire for Becher is almost ready, and I very much hope that we shall be able to submit it during the day.

Presiding Judge: There is a further matter regarding Kappler, in Italy. It seems to me that, up to now, you have not informed us of the address of the representative of the Prosecution in Italy.

State Attorney Bach: I have also been approached in this matter by Defence Counsel, with a request to clarify where he is imprisoned – in Rome or somewhere else. I presumed at first, as something which could be taken for granted, that he is in gaol in the vicinity of Rome, but that is not altogether certain.

We are still checking the matter through the Foreign Ministry in order to ascertain exactly where he is to be found, and then we should be able to know who will represent us.

Presiding Judge: I would ask you to speed this up, so that we may get everything back in due time.

State Attorney Bach: We shall do so to the best of our
ability.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, I wanted to ask you if you have any information concerning Hoettl and Huppenkothen, whether they are going to come here, or whether it will actually be necessary to continue drawing up the questionnaires for their interrogation abroad. Do you have an answer on that?

Dr. Servatius: No. I shall only be talking tomorrow by telephone with my assistant. I asked him in a cable to be ready to answer my questions in this matter.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, do you think that you, too, will have an answer for us by noon tomorrow?

State Attorney Bach: On the question of Kappler?

Presiding Judge: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: This depends somewhat on the Italian authorities. Therefore, I cannot make a commitment on this; I can only undertake that, for our part, we shall do everything possible to speed up the matter.

Presiding Judge: In any case, I shall raise this matter again on Monday. Now we shall continue with the evidence of Mr. Freudiger. Mr. Freudiger, you are continuing to testify under affirmation.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Freudiger, you told the Court yesterday that you went to Wisliceny with the object of securing your brother’s release.

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. And you began telling us of your conversation with Wisliceny?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell the Court what happened in this conversation and what Wisliceny told you?

A. As I said yesterday, Wisliceny promised that nothing would happen to my brother and said that I should come to the larger meeting in the afternoon, and that after this meeting he wanted to speak to me.

Q. Did you go to the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened at that meeting?

A. At the meeting there were present about forty to fifty persons from all the Jewish institutions of Budapest, and Krumey and Wisliceny came. Krumey opened the proceedings and called upon Wisliceny to speak. He himself only said a few words. Wisliceny repeated the same things we had heard from him on the previous day at greater length, and the tenor of his speech was that there would be no major steps taken; there would be certain restrictions, we should be calm, and he wanted to set our minds at rest.

Q. He wanted to set your minds at rest; did he demand anything from you in relation to other Jews?

A. Yes, that we should preserve quiet and order – that was our duty. Then questions were asked which were not so pleasant. Firstly he was asked what was the significance of the fact that they had seized people at the railway station – I described this already yesterday – and why they kept taking people all night. Hundreds of Jews were already detained in the Rabbinical Seminary – as I related yesterday. He said that of course they were taking hostages – this was the practice everywhere, but nothing would happen to them – they were merely hostages, so that there would be quiet. And with regard to the ban on travelling, it was surely impossible that Jews should move around. Everyone had to remain in his place of residence. If anyone needed to travel, he would receive a special permit.

Q. A special permit from whom?

A. He did not specify. Only that there would be travelling permits. For the present, everyone should remain at his place of residence.

Q. After this meeting, did you meet Wisliceny once more, alone?

A. Yes. The meeting lasted approximately an hour, an hour and a half. I went up to him, together with my cousin who was present. He was the head of the hospital of our community. I asked him what could be done, I told him I would come to see him. He said that we should come to him the following morning at the Rabbinical Seminary, and there we would discuss my brother’s fate.

Q. Did you go to him at the appointed hour?

A. Yes. My late cousin and I went to him, and we noticed that they were bringing in people, and yet more people. We saw the SS (although at that time I did not know that they were the SS), we saw German soldiers bringing people there.

Q. What kind of people?

A. Some of them I knew.

Q. What people? Jews?

A. Yes. They were Jews. They continued bringing them there into custody. After some time, when he saw that I was there, he called me and asked whether I wanted to speak to my brother. I replied: “Certainly.” He sent a sergeant to summon my brother, and several minutes later they brought him. I told my brother that, while I still did not know what would happen, I nevertheless felt that something was going to happen, and that he would be allowed to come home.

Then Wisliceny called me and asked who, here in Budapest, was dealing with refugee affairs (“Wer gibt sich hier ab mitden Angelegenheiten der Fluechtlinge ?”). I did not know what to tell him, for the matter of aiding refugees was illegal. I asked:” Which refugees?” He replied: “I know everything.” I then said: “If you know everything, why ask me?” And he remarked: “Sind Sie nicht frech! (Do not be impertinent!).

But he did not go on talking about that subject and told me to send him a certificate that my brother was a member of the executive of the community council, and after that he would send him back home. This, in fact, took place – I sent him to the Astoria confirmation of the fact that my brother was an executive member of the community council, and in the afternoon he sent my brother home.

Q. Mr. Freudiger, when did Wisliceny first mention to you his connections with the Jewish leaders in Slovakia?

A. What I have told you now took place on Wednesday, 22 March. As far as I remember it was on Friday, 24 March. (I have recently read the book of Rabbi Weissmandel, of blessed memory, and he says it was on 27 March. One of us is wrong, so it was either on the Friday or the Monday.) I received a phone call that the Baroness Edith Weiss, Mr. Nison Kahan, who was one of the leaders of the Hungarian Zionist Organization, and I were invited to come to him at the Rabbinical Centre.

Q. “To him” – who was that?

A. To Wisliceny.

Q. And you went?

A. Edith Weiss did not come; her entire family, including herself, had gone underground already from the first day, and I did not manage to reach her. So I went to him, together with Nison Kahan. He said only a few words to him and then sent him to another room, and I was left alone with him. He closed the door and told me to sit down – usually we did not sit, but stood. And he said to me: “I have brought you a letter – read it.”

Q. From whom was the letter?

A. I read the letter. This letter was from the late Rabbi Weissmandel. It was written in Hebrew – it was a short letter. He wrote to me that “Fate has ultimately overtaken the Jews of Hungary,” and he suggested to me that we should go ahead with the “Europa Plan” which they had begun with Wisliceny and which was familiar to me.

Altogether it was a letter expressing confidence in Wisliceny – that we could negotiate with him. I read the letter. Wisliceny asked me: “Have you read it?” I answered: “Yes.” “Did you understand it?” “Yes.” He said to me: “Give it back to me.” He tore it into small pieces and threw them into the stove.

Then he asked me: “What do you have to say about the letter?” I said to him: “I am at your disposal.” He said to me: “From today onwards, we need the funds that are reaching you from abroad.” I asked him: “We or I?” I wanted to know whether the deal was official, or a private one with him. Then he said to me: “That is not your business.” There was nothing I could say in reply. Afterwards he said to me: “You will still be hearing from me.” That was all. I went away.

Q. On that occasion, or at one of the earlier meetings, when you spoke to Wisliceny, was the question of the synagogue in Budapest also raised?

A. Already in the early days they requisitioned the buildings of the Orthodox community, which included the community centre, the synagogue and also the school – it was a large building, an entire block – for the purpose of billeting soldiers there. Until matters were put in order in the early days, we did not know whom we could turn to. Krumey said that the whole matter belonged to the SS and the Sondereinsatzgruppen.

In the beginning they were at the Astoria; afterwards they occupied flats and houses on the Schwabenberg (Swabian Hill), a small hill near Budapest. They had their offices there, and their officers were also accommodated there, apart from Krumey who lived at the “Rose Hill.” They demanded equipment and furniture from us. That is how it started. A day or two after they told us that there would be economic restrictions and we would have to suffer them, there began all sorts of demands, day after day.

Q. Mr. Freudiger, I shall ask you about these demands at a later stage.

A. Anyhow, they requisitioned all the buildings of the Orthodox community. I was responsible, in my capacity as head of the Orthodox community, and I spoke to him. He said they needed room in order to billet their soldiers.

Q. And then, amongst others, they also took the synagogue?

A. They took the synagogue and turned it into a storehouse. This hurt me especially, for it was an ornate synagogue which my father had built, but I could do nothing about it.

Q. That is to say, you approached Wisliceny in this matter?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Wisliceny promise you anything in this connection, or did he say it was needed?

A. He did not promise – he said it was needed.

Q. You spoke about a conversation with Wisliceny about the “Europa Plan” and the monies…

Presiding Judge: I did not hear the witness speaking about a “Europa Plan.”

State Attorney Bach: Yes, he said that Weissmandel wrote to him about it.

[To witness] Did you personally later still negotiate with Wisliceny about this plan or similar plans?

Witness Freudiger: No.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you would repeat what you said to Wisliceny after you read the letter?

Witness Freudiger: He asked me whether I had understood it. I answered: “Yes.” He asked me: “What do you have to say?” I replied: “I am at your disposal.” And then he said that they needed the funds coming from abroad from that day onwards. I asked him: “We or I?”

Presiding Judge: That is enough, that I understood.

State Attorney Bach: After the Germans entered, many changes were introduced in the Hungarian Government?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. Perhaps you could tell the Court who was appointed Prime Minister?

A. Sztojay, who had previously been the Hungarian Minister in Germany, was appointed Prime Minister in place of Kalai.

Q. Who was appointed as Minister of the Interior?

A. Jaross was appointed Minister of the Interior, and after a few days two directors-general    to the Ministry of the Interior were appointed, Laszlo Baky and Laszlo Endre. We did not know Laszlo Baky, but Laszlo Endre was the anti-Semite of Hungary.

Q. Perhaps you could now tell us something about the anti-Jewish laws that were promulgated immediately after the entry of the Germans into Hungary?

A. That is quite a long list. In the first days, let us say the first week, they only imposed the ban on travel – one could not leave one’s place of residence. But that was not a decree. We knew that in practice they used to seize everyone who was on a train or at a railway station.

Afterwards, on 31 March, Hungarian regulations began to be published. Apparently it took ten to twelve days until matters could be arranged and the Hungarian Government began to assist the SS, as it was supposed to be.

And, thereafter, the Hungarian Government began to issue regulations. On 31 March, there was the first of those – the wearing of a yellow badge in the form of the Shield of David, sewn on the chest, 12 x 12 centimeters in size. As from 5 May, they expelled all the lawyers and actors…

Previous | Index | Next

9 Sivan 5721 (24 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the fiftieth Session of the trial open.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I shall continue with the fate of Slovakian Jewry. First, I wish to present a number of documents. the first document is our No. 1267. In it Ludin, the German Minister, asks the Foreign Ministry for permission to send a delegation to the labour camps in Silesia, to include Wisliceny, the purpose being to establish similar camps in Slovakia. The visit should take place in the presence of several Slovak officials.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1075.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1268. In it Ludin once again reports that the Slovak Ministry of the Interior does not, for the time being, plan to deport the Jews from the country, and its intention – in which it has been influenced by the German adviser – is to put up ghettos, on the model of the Generalgouvernement. This, in fact, is the beginning of the displacement about which we heard yesterday from witness Dr. Abeles.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1076.

State Attorney Bach: The report, by the way, specifically mentions “evacuation of the capital.”

Our No. 1269. Here the subject is the seizure of the property of Jews who are nationals of the Reich, the Protectorate of the Generalgouvernement; Wisliceny here sends the legation a list showing the situation regarding the property of Jews of such nationality.

Judge Raveh: In the previous document, the German adviser mentioned there is, of course, Wisliceny?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Your No. 1269 will be marked T/1077.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 837.

Luther reports that in the context of its measures for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe, the German Government is ready to accept, without delay, 20,000 young and able-bodied Slovak Jews who would be sent to the East, where there is a need for them; the details would be worked out orally by the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, as soon as the Slovak Government agrees in principle.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1078.

State Attorney Bach: And now our document No. 1270.

The important point here is paragraph 2, in which Bratislava is informed that Eichmann will be coming, on behalf of the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, for preliminary discussions on the evacuation of 20,000 Jews from Slovakia. This is what the German Foreign Ministry tells Bratislava. At the bottom there is a handwritten note asking that Wisliceny be informed.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1079.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, our No. 1271, is also a letter by Luther to Pressburg; it reports that, according to a letter of March 1942 from the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, the deportation of Slovakian Jews can be effected as planned, and that the Slovak Government be asked to pay to the Reich RM 500 for every Jew taken over. This is the first mention we find in our documents of this sum of RM 500 which is to be paid for every Jew Germany agrees to accept.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1080.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1015.

In it Luther reports that the Slovak Government has taken a positive decision on the evacuation of the Jews from Slovakia, adding that Minister Ludin has advised that three evacuation trains with 600-1,000 Jews have already left; that the rest will follow without delay; he believes that another 20,000 Jews can be dispatched at once, and after that a start can be made on the evacuation of the remaining 70,000 Jews. At the bottom there is a note saying that this is to be notified immediately to the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1081.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1234.

This is a reply by the Accused to the German Foreign Ministry regarding a request by the Slovak Government – which the Ministry has passed on to the Accused – to permit the transit through German territory of Slovak Jews for the purpose of emigration. Eichmann rejects the Slovak Government’s request to permit such passage for purposes of emigration, and at the end he says: I request that the Slovak legation and the embassy of the Vatican (which had submitted a similar request) be given a negative reply. The final sentence reads as follows:

“In view of the efforts underway for the immediate evacuation of 20,000 Jews from Slovakia, the subject may anyway be considered closed.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1082.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1272. In it Pressburg is informed that Government Councillor Suhr from the Accused’s office will be going there on duty, on behalf of the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service, the object of his journey being to deal with legal aspects of the disposal of the property of Jews being deported to the East. Again there is a handwritten note on the document for the information of Wisliceny.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1083.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 282.

Here Wisliceny writes to the legation in Pressburg and encloses the draft of a letter that he proposes be sent to the Slovak Government. In this letter reasons are given for the demand that RM 500 be paid for every Jew the Slovaks will expel and the Germans will agree to accept. He explains that there are expenses involved to which the German Reich therefore has the right to ask the Slovak Government to contribute.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1084.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 838.

Here Wisliceny again writes to the legation concerning measures to secure the movable property of the Jews of Slovakia. He says that, within the framework of the evacuation of the Jews from Slovakia, their movable property has been secured by means of an ordinance issued by the Central Office for the Economy. Then he says that the value of the movable property owned by the Jews of Slovakia is estimated as being worth at least 150-200 million Crowns.

Further he states that the Jews have also been forbidden to take out their property by way of gift or deposit, and provisions have been made for the punishment of any such attempt to dispose of Jewish property.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1085.

Judge Raveh: Mr. Bach, I want to ask you something: On document 1272, at the bottom of the page, there is something in shorthand. This is not the first time; I have seen this on several documents. Has anyone tried to decipher these notes? The shorthand system used is one that is very common in Germany. I can read some of the words.

State Attorney Bach: No, as far as I know, we have not looked into this. We assumed that some secretary made some notes for his or her own use.

Judge Raveh: It is worth trying. This is a very common system, and there must be people who would be able to decipher it.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honour, I thank you for your observation. We shall give this our attention, something we have not done up till now.

Judge Halevi: The last document mentions the safeguarding of Jewish property by means of an order issued by the Zentralwirtschaftsamt (Central Office for the Economy).  What kind of institution is that? Is it a Jewish institution?

State Attorney Bach: The “Zentralwirtschaftsamt” is the “UHU” headed by Moravek, which in fact was controlled by Wisliceny, on whose initiative it was set up. Moravek, the Slovak, who headed the institution, was completely subordinate to Wisliceny. Actually, the other institution, the “Jewish Centre,” was also controlled by this Central Office.

Judge Halevi: What is “UHU” and what is “UZ”?

State Attorney Bach: “UHU” is the Economic Office; “UZ” is the Jewish Centre.

The next document is our No. 835, which was drafted in the Foreign Ministry and is addressed to the Slovak Foreign Ministry in Pressburg. Its form is that of a “note verbale,” a memorandum; it advises the Slovak Government of the conditions applying to the acceptance of the Jews by the Germans and their expulsion by the Slovaks: (1) that the Jews will not return to Slovakia; (2) that Germany will have no claim on the property in Slovakia; (3) that the Slovak Government pay RM 500 for every Jew.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1086.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 836.

Here Luther asks the (German) Minister in Pressburg to forward to the Slovak Government the conditions listed in the previous document, and he adds that another 20,000 Jews who are fit for work can now be evacuated from Slovakia and transferred to the East, the details as arranged previously.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1087.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1068.

Hunsche informs Rademacher, of the Foreign Ministry, of the details concerning the property of Slovak Jews in the German Reich and in the Protectorate that had been confiscated up to that point. There is a detailed list of clothing and other items.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1088.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 839.

This is a letter from IVB4a, bearing Guenther’s signature, in which he informs Rademacher that the first group of 20,000 Jews, most of them fit to work, had already been moved from Slovakia to Auschwitz and Lublin, and that on 4 May the expulsion of another 20,000 Jews to Lublin had commenced; it can be expected that henceforth 20,000-25,000 Jews from Slovakia will be moved every month. Also technical details about the implementation.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1089.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 786.

This document was also shown to the Accused under No. T/37(234). This is a short letter in which the German Foreign Ministry informs the legation in Pressburg that “SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann will be going to Slovakia at the end of May on behalf of the Chief of Security Police and Security Service” for the purpose of “holding talks on questions arising from the deportation of Jews from Slovakia which is now underway.” This, of course, is the visit that did take place, and at the time of this visit Heydrich was killed. I wish to draw your attention to certain parts of the Accused’s Statement:

His reaction to the document begins on page 2879, and on page 2880 he says that this was indeed an official visit, arrangements for which were made by Wisliceny, and that it was really a courtesy visit. Inspector Less asks: “Did you not really go there in order to discuss official business with Mach?” To which the Accused replies: “Of course we talked about all these matters, in accordance with the instructions I had from my superiors.”

Next, on page 2882, Inspector Less asks: “What was the assignment you were given when you went to Pressburg.” To which Eichmann replies: “As far as I remember, to discuss with Wisliceny and with the German Minister the possible evacuation of the Jews.”

At
this point Inspector Less draws the Accused’s attention to another part of his (Eichmann’s) statement, an earlier part on the fifth tape of the statement, at page 44, where the Accused says that he really went to Slovakia at that time because Wisliceny had told him “come at some time, you will see that Mach is quite a pleasant gentleman, quite a pleasant chap,” and that nothing of substance had been discussed, “on matters of substance I never said anything, not to Mach either. I was in Vienna, and I took the opportunity to go to Pressburg, in order to see the German Minister there, and then, through Wisliceny, I got to see Mach. We had a friendly chat, and then he invited me to a game of skittles.”

After the meal, Eichmann says, Mach told him “I have just had a report from Prague that there was an attempt made on Heydrich’s life.” Less shows this passage to the Accused and asks him whether he has any comment to make, to which the Accused replies: “What I have to say is the following, Inspector, Sir: …and essentially that is what I had said earlier, and in the main it is correct, except for the reference to matters of substance.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1090.

State Attorney Bach: At this point, Your Honours, when we have reached the moment of the attempt on Heydrich’s life – to which he succumbed a few days later – I will, with the Court’s permission, make a short pause in the presentation of the evidence concerning the Jews of Slovakia, and present evidence relating to Count 12 of the Charge Sheet, another tragedy, the tragedy of the children of Lidice, the children of the Czech village where, or next to which, the attempt on Heydrich’s life was made.

I want to draw your attention,
first, to the passage from the Accused’s statement, page
3016, where Inspector Less asks the Accused: “What happened
to the children from Poland, from Czechoslovakia, and from
other countries, who were taken away from their parents, or
whose parents had been liquidated, those children who were
classified as being suitable for ‘re-Germanization’” (or
shall we call it ‘Germanization,’ to make it less
artificial).

To which the Accused replied: “That I do not know, Inspector, Sir, that I don’t know at all, that is a chapter… Was there an authority competent to deal with it?” Upon which Inspector Less asks him: “Did you have any connection at all with the Rassen- und Siedlungshauptamt (the SS Central Office for Race and Settlement)?” To which the Accused replies: “No, I never had any connection. That is why I ask myself ’suitable for re-Germanization’ – did I ever – I cannot recollect any such thing.”

Less then asks Eichmann what he knows about the fate of the inhabitants of Lidice, and he replies “I had nothing to do with this.” And when Less asks, “Do you know what happened to some of the children?,” he says “I do not know. But I had no connection with Lidice…none at all, not the slightest, nothing…not even…not even – I would say – for information only. I read about this affair – Lidice – in the main only after the War. After the War I read about Lidice.” And then Less asks: “Do you know anything about transports of children, who were deported from Prague to Lodz, by the BdS, and were handed over to Krumey?” “No,” is Eichmann’s answer, “no, about this I know nothing.”

Whereupon several documents were presented to the Accused.

First, Prosecution document No. 865 – in fact, I think that this document has not yet been shown to the Accused. In this, the Main Office for Resettlement in Litzmannstadt – the office headed by Krumey – is notified of the impending arrival in Litzmannstadt, on June 12 1942, of 86 Czech children who are unsuitable for Germanization, and whose stay in Litzmannstadt will be temporary; the Litzmannstadt Security Police and the Field Office of the Security Service have been informed of the children’s expected arrival by the SS Race and Settlement Main Office in Berlin. There is also a list containing the names of the children.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1091. Where does Krumey come in?

State Attorney Bach: Krumey’s name does not yet appear, all I said was that this was Krumey’s office. The next document already bears Krumey’s signature. But the Field Office and the “Umwanderungszentralstelle (Resettlement Office) Litzmannstadt” is Krumey’s office, as we shall gather from the next document.

The next document is our No. 866. Krumey informs the BdS and Prague of the arrival of 88 children on June 13 1942, and asks to find out from IVB4 what is to be done with the children. This is signed by Krumey.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1092.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, this document was also presented to the Accused. I will give you his reaction in a moment. It was given No. T/37(244); it was handed to the Accused together with the document I am going to present next, our No. 867, and given No. T/37(245).

This is a letter from Krumey to the Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4, for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. Subject: Transfer of 88 Czech children from townlet Lidice to Lodz; Reference: Consultation with SS  Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann (Ruecksprache mit SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann). Referring to a talk he had with Eichmann, Krumey states that 88 Czech children from the above-mentioned places arrived on June 13; that he had asked to ascertain from IVB4 what to do with the children; and that in the meantime the Race and Settlement Office had determined that seven of the children were “rueckdeutschungsfaehig” (suitable for re-Germanization), meaning that these seven could be brought back to the German
race.

Krumey further adds:

“So far I have had no reply, neither from IVB4 and nor from the BdS…and I urgently request instructions on the further disposal of the children, who have been brought here without any belongings.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1093.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: One question only should perhaps be asked: Why was the proposal made so seriously by the Foreign Ministry when it also knew of the prohibition. It seems to me that the answer is not complicated. The Germans were interested, that year, to meet the wishes of the Bulgarians as far as possible. Bulgaria was already under pressure from the approaching Russian front.

In 1944 they were to lose Bulgaria and the Foreign Ministry felt that, if it was possible to compromise on this matter, that would be preferable. As we saw in these documents, it was in any case very difficult for the Germans to implement their policy in Bulgaria. This could explain why the Foreign Ministry deals so seriously with the proposals following the negotiations with the Mandatory Government.

Judge Halevi: But the position of the Foreign Ministry is totally negative.

State Attorney Bar-Or: For the reasons which it indicates.

On the chapter of Greece I ask you to accept, first of all, a report prepared by the Central Jewish Council for Coordination and Decision on 20 July, 1960.

Presiding Judge: “for Coordination and Decision” is this what it is called?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have translated the words used in the official English translation. The document contains a list of the population of the main Communities in Greece before the German invasion and its numbers at the end of the War, both in absolute numbers and in percentages. I think that, although this document – which is not long – does not mention the Accused, it provides a background in place of some of the evidence we ought to hear, it puts the deeds of the Accused and his helpers in that country into a telling perspective.

I should only like to add that this body, the Central Jewish Council, is actually an official council which acts in the name of the Kingdom of Greece. I therefore think that one has to treat it, and its findings, with trust, as an official report issued on behalf of the government.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any objection to this?

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 43

It is decided to accept the Report of the Greek Jewish Council regarding the population figures in Greece.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The report is our No. 832 which, as I said, summarized the situation regarding the Communities in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Central Greece, Peloponnesus, Epirus and the Greek Islands.

Presiding Judge: It seems to me that the document we have is the original and therefore there is no need for this photostatic copy. This document will be marked T/953.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I may perhaps interrupt the continuation of the Greek chapter for a moment. I have meanwhile received the necessary copies of Document No. 1039, the telegram relating to the previous chapter, on Bulgaria. In it there is mention of Beckerle’s request to see whether it is possible to accommodate that particular Jewess in Thereseinstadt because of the Metropolitan’s friendly attitude towards Germany.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/954.

Judge Raveh: In connection with document No. 832: If we take the total number of 77,000 and then we find that 10,000 are left – can this be minus 98 per cent?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The sum total of the decrease is no doubt erroneous.

Presiding Judge: But are the absolute figures correct?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. In general I checked the percentage of the population decrease for each Community and it matches the absolute figures. I do not know what happened in the end.

Judge Raveh: But the addition is reliable?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The addition is reliable. The sum total of 77,000 before the beginning of the deportations, and of the 10,000 who are left – this is reliable.

On the tragic chapter of Greece we have one crucial document which was saved, and found to our good fortune. It is the diary of a lawyer from Salonika, who was arrested by the Germans while he was in the middle of writing it. He was Advocate Yomtov Yekuel, who perished in the Holocaust.

Until the arrival of the Germans, who took over the affairs of the Community themselves, Advocate Yekuel had acted as legal adviser to the Jewish Community in Salonika. In the diary he describes how the Germans introduced the racist laws against the Jews of the city. The diary was written in Greek and in Greek characters. We have translated it into Hebrew.

In Prosecution document No. 351 I wish to bring before the Court a sworn statement by the Greek Advocate Asher Rafael Moissis, in which he describes briefly how this diary came into his hands before its writer himself was seized by the Germans. There is no doubt that, if the statement in document No. 351 is accepted, we have Yekuel’s original diary before us.

As for its value – and I intend to submit the diary itself and not only Moissis’ declaration on how it came into his possession – its value lies in the fact that the writer was, thanks to his position, thoroughly familiar with the affairs of the great Jewish Community of Salonika over a long period of time. Although he received no salary, he had a guiding hand in all Community matters.

Presiding Judge: What was his official position?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He was the legal adviser of the Community of Salonika. He does not speak about matters pertaining to the Accused, but mainly about matters connected with the military government, whose representative – on anything concerning the Jews at any rate – was Dr. Merten, although in the end it was also Wisliceny, the representative of the Accused.

The latter had come in order to apply the policies of the Head Office for Reich Security to Salonika. We must remember that Greece was divided between the northern zone, occupied by the Germans and called “Salonika-Aegis” by the military government and the southern zone with Athens as its centre, which was under Italian occupation until the defeat of Badoglio.

At the end of 1943 the Germans tried to enter Athens also, but – for reasons which are very interesting from the historical point of view – they apparently did not succeed. They did achieve their object in the part occupied by them, in Salonika and in the small communities surrounding that Jewish metropolis. The author keeps a detailed diary of events as they happen up to the arrival of the Germans.

Attrocities did not start immediately. Social and relief services had to be organized, especially for children. He speaks at length about a child-feeding project. I think that a diary of this kind, which was actually kept for the purpose of historical documentation of these tragic events, has to be trusted, and that its content is relevant for us.

Because Yekuel writes not only about what Merten did – who may not have been directly connected with the Accused – but about acts carried out in the final instance by two of the chief lieutenants of the Accused, none other than Wisliceny and Brunner. Brunner had arrived later to join Wisliceny, so Wislinceny maintains, in order to do himself what Wisliceny was unable to do.

Whether we believe him or not, these two worked in Salonika on behalf of the Accused. The writer did not come into direct contact with either Wisliceny or Brunner and he does not tell us anything they said. He sees far more the results of the German policy in Salonika, and he records how the Jewish organizations endeavour to avert the disaster, how they react and how in the end they do not succeed.

Presiding Judge: Where does Advocate Moissis live?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We obtained his sworn statement from Athens. He is a lawyer at the Court of Appeal in Athens and he signed his statement on 4 April 1961. I propose to the Honourable Court to accept this diary together with document No. 351, the statement by Mr. Moissis.

Presiding Judge: Do you have the original diary?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The diary is in our possession. If the Court so wishes I shall have it brought here so that it can be submitted. As I said, it is in Greek and here before me I have the translation into Hebrew.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the declaration of my Greek Colleague. But I should like to see a copy of this diary in order to examine it from the point of view of its credibility. We shall soon see whether it describes the facts.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bar-Or, do you have a translation into
a language which Dr. Servatius understands?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour, I have to express surprise at myself: I was of course sure that a translation into German had been submitted to Counsel for the Defense long ago. I regret very much that this has not been done. As it is, I ask you to postpone the consideration of my request until Dr. Servatius will have received the German translation.

Presiding Judge: In this case we shall revert to the document later on.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 997, a letter dated 11 July 1942 from Suhr of the Accused’s Section to Rademacher of the Foreign Ministry. He first mentions the very bad food situation in Greece. This remark is relevant because we shall see that 80 to 90 per cent of the Greek Jews who were deported and sent to Auschwitz go directly to the gas chambers – according to the evidence of Hoess, about the selection in Auschwitz – because of the fact which Suhr describes here.

When the anti-Jewish measures started the Jews were in such a state of undernourishment that even Hoess and his helpers did not know what to do with them when they arrived in Auschwitz.

The problem of designation, always a first measure, is also mentioned. And the typical problems in Greece are: Italy is not ready to introduce designation, so that there is a danger of undesirable reciprocal influence. He therefore asks for a decision whether the Jews may be designated and arrested as a first step towards deportation.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/955.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 998. Another letter from Suhr to Rademacher one month later – the date is 18 August 1942. He announces that the Military Commander of Salonika-Aegeis, in agreement with the Greek Governor General of Macedonia, has issued an order for the mobilization of Jews for work on the completion of roads in this district. This document also comes from IVB4.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/956.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 999 is a telegram from Luther to Rome. What interests us appears on the second page, concerning Greece. There had of course to be coordination with the Italian authorities because of the area occupied by them in southern Greece.

He speaks about a conversation with the Italian Representative, which he used “um ihm von dem Auftrag des SS Sturmbannfuehrers Guenther fuer die deutsche Besatzungszone Salonika-Aegeis bezueglich der Judenevakuierung Kenntnis zu geben” (in order to inform him of the instruction of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Guenther for the German zone of occupation Salonika- Aegeis regarding the evacuation of the Jews). “Guenther will fly to Salonika today and contact the Consulate General.” The reference is to the permanent Deputy of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/957.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 344. In this document Luther informs the Consulate General in Athens as follows: “SS Sturnbannfuehrer Guenther has gone to Salonika on orders from the Head Office for Reich Security, in agreement with the Foreign Ministry, in order to conduct negotiations about Jewish matters there.”

The document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(103). The Accused refers to it on page 1378 of his Statement. He does not say much. He only says that for a long time he did not remember, that he did not remember at any rate, that Guenther was in Greece at all. When the document was shown to him he said: “It seems that Guenther was in Greece after all.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/958.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next document is No. 1,000, a letter from Guenther to the Foreign Ministry dated 25 January 1943. Guenther bases himself on a conversation between Dr. Klingenfuss of the Foreign Ministry and Hunsche from the office of the Accused. He announces that Wisliceny, who at the moment is working at the German legation in Bratislava, will come to Athens and work with the authorities in Greece.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/959.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, in a number of documents, we shall find two kinds of instructions; guidelines from Kriegsverwaltungsrat Dr. Merten (War Administration Councillor), issued on behalf of the Military Government in connection with Jewish matters, and orders for the implementation of those guidelines which are given, over Wisliceny’s signature, directly to the Jewish Community.

First of all, document No. 424. This is an order from Dr. Merten dated 6 February 1943. It is about the first step: Designating the Jews of Salonika with the distinctive star.

As a matter of interest, if the question should arise how these documents come into our possession at all: These are not documents from Germany, they are documents issued in Salonika and intended for Salonika. They are in our hands thanks to the work of Michael Molcho, the Rabbi of the Jewish Community in Salonika.

If the Court wishes to look at his work, which was published in 1948 together with a sworn statement, it will become apparent how these documents were preserved, how they were first brought before a Court in Athens whence they were transferred to us. This is the source of all those documents from Merten and from Wisliceny which show their activities in Salonika. If the Court wishes to see this document, it is at its disposal.

Presiding Judge: Is it only the authentication of the documents?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, your Honour.

Presiding Judge: There is no remark from the Defence. I think it is not necessary. This will be marked T/960.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 425. This is already an order for implementation signed by Wisliceny and addressed to Chief Rabbi Koretz who, at that time, represented the Community of Salonika. Wisliceny now says, not that the designation has to be worn, but what the size of the designation sign should be. Merten appears here as the chief legislator while Wisliceny issues secondary regulations. He also says in the same order who is to be regarded as a Jew, what are mixed marriages, how Merten’s instructions are to be interpreted, etc.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/961.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 237 was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(100). The Statement of the Accused refers to it on pages 1361ff. These are Wisliceny’s instructions of 17 February 1943, concerning the designation, not of Jews, but of Jewish shops and dwellings.

I direct your attention, on this occasion, to the heading of the letter: Wisliceny writes in the name of “Aussenstelle der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD in Salonika IVb4,” i.e. a field office of the Security Police and the Security Service.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/962.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 241 contains orders from Merten, dated 15 June 1943, about the treatment of Jewish property in the area under the Military Commander of Salonika-Aegeis.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/963.

Previous | Index | Next

7 Sivan 5721 (22 May 1961)

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

Mr. Bar-Or, you had a question in connection with the taking of evidence in Italy.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Your Honour, the Attorney General will arrive in a few minutes and make an announcement to the Court on this matter. His car was apparently delayed. I shall then interrupt the submission of documents in order to enable him to make his statement concerning Italy. With the permission of the Court, I shall continue, if I may, and shall in fact conclude the chapter on Yugoslavia.

The first document is No. 660, an urgent teleprinter message signed by Helm and Kasche, addressed to the Foreign Ministry and dated 4 March 1943. Helm informs the Foreign Ministry, for the information of the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, that preparations for the new action against the Jews had been completed that week and that the deportation would be by districts in groups of 20 to 150 persons.

He says that in the operation a total of 2,000 Jews would be seized. He also asks to give the commander in Marburg information in connection with the deportation.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/908.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next document is our No. 1161, a telegram dated 4 February 1943, signed by Kasche. He says that by the end of the week preparations for the action against the Jews in Croatia will have been completed and that the operation will begin in the middle of March.

“Representative of the German Reich Railway Directorate in Agram has promised to supply carriages, which will be joined to scheduled trains. About 2,000 Jews will be seized in this operation.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/909.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This document actually belongs, of course, to the previous document which we have submitted.

Judge Halevi: What is the difference? Is this not the same text?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1161 is the text as finally transmitted by the Foreign Ministry to the office of the Accused, whereas 660 is the version received by the Fernschreibstelle (teleprinter terminal) of the Foreign Ministry. The two demonstrate the procedure for information via the Foreign Ministry used in all cases where there was a Police Attache at the Foreign Ministry.

The next document is our No. 659. Here it was marked T/37(224). The Accused speaks about this document on page 2614 of his Statement. On 10 April 1943 Wagner asks the Police Attache about the deportation of Jews from Croatia to Auschwitz and says:

“With reference to the telephone message at the time, I am asking for information when the start of the announced deportation in groups of the remaining approximately 2,000 Jews from Croatia to Auschwitz may be expected. In this connection I further request a report on the negotiations with the Italian authorities concerning the deportation of the Jews living in the coastal areas occupied by Italy.”

Presiding Judge: Please limit the quotations.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Very well, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/910.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The next document, No. 686, contains a request from the Italian Embassy dated 4 February 1943. It deals with the transfer from Zagreb to Auschwitz near Kattowitz of an Italian citizen of Jewish race. The request is that the matter be looked into with a view to preparing her return to Italy.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/911.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In document No. 687, on 13 April 1943, Guenther gives his reply to the Foreign Ministry. He says that, in accordance with the findings of the Camp Management, this Jewess was not in Auschwitz and that there was no way of ascertaining her present whereabouts.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/912.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 342, here marked T/37(104), was shown to the Accused; he speaks about it on page 1379 of his Statement. It is the copy of a letter to the Foreign Ministry dated 26 May 1943, which was also sent to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. It deals with the activities of the Croatian police following the action against the Jew Mario Sasson who was included in a transport to Auschwitz. There is a request to inform IVB4, Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann immediately. The telegram is signed by von Schubert. Here again we actually see a correspondence via the Foreign Ministry which is not intended for the Ministry at all, but rather for an office abroad of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/913.

The document is not complete. There is only the first page here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is not complete. The second page starts with the word “nachtraeglich” (subsequently).

The following document is No. 343, which was here marked T/37(105). The Accused refers to this document in the pages of his Statement which I have already pointed out. Guenther informs von Tadden of the Foreign Ministry that the Jews Sasson was arrested by the Croatian police in the course of the action against the Jews and was transferred to the East for work assignment. No information was given to the authorities who have requested it.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/914.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1048, a letter from the Accused dated 2 July 1943 to von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry about another Jew named Viktor Guttmann. He informs the Foreign Ministry that he (the Accused) has ordered the Police Attache in Agram to bring about the release from custody of the Jew Guttmann and the members of his family and their transfer to the area of the Reich.

Eichmann continues:”…I intend to have Guttmann accommodated under preferred conditions in the old-age ghetto Theresienstadt for the time being.” The document is interesting in connection with the administrative relations between the Accused and the Police Attaches at the embassy outside Germany.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/915.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 655, a letter from Wagner to the German legation in Agram. On this letter of 15 July 1943 we find the signature of Ploetz. This Ploetz was the head of what was called Attache-Gruppe (Group of Attaches) which worked within the Head Office for Reich Security and corresponded with the representatives of the Head Office for Reich Security, who were in fact its own representatives abroad. The correspondence is between the Group of Attaches and the department heads of the Foreign Ministry. This is also the situation here. At the top of the telegram it says:

“The Head of the Security Police for the Police Attache: According to strictly confidential information received here, about 800 Jews, mostly women and children, are said to be still housed in concentration camps, inter alia in Croatia. I request you to start immediately to arrange for the evacuation to the East of these 800 Jews, unless there are guidelines to the contrary.”

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/916.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1082 is a letter from the Kriminalinspektor (Superintendent of the Criminal Police) in Zagreb, transmitted by the Police Attache and the Legation to the Foreign Ministry. The marking there is IVB4. The writer mentions a request by the Jewish Agency for Palestine to transfer to Palestine 400 of the Jews of Croatia.

He bases himself on instructions from the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4 and says that the Jewish Agency is making efforts to enable 400 Jews to emigrate to Palestine because they are threatened with evacuation to the East. He goes on to say that, in the course of the continuing efforts for the emigration of these Jews and the prevention of their deportation, the Jewish Agency has approached the Swiss legations in Ankara, Budapest, Sofia and Agram.

Furthermore, the Vatican has also intervened in this matter. Among these Jews there are apparently a Rabbi and a communal public figure who are singled out for special mention. He is endeavouring to bring about the immediate deportation to the East of the 400 Jews and he is expecting a report. Finally he asks that the Head Office for Reich Security be informed about the issue of such instructions.

Judge Halevi: Who is writing to whom?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Agram writes to the Foreign Ministry for the information of the Head Office for Reich Security.

Presiding Judge: I see that there are two letters here. The first one is included in the second.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is correct, Your Honour. It is actually an internal one. It was sent from that place to the BdS in Zagreb.

Presiding Judge: From what place? Who is this Kriminalinspektor?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is actually under the BdS in Zagreb. He writes to him as his superior. The covering document to the letter from the Krininalinspektor is the document in which this report and the proposals of the Superintendent of the Criminal Police are transmitted to Berlin.

Presiding Judge: The first document looks like a draft, it has no address and no signature.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The first document is an original copy of a letter which was sent to Berlin.

Judge Halevi: What I do not understand is: Who asks that these Jews be sent to the East?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Superintendent of the Criminal Police sums up the position when he says that, in order to avoid possibly successful interventions on behalf of the 400 Jews, it is necessary to head off the efforts by the Jewish Agency, the Vatican and others through the deportation of these Jews to the East.

Judge Halevi: The Superintendent of the Criminal Police is in Agram?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Judge Halevi: And he is the emissary of the Accused, or who is he?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is the emissary of the BdS. This is Helm’s unit which we know. In order to give directives concerning cancellation of a transport or dispatch of a transport they depend of course on instructions from IVB4.

These general instructions are those mentioned at the beginning of the letter, which begins with the words “Das Reichssicherheitshauptamt hat mit Erlass vom…” (the Head Office for Reich Security has, in its order of…).

Judge Raveh: Where were these documents received from?

State Attorney Bar-Or: These documents come from Yugoslavia. We have here copies of the Gestapo files in Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/917.

State Attorney Bar-Or: 1083. That same Kriminalinspektor writes to Berlin on 19 July 1943. I think his name is Huebner. He writes directly to the Accused on the same matter and adds that the above-mentioned order was passed on to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in Croatia, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Hermann, for the issue of further instructions. This Hermann had promised early implementation.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/918.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Ploetz, the Head of the Attachegruppe, telegraphs to Helm, the Police Attache in Agram on 16 September 1943, and asks that the text of the telegram be transmitted to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Abromeit.

He says that, in the light of the changes in the situation in the coastal region of Croatia which was until now occupied by Italian troups, the evacuation of the Jews still present in these regions must be prepared without delay. The change (in the situation) is of course the defeat of Italy in connection with the Badoglio affair.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/919.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1095 was shown to the Accused and given the marking T/37(305). The relevant pages in the Statement are 3464 ff. Ploetz telegraphs to Agram, again in connection with the technical implementation of the evacuation of the Jews in those areas of Croatia hitherto occupied by the Italian army.

A special detachment under the command of Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey is brought up here and this special detachment is instructed to carry out the deportation operations in cooperation with Helm. Ploetz asks on behalf of the Head Office for Reich Security that Krumey be given support in every way.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/920.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 656. Kasche transmits to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin a report dated 18 April 1944 by his Police Attache, Obersturmbannfuehrer Helm. Again on the question of disposal of the Jewish Question in Croatia which, in Helm’s opinion, was already largely solved on 24 April 1944. He explains why there are still Jews in Croatia at all and cites in particular two factors: (a) The many mixed marriages, which are only to a small extent apprehended by the Croatians, (b) The influence of some Jews, especially in mixed marriages, on ruling circles in the government of the independent state of Croatia.

Helm summarizes the situation as follows: “As is well known,” he says in his letter to the Ambassador dated 18 April, “the evacuation of the Jews from Croatia was proposed late in the autumn of 1942 by the Croatian authorities in combination with advisory activities by the Police Attache. The implementation as such was satisfactory, so that Croatia – apart from some occupied areas – could be regarded as a country in which the Jewish Question has on the whole been solved.”

At the end he suggests to propose to the Government of Croatia that stricter criteria be proposed for the award of the right of honorary Aryan (“Ehrenarier“) and to re-examine this question from more exacting points of view. “On the basis of the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS the Jewish Question is again being examined by the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in close cooperation with our Section.” Croatia was one of these countries which coined the peculiar concept of “Arier,” not real Arier, but quasi-Arier for this purpose.

Presiding Judge: Aryan honoris causa.

This will be marked T/921.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1049 – a letter from von Thadden to the Accused dated 17 April 1944. He mentions Guenther with respect to a possible attempt to reopen the Jewish Question. He transmits this for information and adds that in Croatia the main difficulties are apparently the family connections of Croatian leaders which are a serious obstacle to more incisive measures against the Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/922.

Previous | Index | Next