The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

State Attorney Bach: The other testimony was just not printed here. I suppose that a record exists, but this one is not complete. They felt that it was enough to quote the testimony of one girl.

I should also like to include the declaration that appears on pages 1038-1039; this is a sworn statement by Hermann Krumey about his own actions with regard to these children.

He says in the declaration that the children were transferred to his office, that some of the children were sent to Germany for “Germanization,” and that the rest of the children were transferred by way of the Gestapo to the Gestapo office in Lodz, and that as far as he can recall the order had come from Bureau IV.

Presiding Judge: Did you include questions on this subject in your questionnaire to Krumey?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Sir, not necessarily in connection with the declaration appearing in the Green Series, but the affair of the Lidice children – who gave the order, on whose order were those children transferred – all that was included in the questionnaire.

Presiding Judge: But you did not mention the declaration?

State Attorney Bach: No, we did not. But perhaps it does not add much. As a matter of fact, we have documents on that. I just wanted to draw the Court’s attention to the existence of that declaration. If Counsel for the Defence agrees that all this material shall serve as evidence in this Court – i.e., the statements made by the officials who were the accused in that trial and the Judgment – then I think there should be no objection to the Court also taking into account this declaration by Krumey.

Presiding Judge: If you will agree on that, we will no doubt consider that request positively.

State Attorney Bach: But, as I said, my main request refers to the testimony of the girl Maria Hanfova.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: I agree that all the material included in the Green Series to which the State Attorney has referred be admitted in this trial. As for the children, it appears that they did well in Germany, as they testified. As to what happened to the other children, that is a subject for later discussion, at which time I will take a stand.

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that you propose that all that is contained in Volume 4 on the affair of the Lidice children be submitted here as evidence? Is that correct?

State Attorney Bach: Maybe also what is in Volume 5?

Presiding Judge: And also the Judgment in Volume 5?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, everything related to this point and to its connection with the Head Office for Reich Security.

Your Honour, that was a slip of the tongue, I did not mean the Head Office for Reich Security, I meant the Race and Settlement Office.

Judge Halevi: Another question to Dr. Servatius. Since you have agreed that all the material on this point in Volume 4 be admitted, please note that Mr. Bach has drawn attention to Krumey’s declaration that he believed that the order came from Bureau IV; as far as I am aware, this is not the Race and Settlement Office, this is the Gestapo.

Dr. Servatius: This is indeed Krumey’s declaration, related to the document submitted here.

Judge Halevi: Do you agree that this should also be brought before this Court?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I agree that that document also be admitted here, and I assume that when the witness Krumey is interrogated in Germany, he will also be asked to answer questions on this subject.

Presiding Judge: Is there anything else in Volume 4, apart from what you have mentioned, in relation to this affair, so that we shall not have to grope in the dark?

State Attorney Bach: Not to my knowledge. I have not found anything.

Presiding Judge: So we could confine the document to the testimony given by Hanfova and the declaration by Krumey, to be more specific?

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps Counsel for the Defence also wishes to quote from the volume; for the time being my request refers only to the two items, the girl’s testimony and Krumey’s declaration.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 48

With the agreement of both parties we decide to accept as evidence in this trial all the material relating to the fate of the Lidice children contained in Volume 4 of the Green Series, as well as the Judgment published in Volume 5 of the Series, relating to the actions taken by the Race and Settlement Office in connection with the children.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps we ought to type the statements on a separate page, so that we can submit them as separate exhibits – with the permission of the Court.

Presiding Judge: In the meantime let me give it a formal marking. This exhibit will be marked T/1100.

State Attorney Bach: On page 1033 the girl describes the events that took place in Lidice on June 9, when German troops came, woke them up at 3 o’clock in the morning, took them away from their mothers, and how the children were later moved to Lodz; she says that they were treated very badly. Then, on page 1034, she is asked:

Q. Where were you taken to after leaving Lodz?

A. To Lodz, to the city.

Q. To another camp in the same city?

A. To another camp in the same city.

Q. How long did you stay there?

A. We were there for about two months.

Q. As you said, there were only seven who were chosen with you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened to the other children after you were separated, do you know?

A. We were not allowed to ask any questions about them. We do not know what happened.

Q. Did you ever see any of these children again, or did you hear about them, after you were separated?

A. I never saw them.

Q. Not one of them is alive today in Czechoslovakia, to your knowledge, is there?

A. I do not know.

Q. And when you left Lodz, where were you, the seven children taken to?

A. We were taken to Pushka, in Poznan.

The girl then goes on to describe what happened to them in Germany, but this does not concern us here. Finally, on page 1038, I wish to quote one question. Here the girl is asked:

Q. At the beginning you mentioned seven children who stogether with you were separated from the others in Lodz, and you mentioned the names of two children whom you met in Pushka. These children – did you see them when you returned to Czechoslovakia?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to these children?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they live in Germany during the War?

A. Yes.

I have already brought to the Court’s attention the passage from Krumey’s declaration I am interested in, and there is no need to repeat it; it appears on page 1039.

Judge Halevi: Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt - is that a part of RSHA?

State Attorney Bach: That is a separate office, in formal terms. As Reichsfuehrer, Himmler was its head; he was, as such, the head of several offices, one of them being the RSHA, which was a mixed – Government and Party – office, another being the “Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt,” which was a pure (if we may use that word) a pure SS office, separate from the RSHA; yet another was the “Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptampt” (Economic-Administrative Main Office, also a separate office within the framework of that set-up, headed by the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Dr. Servatius: Through the simultaneous translation I hear that the girl told what happened to her in Germany. I do not know whether the translation is correct, but for the sake of fairness I want to point out that the children testified that they did very well in Germany, and they said that they did not want to go back; one girl was supposed to go back to her grandmother, but she refused, and in reply to repeated questioning, she insisted that she was better off in Germany than at home.

Presiding Judge: Where do we find that?

State Attorney Bach: The fact is that the girl I was talking about – although I did not mention it – testified just the opposite. She said that there was discrimination between the children, that they were treated very badly, that they were not allowed to speak Czech. I did not mention this because we do not accuse the Accused or his Section with this, and we are not dealing with the Race and Settlement Office.

I do not doubt what Counsel for the Defence said, maybe one of the children said something of the sort, but I have not seen it, certainly not in the testimony of this girl who says that they were badly treated. But I did not bring that up, did not mention it, because I did not think it was of any importance.

Presiding Judge: Where then are those things that Dr. Servatius mentions? In the statement made by the Hanfova girl?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I do not have the document before me, but I have read various statements made by these children, and the State Attorney does not deny that.

Presiding Judge: But does it say that in Volume 4?

State Attorney Bach: I must say that I have not seen it.

Presiding Judge: If Dr. Servatius finds it, he can submit it to us.

State Attorney Bach: I just want to point out that this girl says there was discrimination and that the German children were given better treatment; but, as I have said, I do not attach any importance to that, these things are not part of the Charge Sheet.

With the Court’s permission, we shall now go back to the Holocaust of the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: In that case you will have to bear in mind that we still need a decision on document No. 1149.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 369.

Presiding Judge: Does that again concern Slovakia?

State Attorney Bach: This is again about the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: Lidice is in Bohemia, is not it?

State Attorney Bach: Lidice is in Bohemia. We brought it up at this point because I was presenting evidence relating to the killing of Heydrich, and the Accused happened to be in Slovakia at the time and left straight for Prague, and Lidice of course was a direct result of that incident.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius was apparently referring to another girl, by the name of Bergner, who was not a Czech girl, and her statement is printed on page 1021.

State Attorney Bach: I really checked only what those children said.

Document No. 369 is a report by Ludin which says that Wisliceny, the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, stressed that the “Jewish Action” was in its final stage; 52,000 had been removed and 35,000 are still there, for the time being. At the end he says that Wisliceny supports the retention of Moravek in his post, since he is honest and tolerates no compromise. The report ends with Ludin’s recommendation for a hundred per cent solution of the Jewish Question.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1101.

State Attorney Bach: There is also a description of a meeting with Tuka at that period, which was also attended by Wisliceny.

The next document is Prosecution document No. 1526. This is an invitation to Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny from the RSHA to a meeting in Berlin on August 28, to be attended by all the specialists on Jewish affairs. The Court will recall that meeting, to which Richter from Romania and the specialists on Jewish affairs assigned in Western countries were also invited.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1102.

State Attorney Bach: I now wish to submit three documents concerning a Jewish woman by name of Machalek. The first is our No. 1013. This is a letter from the Accused and signed by him, addressed to von Thadden, in which he states that a Jewess by the name of Machalek had been sent to Theresienstadt in the course of the usual evacuation measures, and that her husband had divorced her, so that he could hold on to his job.

And now, Eichmann continues, the Slovak Consulate in Prague had written a letter, in response to the husband’s application to have his wife declared an Aryan. In that letter there is already mention of “Anna Machalek, Aryan.” Then Eichmann adds: “I am hereby taking the liberty of informing you of this behaviour on the part of the Slovak Consulate General in Prague, which seems to be odd.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1103.

State Attorney Bach: The second document is our No. 1643. This is a note verbale from the Slovak legation in Berlin to the Foreign Ministry, in which the legation explains why Mrs. Machalek is really not Jewish; she is really the daughter of a maid who had been working for a Jewish family and was adopted by that family as their child, but she is really an Aryan and not Jewish. The legation therefore requests that the woman be set free.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1104.

State Attorney Bach: The last document on this case is our No. 1014. We are now in May 1944; the Court will note that the first letter was dated November 1943, and by May 1944 the matter had not been attended to. Guenther now writes to von Thadden that, because Wisliceny was in Hungary, “we were not yet able to check on that and therefore could not ascertain Mrs. Machalek’s racial status.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1105.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document, Your Honours, is No. 1016. This is a letter from the German legation, Ludin, to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, copy to the Accused, concerning a pastoral letter by the Slovak bishops against the governmental anti-Jewish measures. It expresses the Slovak clergy’s profound concern over various reports of what had happened to the Jews. Ludin states as follows: “The Prime Minister, Dr. Tuka, has informed me of his concern.”

At the end he says that he (the Prime Minister) had been informed by one of the bishops that “in the Ukraine masses of Jews were shot to death, not only men, but also women and children, and before they were killed they had to dig their own graves. In one case a mother was shot or stabbed to death, and her baby was thrown live into the grave.” And Tuka said that “the naive Slovak clergymen might lend credence to such atrocity stories and requests that, in order to enable such rumours to be refuted, a commission be permitted to pay a visit to the East.” Ludin adds: “If such a tour could be organized, I would certainly welcome that suggestion.”

State Attorney Bach: This document was passed on to the Accused. Before quoting his response, I request the Court to accept as evidence a document in Wisliceny’s handwriting, in which Wisliceny refers to an article published by Fritz Fiala in Grenzbote, a newspaper. This article was mentioned in testimony given at yesterday’s session, and later on we shall provide the Court with a photocopy of it. At this point my purpose is to prove to the Court the circumstances under which this article came to be written.

Wisliceny gives details of his negotiations with the Accused on this matter, of the talks he had with Fiala and of his joint journey with Fiala to Auschwitz, on the orders of the Accused, and he tells the story of how the article came to be written. As I said, the document is in Wisliceny’s own handwriting and bears his signature. It is of relevance to the entire trial, and I will link the Accused to it by the document I will submit next, in which the Accused mentions that same Fiala article. I therefore request the Court to accept this document as evidence, under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law.

Dr. Servatius: As regards declarations by Wisliceny. I have the same objections to his statements that I have raised before.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall only draw attention to one passage on page 168, in which it says: “By order of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Prague, the designation obligation has been applied to Jews of Slovakian, Romanian and Croatian nationality.”

The Court will certainly remember the Foreign Ministry document presented yesterday which informs the Accused that these three countries are ready to include their Jews in the area of the Greater Reich and subject them to the anti-Jewish measures in force in the Reich.

I pass on to document No. 1335, the Monthly Report for March 1942, which begins on page 174. It deals with a subject about which the Court will hear detailed evidence today: The evacuation of the homes of a large number of Jews in Prague, and their concentration, not in a ghetto, but on the same pattern which we saw yesterday in Vienna. It was done in the same way in Prague: Concentration of the Jews in defined and limited housing districts.

At the end, on page 180, it states that, as of 27 March 1942, all provincial Jewish Religious Communities in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia are dissolved, i.e. by order of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, everything is now concentrated in Prague itself.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/828 (b).

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1336, the Monthly Report for June 1942. It begins on page 112, where the Court will find information about the handing over to the Gestapo of textiles, used clothing, and all other items of clothing, the kind of operations which were carried out in other parts of the Reich.

And, at the end, a subject which we shall find in greater detail in another document: A short report about the deportations from the Protectorate, or rather from Prague, in June 1942.

Here the transports are marked AAb, AAc, and AAd from Kolin, AAh and AAe from Prague, and AAf and AAg from Olmuetz. We shall find these markings also in the general report which I shall soon submit.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/829(a).

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1338, the Monthly Report for July 1942, which begins on page 301. More reporting about transports, about deportations, which are marked according to the same system; mobilization of Jews for assistance with these transports; a report about a Jewish work centre – we shall hear about part of this topic in connection with the Trusteeship Office from a witness who will give evidence today; and finally – mobilization for agricultural work.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/830(a).

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1238 – a letter from the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, dated 14 April 1943. The Accused informs the Foreign Ministry that, in spite of the intervention of the Swedish authorities in Berlin, once the Jewish members of the Bondi family have entered Theresienstadt, they cannot be returned to Sweden.

On the other hand, he says, he has no objection to the emigration of the sisters and brother Hanna, Ruth and Siegfried Kalter to Sweden.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/837.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I should like to direct the attention of the Court to one sentence, which says: “I have informed the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service at The Hague accordingly.”

I go on to document No. 1237. It is a report, not in the usual form, from the Council of Elders of the Jews of Prague to the Central Office, dated 19 June 1944. The report is submitted at the order of SS Obersturmfuehrer Guennel, from Brunner’s office, whom we shall meet again. It gives details of the emigration by periods – until the outbreak of the War, and emigration after July 1939.

It gives details, in particular, about the evidence the Court heard from witnesses from Prague. It gives a very good breakdown of all the forms, from no less than eleven different offices, which every emigrant had to fill out for this purpose. These were offices concentrated in the Central Office, which one had to go through in order to obtain permission to emigrate.

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/838.

Judge Halevi: Who signed this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is no signature on this report. It only says: Council of Elders. Who signed – it is not stated here. From the dictation marks, I cannot state that. It says here: P 1/Eng. One cannot see who this was. It concerns, in the end, transports which have departed. In fact, since the date is so late, June 1944, this report to Guenther’s office constitutes a very convenient summary of activities of the Gestapo against the Jews of the Protectorate.

I pass on to document No. 1196, again one of the statistical tables, this time in geographic form, which the office of the Community in Prague had to submit to Brunner’s office. There are figures of Jews in each individual district here, and a summary for 31 October 1943.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/839.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1192, a summary of the emigration of Jews and of transports of Jews from the Protectorate sent to Brunner’s office on 19 June 1944. On the third page the Court will find a detailed list of transports, which also mentions, among other things, those markings which we found in the weekly reports. Each transport is given its marking, its date, the place of departure, and the number of Jews. Usually the number is 1,000, or around 1,000, Jews who were included in the transports.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/840.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I may perhaps draw your attention to the fact that the summary is dated 19 June 1944. It mentions a total of 76,809 Jews. 7,000 were evacuated and 69,809 left (“abgewandert“). The detailed listing is to be found among the documents which were attached to this report.

Before ending the chapter on the Protectorate, I should like to revert to document No. 889. It is a letter from the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in Prague, of 20 May 1942. Since the Court will hear detailed evidence on what it refers to, I should like to read part of this letter. I shall read it in Hebrew, although the particular flavour will not come through. I hope the Court will compare the text with the original.

“Subject: The Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Prague. Various offices have lately expressed opinions about the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Prague, which comes under the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, opinions which are likely to undermine the prestige, the good name, of the Office, and hence of my authority. Concerning this I should like to say the following:

“If it is made easy for the German inhabitants of Prague, and especially for the officials and other public service personnel, to obtain decent housing and, in addition, to buy furniture at reasonable prices in these times – the credit lies only with the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. It seems that everybody has forgotten what the conditions were in the Reich by comparison.

“It is only as a result of the initiative of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration that the clandestine transfer of Jewish flats to Czechs was avoided. No one could have reproached the Central Office for Jewish Emigration if it had not taken measures which thwarted these intentions of the Jews. I need not emphasize that this tremendous task was carried out meticulously and correctly, with the least possible use of German forces.

“It is self-evident that the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, being a German authority, is ready to assist every fellow German, but this must not be carried to the extreme where this office is mistakenly considered as being a department store or a real estate agency. With regard to the disgusting incidents which are reported to me time and again, I do not wish to examine in detail at what time the most clamorous of these gentlemen became anti-Semites.

“It is quite an unreasonable demand from the SS men – who have the task, unpleasant in itself, to be constantly concerned with the Jews – that they should be abused by people from the tips of whose noses one can see that only three years ago they were probably sitting in one and the same cafe together with Jews. May I request that more understanding be shown for the work of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Dr. Servatius: I may perhaps observe that this is the Commander of the Security Police, and it is here indicated clearly that the Office for Jewish Emigration is under the supervision and authority of the Commander of the Security Police, i.e., not under Eichmann.

Judge Halevi: Who is this Boehme?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service. From the formal administrative point of view, I do not dispute what was stated by Counsel for the Defence.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/841.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The chapter of Czechoslovakia is now ended. With your permission, I shall call the witness who is to testify on this subject after the beginning of the second part of the morning session.

I now proceed to documents connected with the Theresienstadt camp. First I should like to ask Your Honours to permit me to submit document No. 109, the examination by the police, as well as the evidence before the People’s Court in Vienna, of Dr. Siegfried Seidl, of October 1945.

With the establishment of Theresienstadt and the transfer of Jews from Prague to the first work camp in Theresienstadt at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942, Dr. Seidl was appointed as the first commander of the camp.

Presiding Judge: Are you saying that this declaration is dated October 1945?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, this examination begins on 16 October 1945.

Judge Halevi: And this was before an Austrian People’s Court?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It was partly before the State Police of Vienna, and in the end before the People’s Court in Vienna, the Volksgericht. Seidl was sentenced there. The sentence was death, and it was carried out.

In this interrogation, Seidl testifies about himself and about his accomplices, including the Accused. He reviews the management of Theresienstadt Camp, reviews his activity with the Einsatzkommando Eichmann in Hungary, to which he was attached in the end following a meeting in Mauthausen, and after this back to Vienna, where he directed the final activities connected with the Ostwall* {*Should be the Suedostwall (see: T/842, p. 51/34) – i.e., the South-Eastern fortifications of the retreating German army.} together with Krumey, in connection with the utilization of several thousand persons who arrived in Austria from Hungary during the final months, or rather the final weeks, in fact, before the departure of the SS from Hungary.

He was one of Eichmann’s aides whom we have met – and shall meet again – over a long period of time. His position as regards the Centre, which we have dealt with, was similar to the position of Wisliceny whose declarations the Court has received.

The Court will meet this Seidl again. We shall meet him in the Polish chapter under Krumey’s command, and we shall meet him when we move on to Yugoslavia and deal with the expulsion of the Slovenes from Croatia.

His examination and his evidence seem to me to be most relevant, their prima facie value seems to me not unimportant, and I ask the Court in accordance with its special authority to permit the submission of document No. 109.

Dr. Servatius: I have no remarks concerning this matter.

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 35

We accept Seidl’s declarations as evidence, in accordance with what is stated in our Decision No. 7.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Owing to the importance of this document, I shall permit myself to draw the attention of the Court to a number of points in it.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/842 – but within limits, Mr. Bar-Or!

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have marked only the most important passages for myself; I shall not go with you through all the 34 pages of this record of the proceedings, Your Honour.

Seidl relates that, on 1 November 1941, i.e., only three weeks after the meeting in Prague of which we spoke this morning, he took upon himself the direction of Theresienstadt Camp. At the end of this passage he says that, with short interruptions, about 110,000 persons were brought to Theresienstadt, most of whom were sent on to the East. This is at the end of the first page.

On page 2 he says that he beat some of the inmates of the camp. At the end of the page, he speaks of an important event – which we shall encounter again. Here we can hear him speaking about this event. He talks about the punishing of special cases in connection with bribery of officials and smuggling of mail. At the end of the page he says that there was an order, issued by Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, that such offences are punishable by death.

Presiding Judge: It says in German “o.a. Verstoesse.” What does that mean?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It means “oben angefuehrte Verstoesse” (above-mentioned offences), i.e., bribery of officials and smuggling of mail. This may be a Viennese custom, and Seidl was an Austrian. Or there may be certain differences of style.

On page 3 he mentions the execution of sixteen persons in Theresienstadt for the smuggling of mail, in accordance with these orders by the Accused. He says that the executioner of these death sentences was himself a Jew by the name of Fischer. He tells of one case where the rope broke, and this Jew was hanged again.

He relates that, at the beginning of July 1943, he left Theresienstadt, and that then he became the first Commander of Bergen-Belsen Camp. On 11 March 1944, he is called to Mauthausen, and there he joins Einsatzkommando Eichmann and goes to Hungary. I am referring to 4.

Here he describes how in March 1945 most of the Hungarian Jews who reached Theresienstadt were in the end transferred from Theresienstadt to Bergen-Belsen. He says, rather laconically, that he heard about the fate of these Jews only after the capitulation, but adds parenthetically that most of them were liquidated in one way or another.

In another document – I am on page 2 of the second document – Seidl names the persons with whom he mainly worked in Theresienstadt. He mentions the Head of the Council of Elders, Jacob Edelstein, and his deputy, engineer Zucker. Again he speaks of the execution of sixteen persons for the smuggling of mail, and mentions – on page 3 of the second document – Guenther II (that was Guenther from Prague, not to be confused with the permanent deputy of the Accused, his brother, who was in Berlin).

He says that Guenther II personally supervised the execution of these sixteen Jews; this was carried out in two stages, nine at the first, and another seven at the second, stage. He says that at first he refused to carry out the executions – until he received an order from Prague.

On page 4 he mentions Obersturmfuehrer Burger, who succeeded him in the administration of Theresienstadt in 1943, and speaks of the great roll-call about which we have already heard, and which was held in the Leitmeritzer Kessel (the Leitmeritz Valley).

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 929 is signed by Suhr from the Department of the Accused, IVB4b. It is addressed to the Foreign Ministry, attention Counsellor of Legation Dr. Klingenfuss. It deals with Jews of Hungarian nationality.

I direct your attention only to the last paragraph of this letter. He refers here to his own letter IVB4b of 10 July 1942, and says that efforts must be made to reach an agreement with the Hungarian Government for Jewish property to be dealt with in accordance with the territorial principle.

The Court will see later on that the meaning of this principle was to leave the Jewish property in the hands of the government from whose territory the Jew was deported in the course of the extermination campaign.

The property of a Hungarian Jew in Germany belongs to the Germans; that of a Hungarian Jew in Hungary – to the Hungarians. That this was not always adhered to is another matter, but this was the principle agreed on with the governments, and it was called Territorialprinzip (territorial principle).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 930, a letter from Klingenfuss to Dr. Suhr, dated 27 August 1942. He asks that the Department of the Accused refrain, for the time being, from implementing measures which should have been taken in accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding letter.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 1292, a letter from the Gestapo Regional Headquarters Nuremberg-Fuerth of 26 August 1942, about the emigration of Jews to Theresienstadt on 10 and 23 September 1942. It says that these Jews have to be made to sign special forms, and a sample of this order is attached.

The text of the order is now, I believe, clear to the Court. It says here exactly what was already described in earlier orders. Reference is made to laws concerning the forfeiture of Communist property, of property of enemies of the Reich, etc., and on this basis a legal cover, so to speak, is given to the forfeiture of the property of the deported – this time to Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1027, an urgent letter which leaves Berlin on 4 September 1942. The letterhead is “Reich Minister of the Interior,” and full markings must of course be added: Pol. S. IVB4b. The letter goes to all Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Germany, to Vienna, Metz, Prague, Strassburg, Marburg (in Untersteiermark, the part that was taken from Yugoslavia), Luxembourg.

It is signed by Mueller and deals with police orders (which I already submitted) published in the Reich Official Gazette, concerning the designation of the Jews, and it says that Jews in the area of the Gestapo offices mentioned who hold Bulgarian nationality have to be included in the marking procedure.

The Court will remember that Heydrich announced that, although the order was general, internal instructions were given to refrain from applying it to Jews of foreign nationality. Here there is a different method: Instructions are given by letter to include this or that category of Jews within these general orders.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1294 is a telegram which we obtained from the Gestapo file in Wuerzburg, a telegram from the Accused to Nuremberg dated 19 September 1942, which shows meticulous attention even to one family in this district which was to be evacuated to Theresienstadt. Eichmann says:

“In reply to the above-mentioned report, I advise you that there are no objections to including about twelve suitable Jews aged 23 to 45″ – i.e., far below the age limit of 65 – “in the transport to Theresienstadt, for the purpose of looking after the sick and the infirm, on condition that they otherwise meet the guidelines for the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt. Jews  who, according to the guidelines, are ineligible for evacuation to the East or relocation to Theresienstadt, respectively, must, on principle, not be deported even when they volunteer for inclusion or apply for it. I request, therefore, to leave the Jew Kurt Israel Fels behind. As for the decision in the case of the Jewess Gertrud Sara Hahn, I leave this to your discretion. The parents may be taken to Theresienstadt later…”

The telegram is signed: Head Office for Reich Security IVB4a – Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1284 is a telegram from Regensburg to the Wuerzburg branch of the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo about the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt. Inter alia, it says in this telegram that the transport costs amount to 2,066 Reichsmark and 50 Pfennigs.

“I request that this amount be transferred immediately from Special Account W to Account No. 142 of the Police Treasury Regensburg with the Reichsbank Regensburg.” Here we have a withdrawal from Account W for the purpose of covering the transport costs of deported Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now for document No. 1107. It is a note in the file of the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo, Duesseldorf, of October 1942 and deals with a Jew who was apparently active in what was left of the Community Council. He is here accused of having willfully omitted the names of the members of one family from the list which had to be prepared for the use of the Gestapo. Attached to the document is a “ (order for protective arrest) signed by Mueller; this is actually a standard form, to which specific reasons had only to be added. Here those reasons which result from the note received by Duesseldorf are given in brief.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 922. It is a memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of Argentina, dated 4 November 1942, and deals with the problems of a Jew named Mayerhoff who wishes to go to Argentina, in order to acquire Argentinian nationality.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In document No. 923, Rademacher transmits the request of the Argentinian embassy to Eichmann for his attention. What the Court will find here is typical in connection with Rademacher’s files. We have already seen “Durchdruck als Konzept” (copy in lieu of draft). Rademacher does not use a “copy in lieu of draft,” he takes his draft and puts it into his file instead of his copy. Most of his documents are to be found in this form in his files; luckily he did us a favour and wrote in a fairly clear hand.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I hope the Court will forgive me. I am not submitting this series of documents because they are of special interest, but in order that we may understand the method of proving how these offices operated. I have chosen a typical case, by means of which we can follow the whole inter-office negotiating process between the Department of the Accused on the one hand, and the Foreign Ministry on the other. I shall submit two more documents on this matter.

Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Hans Peter Israel Mayerhoff, who lived in Berlin. In our document No. 924 Guenther informs Klingenfuss: “For reasons of principle, the intended journey abroad of the above-mentioned Jew cannot be approved, as you were told in the telephone conversation on 16 November 1942. It is intended to deport Mayerhoff to Theresienstadt.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now, in document No. 925, the Foreign Ministry passes on to the Argentine embassy in Berlin what was communicated by Eichmann – with the exception of what was stated to be in store for the future. It is not said here what will be done with him. It simply says that the German authorities cannot agree to the emigration of the above-mentioned Jew for reasons of principle.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We now turn to our document No. 199. That is a letter from Luther to Eichmann, i.e., from a person of higher rank directly to Eichmann. In this letter, of December 1942, Luther announces that the governments of Romania, Croatia and Slovakia have agreed that those of their Jews who are at present within the jurisdiction of the Reich shall be deported and evacuated to the ghettos in the East together with the German Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our next document is No. 968, a letter from Hunsche of the Section of the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, written in January 1943. I should first like to draw the attention of the Court to two points: The subject is a Jew named Eduard Loewenthal. The marking (on the document) is actually divided into two parts: IVB4b-4 – here we find again a subdivision. Then it says: L 16165.

This is one of the few indications we have about the existence of an exact card index containing the names of the Jews of all the Regional Gestapo Headquarters in the various regions of the Reich. There is mention here of a personal file containing material about a certain Jew.

The subject is the forfeiture of the property of this Jew in accordance with Regulation 11, and the Foreign Ministry is asked to find out if he had Italian nationality, when he acquired it and when he lost the German nationality which he apparently held before becoming Italian. The intention is obvious – this has to be clarified before the fate of his property can be decided.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will forgive me if I revert to document No. 9, which was already submitted and marked T/271, a draft which aroused some interest, on which it says: “Obersturmbannfehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat Hunsche.” Now I should like to demonstrate to the Court how these matters developed, what was the nature of this draft. I do not submit it, the document is already an exhibit, I only want to refer to it for the purpose of clarification.

Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. The Court will certainlyremember that on T/271 there was a discussion between the Defence and ourselves concerning the nature of the document, which is not signed at all. At the top it says: Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b; under this: Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat Hunsche. First of all, here it says what I just mentioned: That the document was brought to the attention of certain offices for their comments, among others to that of the Foreign Ministry. It was received at the Foreign Ministry on 8 February 1943.

Presiding Judge: Are you now referring to that actual document?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am referring to the actual document, No. 9, which was already submitted.

Presiding Judge: I understand that you are doing this only in order to refresh our memory.

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is perhaps another matter worth considering, as my colleague has just pointed out to me. On the very last page of document No. 9, we find the Verteiler (distribution) to whom the document was sent for comments. The first column: Foreign Ministry; this is the copy that is before us, and then the departments of the Head Office for Reich Security. They all received document T/271, in order that they might give their opinion on what was to be sent out. At the end of the Verteiler we find IVB4b.

Presiding Judge: This is also not very clear. If the document comes from this Department, why does the same Department receive it once more?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I think it is for the purpose of filing.

Now let us look at our document No. 788, which is connected with that (earlier) document. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(96). This letter did go out, it is actually signed, by Dr. Kaltenbrunner on 5 March 1943 (and was sent) shortly thereafter. It now has the final marking “Der Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD” (The Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b). Where does this document go?

Presiding Judge: Is this the final letter of which T/271 was the draft?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour. The differences here in this draft, maybe in document T/271 we shall see the letter sent out in III. This is the letter which is at this moment in its final form before the Court. Here there are several letters. What is No. 788 here, the  exhibit before the Court, this is the letter sent out, III.

We see the same addresses to which it was to go, we also find the subject: “Treatment of Jews of Foreign Nationality in the Government General and the Occupied Areas of the East.” This is the very subject of letter No. 788. The text is not very different. There is, in fact, mention here of the same sixteen countries, and the text as sent follows this draft.

Presiding Judge: Document No. 788 is marked T/761.

Secretary: This has already been submitted.

State Attorney Bar-Or: [To Clerk of the Court] Has No. 535 also been submitted?

Presiding Judge: I see that this document was submitted and marked T/310.

[The Clerk of the Court hands document T/310 to the Presiding Judge]

Why are we dealing with these two documents a second time? Document No. 535 has not yet been submitted to us.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I only wanted to elucidate the development of these matters. One cannot submit the additional documents without referring to what we have already submitted.

Presiding Judge: All this in order to explain the heading?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, all this is intended to explain the heading. I have to agree with you, Your Honour, that it would have been much easier and much more logical to submit all these documents together.

This document is also signed by Dr. Kaltenbrunner, also under the heading Der Reichsminister des Inneren (the Reich Minister of the Interior), Pol. S IVB4b, also on 5 March 1943. While the previous one went to the Security Police authorities mainly in the East, here the same subject is repeated, and it goes to the Centre and the West. The difference is, as the Court will see immediately, that previously sixteen countries were mentioned, whereas here only fifteen countries appear.

Here Jews of Soviet nationality are accorded rights or standing similar to all those who did receive exemption. This did not accord with what was agreed or with what was proposed by the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry did not know that on the basis of this draft two circular letters would be sent out, one in this direction and one in that, therefore there is now an additional correspondence.

Presiding Judge: Your document No. 535 will be marked T/761.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 15, a letter by von Thadden.

Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a matter connected with it. Here the finished product actually emerges. The finished product will be Bergen-Belsen. Von Thadden’s letter to Eichmann is dated 2 March 1943. It refers to Eichmann’s letter dealing with Jews in the areas of Nazi domination who hold Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian and Soviet-Russian nationality. The question is whether they may be included in the general measures against the Jews.

The Foreign Ministry asks to retain about 30,000 Jews who might be used for the purpose of exchange. The interesting thing here is one sentence by von Thadden which says – at the end of the first page: “In view of the relations between the hostile powers among themselves, it is recommended to make up the main contingent of Jews to be retained, in the first instance, of Dutch, Belgian and Norwegian nations of the Jewish race.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to our document No. 931, a letter by von Hahn from the Foreign Ministry to the Accused of 5 March 1943.

Judge Halevi: The previous letter also looks as if it is signed by von Hahn, does it not?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is a Vermerk (remark) at the end of the letter: “Because of the great urgency, I signed this letter.” I think I have to agree with you, Your Honour, that the signature is von Hahn’s.

Judge Halevi: Yes, this is not important, it is only because you mention von Hahn.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to a further document from the Wuerzburg file, No. 1286. This is a list I have just mentioned. Wuerzburg reports to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo about the valuable objects seized during the body search of the Jews readied for the transport to the East of 26 November 1941. In this detailed list, the Court will also find watches, rings, etc. The name of each Jew appears together with the personal objects found on his body at the last moment.

Finally, another list which contains much more varied objects. There appears even an Iron Cross, Second Class, a Cross of Merit, Second Class, and two Frontkaempferehrenkreuze (Cross of Honour for Frontline Fighters). These objects were taken away, and it was reported that they were in safekeeping.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/721.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now submit our document No.737, a circular letter which is typical, from the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany, dated 1 December 1941, and signed by Paul Israel Eppstein and Philip Israel Kotzover. On the basis of orders from the Accused and his Section, the Reich Association submits information about the detailed implementation of the restrictions on disposal of movable property by Jews. Among other things it says here: “In connection with the fact that lately, without any general cause, a change of property of considerable proportions, especially of property under management belonging to Jews up to now, had been noted, the Supervising Authority, wishing to avoid disturbances in the orderly functioning of the market, has issued the following regulations which we publish hereunder.”

This referred, of course, to an attempt by Jews, who found themselves before the final stages, to secure their property by transferring it secretly to Germans who might be ready, in some case, to look after it. Information about this reached the Accused and his Section, and here we have before us the means by which to avoid such illicit diversions of property, so to speak.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/722.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now I pass on to our document No. 738. Two days later, the Reichsvereinigung publishes, again over the signature of Eppstein, joined this time by Dr. Arthur Liliental, instructions, or rather guidelines; this is called “Merkblatt” (instruction sheet) here – to all the Jewish communities, which are here called – as they should be according to the law – “An die juedischen Kultusvereinigungen” (to the Jewish religious associations). The instruction sheet is dated 3 December 1941.

Presiding Judge: Do you have only this copy? Do you not have the original?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We received the document like this. This was also the form in which it was shown to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Where did you receive it from?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I think it comes from Yad Vashem. This document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(230). The Accused refers to it on page 2629. The establishment of “Special Account W” is explicitly mentioned here for the first time, and this is what is said, inter alia:

“For the purpose of raising funds in connection with evacuation transports, the following rules are established under orders of our Control Authority: (1) Every participant in evacuation transports has to be made to pay a suitable part of his liquid means (not including securities) to the Reich Association. It must be pointed out in this connection that the amount paid must be no less than 25 per cent of the liquid funds (without securities). (2) This payment shall be made as a contribution, the need for which must be suitably explained to the donors.”

These were people whose deportation by train was imminent, it was the last minute in the Sammellager.

“It may be explained that the contributions are first and foremost intended as monies to be used for the sums which are to be sent with the evacuation transports,  and also for supplying the transports with food, tools, etc. Furthermore, they shall serve – this may be explained to the Jews – the tasks incumbent on the Reichsvereinigung, in particular the welfare of its members.”

Further on it says:

“Each request for allotment of funds from Special Account W has to be accompanied at the same time by a statement of income and expenditure” of the kind with which the Court is already familiar from earlier documents “up to that moment; this may be limited to major categories of income and expenditure. After completion of the transports, an exact statement of account has of course to be given.”

Paragraph 6 reads:

“In the monthly reports, the income of Special Account W has to be counted as additions to the balance, the expenditure as subtractions from the balance.”

There is no need to state in this connection that means at the disposal of the account of the Reichsvereinigung, or monies ostensibly transferred to it, were not only under the supervision of the Accused, but under his complete control.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/723.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1283, again from the file of the Gestapo in Wuerzburg, a letter from Suhr of the Accused’s Section, dated the same day, 3 December 1941. It concerns the evacuation, the deportation of Jews to Minsk and Riga from the Old Reich, from the Ostmark – that means Austria – and from the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia. Here he speaks about guidelines for the treatment of the property. We shall find that this Suhr, who was a lawyer, dealt, during his period of service in the Section of the Accused, mainly with matters of Jewish property.

I beg to direct attention to what is said at the end here: “In the spirit of paragraph 3 of the present Order, care has to be taken in the case of future transports that lists of the deported persons are handed over in time, in order to enable the donations to be made.” There is always this concern for the financing of the transport out of means not provided for by law, which have to be raised by this method of what was dubbed donations.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/724.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 734, a letter sent to the Accused. It only says here: “To the Head  Office for Reich Security,” but we shall see at once that it reached the Accused; it was sent in the name of the Military Commander in France and dealt with the emigration of Jews of German nationality from the Reich to the occupied area of France.

He relates that recently there has been an increasing number of cases where such people residing in the area of occupation, and who have relatives in the Reich, ask permission to bring them into the French occupied zone. He asks for guidance what to do.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/725.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the next document, No. 735, we find the reply from the Accused, this time marked IVB4a. He does not, of course, write to the Military Commander; he writes to the representative of the Head of the Security Police and the Security Service for France and Belgium, Paris Office. He refers to the Runderlass (circular letter), or general instruction, IVB4 (Rz) of 23 October 1941, which is our document No. 1209; I regret that I cannot state what marking this document was given here.

He reminds the men in France that, in accordance with orders from the Reichsfuehrer SS, all emigration of Jews from the Reich area has been stopped, that all applications reaching Berlin directly are refused by Berlin, and that the same has to be done in the German-occupied zone in France.

I draw attention to a marginal remark added here by Dannecker. In the document it says: “I request you to inform the Military Commander in accordance with the above and to ask him to refuse, on his part also, any movement of Jews to the occupied zone of France, since the Jews, aware of the evacuation to the East, are trying to escape from it by every means possible.” After the words “to the occupied zone of France,” Dannecker adds: “and also unoccupied.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/726.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And one more document on this chapter, No. 736, a letter from Dannecker to the Military Commander in France. Here we see the administrative channel by which Eichmann’s instructions are transmitted also to this high level. The letter was dictated and signed by Dannecker, and he repeats, in fact, the instructions he received from Eichmann and brings them to the attention of the Military Command.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/727.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to document No. 1173, a letter from Eichmann to the Foreign Ministry, dated 28 January 1942. Here is one of the cases where he finds time to deal with the individual case of a Jew, Dr. Alfred Israel Philippsson. Sven Hedin, the Swede, has intervened here and approached the Minister of the Interior, in order to obtain permission for this Jew to remain in Bonn, so that he will not be deported to the East.

Eichmann says: “…his remaining in Bonn until his demise, as well as an exceptional emigration, cannot be permitted, since in the course of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, it is intended to concentrate Jews over 65 residing in the Reich area in a ghetto for old people.”

The Court has already received a document reporting about a meeting held in Prague in October 1941. We shall still revert to that document. Here, for the first time, mention is made of the intention to create what they call an “Altersghetto” (ghetto for the aged), here there is already an explicit reference to this plan.

Presiding Judge: It appears here that there were instructions not to send old people to the East. Is something known about this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. We shall show this. I shall prove there were instructions by the Accused concerning persons over 65 years of age. This refers, of course, to the year 1942. The ghetto began to function only in January 1942. He gives orders to transfer those over the age of 65, and, in addition, some further privileged categories, to Theresienstadt. We have heard, and we shall still hear more, about what happened in Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/728.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now document No. 1265, again guidelines from the Accused’s section IVB4a, signed by Suhr, guidelines about the treatment of the property of Jews about to be deported to the area of the Generalgouvernement, Lublin-Trawniki. Here we have the interpretation of the jurist Suhr, which is worth reading. At the end of page 2 he says:

“…Since the Generalgouvernement has to be regarded as a foreign country in this respect,” i.e., a country not belonging to the area of the Reich, “therefore, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Regulation 11 under the Reich Law of Citizenship of 25.11.1941 (Reich Official Gazette I, page 722), the property of the Jews who lose their nationality in the framework of this legal regulation is automatically forfeited to the German Reich immediately after the German border has been crossed. The same applies to Jews who were stateless at the time when this Regulation came into force and whose last nationality was German, if they normally reside abroad* or made their home abroad, which is the case here. It seems that these conditions apply to most of the deported Jews.”

The emphasis is in the original. And he continues:

“In the few cases where Regulation 11 under the Reich Citizenship Law is not applicable, inter alia in cases where the Jew dies after the notification about his deportation but before his entry into the Generalgouvernement, the property has to be confiscated immediately, on the strength of the pertinent regulations regarding the confiscation of the property of the enemies of state and nation, for the benefit of the German Reich.”

Nothing can escape here from the clutches of the “legal” regulations which were made on this subject. In connection with what we have already learned about the use, at the very last moment, of personnel of the Execution Office, for the purpose of serving the confiscation orders, I direct attention to one sentence only on page 4 at the beginning of the next passage: “When the confiscation orders have thus been completely filled in, they must be handed to the execution officers for service on the Jews.” And, in fact, the execution officer of the court comes to the assembly camp and hands these notifications to the Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/729.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1278, a letter from the Accused to all State Police Headquarters in the Old  Reich, to the State Police Headquarters in Vienna, and, for information, to the Inspectors of the Security Police and the Security Service in the Old Reich and in Vienna. Here, too, the subject is the evacuation of Jews. The marking is IVB4 without any addition. The letter is dated 31 January 1942, and says, inter alia:

“The evacuation of Jews to the East, which has recently been carried out in some regions, represents the beginning of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Old Reich, the Ostmark, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.”

On page 2 he says:

“At present new possibilities for reception are being worked out, with the aim of deporting further contingents of Jews from the Old Reich, the Ostmark, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The detailed planning and preparation of this further evacuation necessitates, in the first instance, a scrupulous ascertainment of the numbers of Jews still resident in the Reich area, according to the following aspects which correspond to the guidelines for the evacuation…”

And here now, steps towards further deportations in 1942 are being planned.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/730.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now turn – not necessarily in connection with the operations we have been considering – to an agreement made on 8 August 1941, at the headquarters of the Fuehrer between Joachim Ribbentrop and Heinrich Himmler, which is contained in our document No. 466. With the Court’s permission, I shall briefly summarize its contents:

In those areas outside the Reich where it was necessary to operate either directly or indirectly, differences of opinion between the Foreign Ministry and the Head Office for Reich Security seem to have emerged concerning the method of action to be taken there. The men of the Security Police frequently circumvented Foreign Ministry channels, so it appears, and each side, Ribbentrop for the Foreign Ministry and Himmler for the Security Police, wishes to secure his place, but this time through coordination, without local partisanship, without relying on the intuition of the men on the spot.

It is this arrangement of 8 August 1941, which guides the coordination from now on, the adjustment between the Accused and his men on the one hand, and, on the other, the aides of Luther, Rademacher, von Thadden, and all those whom we find on Ribbentrop’s side. The place of the various police attaches and their tasks are discussed here.

We shall come to them later. I have already submitted an earlier document, in which the Court could find details about men who eventually served in these posts. It is these instructions, or rather this agreement, that determines definitely the methods of operation between the Accused’s Section and the corresponding department in the Foreign Ministry.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/731.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us turn to the sufferings of the individual for a moment. I submit document No. 1559, a letter from the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, dated 28 October 1941 – IVB4b (Rz). The subject is the emigration of the Jewess Lilli Sara Zatzkis. To a letter of 20 October 1941, from the Foreign Ministry, he replies that emigration of Jews to unoccupied France has to be prevented “im Hinblick auf die kommende Endloesung der europaeischen Judenfrage” (in view of the coming Final Solution of the European Jewish Question). At the end he says: “I have instructed the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany to give a negative reply to the Jewess Zatzkis with reference to her application of the end of 1941.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/732.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1558 brings before the Honourable Court a letter from a Jewish lady, Flora Sara Bucher. She wrote to the Foreign Ministry on 10 October 1941, mentioning that she was cohabiting in a mixed marriage, and that her mother was sent to the South of France on 22 October 1940 – I assume that she means the camp at Gurs; we recall this operation. Now she wishes to join her mother and asks the Foreign Ministry for the necessary papers. This request was passed on to Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/733.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 929 is signed by Suhr from the Department of the Accused, IVB4b. It is addressed to the Foreign Ministry, attention Counsellor of Legation Dr. Klingenfuss. It deals with Jews of Hungarian nationality. I direct your attention only to the last paragraph of this letter.

He refers here to his own letter IVB4b of 10 July 1942, and says that efforts must be made to reach an agreement with the Hungarian Government for Jewish property to be dealt with in accordance with the territorial principle.

The Court will see later on that the meaning of this principle was to leave the Jewish property in the hands of the government from whose territory the Jew was deported in the course of the extermination campaign. The property of a Hungarian Jew in Germany belongs to the Germans; that of a Hungarian Jew in Hungary – to the Hungarians.

That this was not always adhered to is another matter, but this was the principle agreed on with the governments, and it was called Territorialprinzip (territorial principle).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 930, a letter from Klingenfuss to Dr. Suhr, dated 27 August 1942. He asks that  the Department of the Accused refrain, for the time being, from implementing measures which should have been taken in accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding  letter.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 1292, a letter from the Gestapo Regional Headquarters Nuremberg-Fuerth of 26 August 1942, about the emigration of Jews to Theresienstadt on 10 and 23 September 1942. It says that these Jews have to be made to sign special forms, and a sample of this order is attached. The text of the order is now, I believe, clear to the Court.

It says here exactly what was already described in earlier orders. Reference is made to laws concerning the forfeiture of Communist property, of property of enemies of the Reich, etc., and on this basis a legal cover, so to speak, is given to the forfeiture of the property of the deported – this time to Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1027, an urgent letter which leaves Berlin on 4 September 1942. The letterhead is “Reich Minister of the Interior,” and full markings must of course be added: Pol. S. IVB4b. The letter goes to all Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Germany, to Vienna, Metz, Prague, Strassburg, Marburg (in Untersteiermark, the part that was taken from Yugoslavia), Luxembourg.

It is signed by Mueller and deals with police orders (which I already submitted) published in the Reich Official Gazette, concerning the designation of the Jews, and it says that Jews in the area of the Gestapo offices mentioned who hold Bulgarian nationality have to be included in the marking procedure.

The Court will remember that Heydrich announced that, although the order was general, internal instructions were given to refrain from applying it to Jews of foreign nationality. Here there is a different method: Instructions are given by letter to include this or that category of Jews within these general orders.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1294 is a telegram which we obtained from the Gestapo file in Wuerzburg, a telegram from the Accused to Nuremberg dated 19 September 1942, which shows meticulous attention even to one family in this district which was to be evacuated to Theresienstadt. Eichmann says:

“In reply to the above-mentioned report, I advise you that there are no objections to including about twelve suitable Jews aged 23 to 45″ – i.e., far below the age limit of 65 – “in the transport to Theresienstadt, for the purpose of looking after the sick and the infirm, on condition that they otherwise meet the guidelines for the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt.

Jews who, according to the guidelines, are ineligible for evacuation to the East or relocation to Theresienstadt, respectively, must, on principle, not be deported even when they volunteer for inclusion or apply for it. I request, therefore, to leave the Jew Kurt Israel Fels behind. As for the decision in the case of the Jewess Gertrud Sara Hahn, I leave this to your discretion. The parents may be taken to Theresienstadt later…”

The telegram is signed: Head Office for Reich Security IVB4a – Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1284 is a telegram from Regensburg to the Wuerzburg branch of the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo about the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt. Inter alia, it says in this telegram that the transport costs amount to 2,066 Reichsmark and 50 Pfennigs. “I request that this amount be transferred immediately from Special Account W to Account No. 142 of the Police Treasury Regensburg with the Reichsbank Regensburg.” Here we have a withdrawal from Account W for the purpose of covering the transport costs of deported Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now for document No. 1107. It is a note in the file of the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo, Duesseldorf, of October 1942 and deals with a Jew who was apparently active in what was left of the Community Council. He is here accused of having willfully omitted the names of the members of one family from the list which had to be prepared for the use of the Gestapo. Attached to the document is a “Schutzhaftbefehl” (order for protective arrest) signed by Mueller; this is actually a standard form, to which specific reasons had only to be added. Here those reasons which result from the note received by Duesseldorf are given in brief.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 922. It is a memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of Argentina, dated 4 November 1942, and deals with the problems of a Jew named Mayerhoff who wishes to go to Argentina, in order to acquire Argentinian nationality.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In document No. 923, Rademacher transmits the request of the Argentinian embassy to Eichmann for his attention. What the Court will find here is typical in connection with Rademacher’s files. We have already seen “Durchdruck als Konzept” (copy in lieu of draft). Rademacher does not use a “copy in lieu of draft,” he takes his draft and puts it into his file instead of his copy. Most of his documents are to be found in this form in his files; luckily he did us a favour and wrote in a fairly clear hand.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I hope the Court will forgive me. I am not submitting this series of documents because they are of special interest, but in order that we may understand the method of proving how these offices operated. I have chosen a typical case, by means of which we can follow the whole inter-office negotiating process between the Department of the Accused on the one hand, and the Foreign Ministry on the other. I shall submit two more documents on this matter.

Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Hans Peter Israel Mayerhoff, who lived in Berlin. In our document No. 924 Guenther informs Klingenfuss: “For reasons of principle, the intended journey abroad of the above-mentioned Jew cannot be approved, as you were told in the telephone conversation on 16 November 1942. It is intended to deport Mayerhoff to Theresienstadt.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now, in document No. 925, the Foreign Ministry passes on to the Argentine embassy in Berlin what was communicated by Eichmann – with the exception of what was stated to be in store for the future. It is not said here what will be done with him. It simply says that the German authorities cannot agree to the emigration of the above-mentioned Jew for reasons of principle.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We now turn to our document No. 199. That is a letter from Luther to Eichmann, i.e., from a person of higher rank directly to Eichmann. In this letter, of December 1942, Luther announces that the governments of  Romania, Croatia and Slovakia have agreed that those of their Jews who are at present within the jurisdiction of the Reich shall be deported and evacuated to the ghettos in the East together with the German Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our next document is No. 968, a letter from Hunsche of the Section of the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, written in January 1943. I should first like to draw the attention of the Court to two points: The subject is a Jew named Eduard Loewenthal. The marking (on the document) is actually divided into two parts: IVB4b-4 – here we find again a subdivision. Then it says: L 16165.

This is one of the few indications we have about the existence of an exact card index containing the names of the Jews of all the Regional Gestapo Headquarters in the various regions of the Reich. There is mention here of a personal file containing material about a certain Jew. The subject is the forfeiture of the property of this Jew in accordance with Regulation 11, and the Foreign Ministry is asked to find out if he had Italian nationality, when he acquired it and when he lost the German nationality which he apparently held before becoming Italian. The intention is obvious – this has to be clarified before the fate of his property can be decided.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will forgive me if I revert to document No. 9, which was already submitted and marked T/271, a draft which aroused some interest, on which it says: “Obersturmbannfehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat Hunsche.” Now I should like to demonstrate to the Court how these matters developed, what was the nature of this draft.  I do not submit it, the document is already an exhibit, I only want to refer to it for the purpose of clarification.

Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. The Court will certainly remember that on T/271 there was a discussion between the Defence and ourselves concerning the nature of the document, which is not signed at all. At the top it says: Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b; under this: Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat Hunsche.

First of all, here it says what I just mentioned: That the document was brought to the attention of certain offices for their comments, among others to that of the Foreign Ministry. It was received at the Foreign Ministry on 8 February 1943.

Presiding Judge: Are you now referring to that actual document?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am referring to the actual document, No. 9, which was already submitted.

Presiding Judge: I understand that you are doing this only in order to refresh our memory.

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is perhaps another matter worth considering, as my colleague has just pointed out to me. On the very last page of document No. 9, we find the Verteiler (distribution) to whom the document was sent for comments. The first column: Foreign Ministry; this is the copy that is before us, and then the departments of the Head Office for Reich Security. They all received document T/271, in order that they might give their opinion on what was to be sent out. At the end of the Verteiler we find IVB4b.

Presiding Judge: This is also not very clear. If the document comes from this Department, why does the same Department receive it once more?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I think it is for the purpose of filing.

Now let us look at our document No. 788, which is connected  with that (earlier) document. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(96). This letter did go out, it is actually signed, by Dr. Kaltenbrunner on 5 March 1943 (and was sent) shortly thereafter. It now has the final marking “Der Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD” (The Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b). Where does this document go?

Presiding Judge: Is this the final letter of which T/271 was the draft?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour. The differences here in this draft, maybe in document T/271 we shall see the letter sent out in III. This is the letter which is at this moment in its final form before the Court. Here there are several letters. What is No. 788 here, the exhibit before the Court, this is the letter sent out, III.

We see the same addresses to which it was to go, we also find the subject: “Treatment of Jews of Foreign Nationality in the Government General and the Occupied Areas of the East.” This is the very subject of letter No. 788. The text is not very different. There is, in fact, mention here of the same sixteen countries, and the text as sent follows this draft.

Presiding Judge: Document No. 788 is marked T/761.

Secretary: This has already been submitted.

State Attorney Bar-Or: [To Clerk of the Court] Has No. 535 also been submitted?

Presiding Judge: I see that this document was submitted and marked T/310.

[The Clerk of the Court hands document T/310 to the Presiding Judge]

Why are we dealing with these two documents a second time? Document No. 535 has not yet been submitted to us.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I only wanted to elucidate the development of these matters. One cannot submit the additional documents without referring to what we have already submitted.

Presiding Judge: All this in order to explain the heading?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, all this is intended to explain the heading. I have to agree with you, Your Honour, that it would have been much easier and much more logical to submit all these documents together.

This document is also signed by Dr. Kaltenbrunner, also under the heading Der Reichsminister des Inneren (the Reich Minister of the Interior), Pol. S IVB4b, also on 5 March 1943. While the previous one went to the Security Police authorities mainly in the East, here the same subject is repeated, and it goes to the Centre and the West. The difference is, as the Court will see immediately, that previously sixteen countries were mentioned, whereas here only fifteen countries appear.

Here Jews of Soviet nationality are accorded rights or standing similar to all those who did receive exemption. This did not accord with what was agreed or with what was proposed by the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry did not know that on the basis of this draft two circular letters would be sent out, one in this direction and one in that, therefore there is now an additional correspondence.

Presiding Judge: Your document No. 535 will be marked T/761.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 15, a letter by von Thadden.

Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a matter connected with it. Here the finished product actually emerges. The finished product will be Bergen-Belsen. Von Thadden’s letter to Eichmann is dated 2 March 1943. It refers to Eichmann’s letter dealing with Jews in the areas of Nazi domination who hold Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian and Soviet-Russian nationality. The question is whether they may be included in the general measures against the Jews.

The Foreign Ministry asks to retain about 30,000 Jews who might be used for the purpose of exchange. The interesting thing here is one sentence by von Thadden which says – at the end of the first page: “In view of the relations between the hostile powers among themselves, it is recommended to make up the main contingent of Jews to be retained, in the first instance, of Dutch, Belgian and Norwegian nations of the Jewish race.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to our document No. 931, a letter by von Hahn from the Foreign Ministry to the Accused of 5 March 1943.

Judge Halevi: The previous letter also looks as if it is signed by von Hahn, does it not?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is a Vermerk (remark) at the end of the letter: “Because of the great urgency, I signed this letter.” I think I have to agree with you, Your Honour, that the signature is von Hahn’s.

Judge Halevi: Yes, this is not important, it is only because you mention von Hahn.

Previous | Index | Next