The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Q. You spoke about a conversation you had with the Accused – I think it was on 24 or 25 April?

A. About the “ghettoization.”

Q. In the course of that conversation, whose first-degree relatives did the Accused propose, or agree, to release from the “ghettoization”?

A. Those of the members of the central executive.

Q. Did you request that?

A. No. We did not request it. It was spontaneous. Because Dr. Reiner had complained; he said “Why are you making a ghetto?” something like that. He asked: “How can one maintain hygiene, if one square metre is being provided?” He was then asked: “How do you know this?”

He replied: “Rooms have been allotted both to our parents and our families according to this quota.” Then Eichmann said to Krumey: “Very well, they can be brought back to Budapest.”

A. And was this carried out afterwards?

A. It was partly implemented, partly not. People were brought from Nyiregyhaza, but, for example, the two sisters of Dr. Wilhelm, who were living in Kassa, were deported, as were the mother and sister of Kahan-Frankl.

Q. Why did the Accused extend this favour, or this act of grace, to the Jews?

A. I believe that was somehow part of the plan of the SS. Generally, there was a plan to calm the people and to let everybody think that if one person could be brought back, perhaps another one could be brought back as well. Or simply that we had asked that they should not implement “ghettoization” – that they should create better conditions; then it was simpler to tell me: “I shall send five or ten people to Budapest, rather than making some other arrangement on the spot.”

Q. Did you see Wisliceny’s evidence after the War regarding yourself?

A. Yes. I was happy to read it.

Q. Please look at this page, and see whether the account is correct. (I am showing him T/1116 on page 14) At the bottom, in the last line.* {*Refers to the Hebrew translation. For the original, see Exhibit T/1116, p. 8 (S.86).}

A. “There were circumstances preceding Freudiger’s departure. From the very beginning Eichmann had hated Freudiger, because he had a red beard, and because of his confident and non-servile bearing towards him. Endre had a Jewish informer, a certain Rabbi Berend who came from Satoraljaujhely or from Kosice. That is where his family were living.

Endre described this Berend as a Jewish national socialist. Berend constantly gave Endre information about members of the Jewish council, but especially about Freudiger. He described Freudiger as the head of a Jewish conspiracy. Endre reported this to Eichmann and suggested eliminating Freudiger.

Eichmann agreed and wanted to get rid of Freudiger and his family, in exactly the same way as he had sent people simply off to their deaths, one by one – Dr. Eppstein and other public officials in Germany who had ‘known too much.’ Freudiger was to ‘depart’ from Budapest towards the end of August, either alone or on the first deportation train.

As soon as I became aware of this, I advised Freudiger about it. I was the one who insisted on his escaping. We considered all kinds of ways how he could escape, for Freudiger’s family was a very large one.

After we examined all the possibilities, we were left only with Romania. I secured from Grell, the counsellor to the German embassy, the grant of Romanian ‘returnee passports.’ Freudiger did not want to leave but only wanted to send his family. But his wife and children did not want to leave without him. On my personal insistence that any delay was likely to mean certain death, he decided to go, and a few hours before that he was still in my apartment. I sent a Hungarian policeman, who was personally loyal to me, to the train to watch the departure and report to me. When Freudiger left me, he happened to come across Hunsche.

In this way Eichmann got to know about Freudiger’s visit to me. The next day Eichmann learned, through Endre, of Freudiger’s escape. He immediately accused me of assisting him and opened an enquiry. Dr. Kasztner’s report does not do full justice to Freudiger and his activities. Freudiger had to leave, since his remaining would simply have been a useless sacrifice. No one can appreciate this more than I do.”

Q. Is this a correct description?

A. It is slightly exaggerated, but there is something in it.

Q. Were all these details known to you at the time, or did you get to know about them later?

A. No. He told me, as I have said: “Freudiger, go now – you must go.” Several times he told me that Eichmann was angry with me. But the fact that he wanted to deport me or to kill me and my family – that he did not tell me.

Q. Why this excessive care on the part of Wisliceny – why did Wisliceny worry so much about you?

A. Your Honour, I have spoken about this matter – how he brought me a letter, and how our connections with him through Slovakia were known. I was in constant contact with him, and he also received money and all kinds of things from me. He did, in fact, say that it was worthwhile rescuing me. He thought this to be somewhat of a duty, after all the negotiations with him. I do not know whether he would have saved me if there had been a deportation in Budapest as there were throughout the country. But to save me from the private hatred of Eichmann – that he found to be in order.

Q. Did you not know about Eichmann’s personal hatred towards you?

A. Not to that extent. I read that, as I have said, with joy – joy at the fact that I had been privileged to read it, to be alive and to read it.

Q. To what extent did you supply information about the situation to the provinces – to the communities that were deported – before the deportations took place, or at the time they were taking place? When you got to know, when you received the news from Weissmandel, was it possible to convey information about it to the communities in eastern and northern Hungary? What did you do?

A. In eastern and northern Hungary, it was not possible. By the time I received the information, and by the time we believed what Auschwitz meant – the eastern and north-western parts of Hungary, the 300,000 persons whom I mentioned – they had already been deported.

The plan of action was according to the following order: North-east, east, north, south and west. By the end of June, by the middle of June, only western Hungary remained, and the Jewish population there was relatively small. They already knew, they already received instructions from us, they were aware of their fate. But what could we have done?

Please forgive me, Your Honour. We spoke about this before, before the incident – I mean the disturbances in the courtroom. Now people are saying that they were not told to escape. Fifty per cent of the people who escaped were caught and put to death. With regard to those who were caught and put to death while escaping, people say: Why did they tell them to escape? Where were they to escape to?

I emphasized yesterday, possibly Your Honour may remember, that from 1938, perhaps even before that, the Jews were gradually becoming an alien body in Hungary. It was not the same as in Denmark. First of all, there were many more Jews…

Presiding Judge: I am not sure that this relates to the question you were asked.

Attorney General: If Your Honours wish at this stage that we submit that report – we were intending to submit it sometime later – we can put it before the witness and ask him if this is the report he saw. This report is verified in another way. If my memory serves me correctly, it was also part of the I.M.T., but if you so desire, I am quite ready to try to have the report identified by the witness.

State Attorney Bach: This report was, in fact, submitted at Nuremberg as an exhibit.

Witness Freudiger: [(after the report is handed to him for perusal] I think the report that was sent to us was shorter. But I remember the last page, which I quoted, together with the detailed figures, where it says that now they were preparing to act against the Jews of Hungary. Yes, I remember the illustrations. It is possible that he did not send us all that is in it. For it is so detailed – who was there, what was there.

Attorney General: The Court will find in the sworn verifying affidavit that the declarant Yeshayahu Carmil states there that there are additions to the report which he himself wrote at the time. There is a full explanation in the affidavit accompanying the report as to why the report contains more pages than it contained when Freudiger received it.

Witness Freudiger: [while examining the report] This I remember in particular – if I close my eyes I can still see this page before me.

Presiding Judge: What can you tell us about this report? Can you identify the whole of it? I hear from the Attorney General that part of it was added by someone else. Can you identify part of it?

Witness Freudiger: I can identify the two pages that I remember, which are truly engraved in my mind.

Q. Which are they?

A. There is this page with the illustrations of the Auschwitz camp and the last page, where there is a detailed account of the victims, and I even remember the numbers. What was inside – there was not so much of it.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any comments? I hear that the witness has identified two pages of this report – firstly, the plan of the Auschwitz camp, and secondly, a list of the Auschwitz victims.

Dr. Servatius: I once read the report – but now I am only able to glance through it. At the time it struck me that in the text the total number of victims was stated as 174,000.

Presiding Judge: 1,450,000.

Dr. Servatius: That appears on the last page. There it says 1,765,000.

Witness Freudiger: Another 300,000.

Dr. Servatius: …and until 27 May there were about 180,000 Hungarian Jews, whereas in the report itself there is one numeral less. The figures are added precisely, and at present I cannot see whether it refers to several camps or it is Auschwitz only, and whether the final figure refers also to other camps. Thus on page 18 of the text which I have before me, the final figure is 174,000, whereas later it is more by one zero numeral. May I hand the report to you?

Presiding Judge: On what page is this written, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: On page 18.

Attorney General: I can explain this briefly. There is no mistake here. The last figure which Dr. Servatius read out, appearing on pages 16, 17 and 18, is not a total but refers to the period from the end of February until the beginning of March. This is what it says there, and a detailed account appears there for the various periods. It begins with 153,000-154,000, and after that 155,000-160,000 in October-November 1943, and so on. And when we add it all up together, we receive the total on the last page.

Presiding Judge: At all events, the witness has only identified the two items I mentioned previously.

Attorney General: In the further course of the trial, when we come to submit the chapter of our evidence on Auschwitz, it is in any case our intention to submit this document, and then we shall ask the Court to admit the whole of it; for the present – that part which the witness has identified.

Presiding Judge: Then we can defer this matter. For the present, the witness has said what he has said, and it has been recorded. That is your No. 4.

[To witness] In connection with the matter of the 250 trucks which you did not have, what was the sequel? Eichmann referred you to Becher. This is what we heard.

Witness Freudiger: Eichmann told me to go to Becher. When I left the room, I remembered that Becher was not in Budapest; this was the day after the attempt on Hitler’s life. The attempt was on 20 July and this was on 21 July, and I knew that Becher had gone to Berlin and that there were no communications. I went back and said “Obersturmbannfuehrer, Becher is not in Budapest, according to what I know, should I perhaps go to Hauptsturmfuehrer Grueson (who was his deputy)?”

He told me that Becher was due to return on Tuesday, and if he did not return, I should come to him to receive fresh instructions. I then went to consult my colleagues, not of the central executive, but those attached to the executive with whom we worked in matters of rescue. Dr. Kasztner was not there then. He had disappeared and, as we ascertained later, the Hungarians had seized him.

We sat there, thinking what we could do. There were Dr. Wilhelm and Dr. Komoly, and Offenbach and Johanan Link, my friends and I. We took counsel together as to what we would do. The decision was that, first of all, we would have to go to Becher and first of all promise and talk about twenty trucks and about fifty trucks, to drag the matter out, and meanwhile to buy the trucks in Switzerland, for we had money there.

But actually I did not go to Becher, for Dr. Kasztner returned in the meantime, and then he said he would handle the problem. And in the first days of August I had already stopped dealing with all those matters from which I could divest myself, for I was already getting ready for my escape. That was on 23 or 24 of July; and after that I escaped.

Presiding Judge: You left this in the hands of Dr. Kasztner?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

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

Presiding Judge: Yes, Mr. Bach.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honour, just a few words of explanation. It is difficult to maintain a chronological order of presentation, as each witness describes various stages. With the Court’s permission, I shall now call our remaining witness in regard to the central aspects regarding Hungary. One of these is the chapter of Kistarcsa. Witness Freudiger told us what happened to him at the Schwabenberg on that critical day. I shall now call a witness who was present at Kistarcsa. He is Dr. Alexander Brody.

Presiding Judge: [to witness] Do you speak Hebrew?

State Attorney Bach: The witness does not speak Hebrew. He knows German and Hungarian, but he prefers to testify in Hungarian.

Presiding Judge: As he wishes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Dr. Sandor Brody – now Dr. Alexander Brody, a Brazilian citizen.

Presiding Judge: Where do you live?

Witness Brody: Sao Paulo, Brazil.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Brody, you told us that you now live in Brazil. Were you born in Hungary?

Witness Brody: I was born in Hungary, in Miskolc, on 13 March 1900.

Q. When did you leave Hungary?

A. On 24 March 1949.

Q. Were you in Budapest in 1944?

A. I was in Budapest in 1944.

Q. What did you engage in there?

A. After I returned from labour service in Russia at the end of September 1943, I became, in 1944, the director of the department for Jewish aid called O.M.Z.S.A.

Q. Dr. Brody, do you remember when the Germans entered Hungary in March 1944?

A. Certainly. On 19 March 1944, in the morning, while I was taking part in the Annual Meeting of the community council, although I knew about it earlier since, at 8.30, Endre Bajcsy-Zsilinsky telephoned me and informed me that the Germans had arrived, and that we had to prepare for the worst, and while we were talking the Germans entered his apartment.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: Here, Your Honours, we have to distinguish between two periods – the first period, up to 19 March 1944, and the second from that date onwards, when the German army entered Hungary and the Accused operated within Hungary itself. At the outset I should like to submit a small number of documents relating to the first period, that is to say, until 19 March 1944.

The first document is our No. 163 – it was submitted to the Accused and was given the No. T/37(88). The question arose whether there was any point in deporting Jews who had fled to Hungary, from the region east of the Dniester river.

And the Accused, as he had already done in the case of Romania, was opposed to a partial operation regarding Hungary, and he says: “It would not be appropriate to set the whole evacuation apparatus in motion in order to remove those Jews alone who escaped at the time to Hungary” – and subsequently this apparatus would have to be stopped again. He thinks it desirable to delay this operation until Hungary would be ready to include in these measures the Jews of Hungary as well.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1136.

State Attorney Bach: That was a letter to the Foreign Office, dated 26 September 1942.

Our next document is No. 1242. Here Luther writes a detailed note to the German legation in Budapest and asks that influence be exercised on the Hungarian Government to show understanding for the German plan for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question and to agree to the designation of the Jews and to their deportation to the east.

Presiding Judge: There is something missing here. This is a document of two pages, is it not?

State Attorney Bach: A document of three pages, actually three.

Presiding Judge: There are two incomplete copies here – one with the first page missing, and one with the second page missing. The Hebrew translation is complete.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps I can submit at least one German copy intact.

Presiding Judge: We now have two and two-thirds copies. This document will be marked T/1137.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be permitted to make a comment on this document? There is an important passage here. We have to treat this matter in the light of this passage.

Presiding Judge: From what page are you quoting?

Dr. Servatius: I was not quoting it – it is on the first page – it is merely in keeping with the meaning of the words. On page two it says:

“The handling of the Jews of Hungary itself appears to be more complicated, but even more urgent. Therefore, I would ask you to explain to the Hungarian Government the reasons that have motivated us to strive, in compliance with the wishes of the Fuehrer, towards an early and complete solution of the problem of the Jews in Europe, and to request the Hungarian Government, for its part, also to promote the operations necessary to that end.”

State Attorney Bach: I am thankful to Defence Counsel for drawing your attention to this passage, which is also of importance in our view.

The next document is our No. 510. It was submitted to the Accused and was marked T/37(164). This document is signed by Mueller, but was drawn up in IVB4. Mueller here seeks authority to permit individual Jews to depart from Slovakia and Holland, in exchange for a payment of 100,000 Swiss francs. This money would enable the recruitment of volunteers for the Waffen SS in Hungary.

Presiding Judge: One copy of the translation is missing here. Instead of the translation, we have an extra copy of the German original, but let us leave that. I have said this because I was unable to read the marking IVB4 on the original. Where did you get it from?

State Attorney Bach: I will tell Your Honour. The original is actually attached to the statement, and there, evidently, the mark IVB4 is very clear. It is only on this copy that it is somewhat blurred. But the number is evidently absolutely clear on the original.

Presiding Judge: How does it appear here in the translation?

State Attorney Bach: The translation was prepared according to the original – according to the photostatic copy which is to be found in T/37(164).

Presiding Judge: Yes, we can see it there.

State Attorney Bach: There we are able to see it clearly. Incidentally, Your Honour, it is also found in the supporting reference, where it says: “The order…IVB4a on the same subject.”

Presiding Judge: Yes, that is clear. Will we receive a further copy of the translation at a later stage?

State Attorney Bach: We shall gladly let you have it, Your Honour. He also mentions that in Holland there were eight cases of this kind affecting 28 Jews who indeed made use of – let us express it this way – this right.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1138.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 972. Here Klingenfuss of the Foreign Office reports to Eichmann on 7 December 1942 on a debate in the Hungarian parliament on the question of labour camps for Jews and the work of Christian women in Jewish homes. He indicates that this legislation was not proceeding satisfactorily.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1139.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is No. 1341. It is a letter signed by Guenther of IVB4a on 5 April 1943. This document illustrates the blind hatred of these people.

It mentions the fact that 150 Jews, who included lawyers, factory owners, merchants, and other intellectuals – and this is what Guenther stresses – were working in a labour camp near the railway line, in a place not far from the border, and once a day they were allowed to purchase a hot meal in a restaurant, the same restaurant where German railway officials were also entitled to eat – they were obliged to have their meals there, at the same place.

He asks them to take steps to put an end to this practice, both for security reasons and also – as he puts it – “since it is impossible to demand of these officials that they should be obliged to come into constant contact with Jews.” The emphasis is on “Jewish intellectuals.”

Presiding Judge: “Intellektuelle“?

State Attorney Bach: Intellektuelle, yes. He specially stresses “lawyers, factory owners, merchants and other intellectuals.” I should like to emphasize that this was in the period when Hungary had not been occupied, and the German army was not yet there.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1140.

State Attorney Bach: Our following document is No. 519. It is a letter signed by the Accused, to the German Foreign Office, in connection with a Jew named Oskar Trenk, evidently of Hungarian nationality, so it says here. He says that there were no documents proving his Hungarian nationality. Consequently, such people were considered to be stateless and were sent to the east for “forced labour.” Their whereabouts are not known at the moment.

Presiding Judge: Was this in the time of Horthy? Did it belong to the Horthy period?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1141.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 523, which was submitted to the Accused and given No. T/37(160). Here there is reference to methods of evacuating Jews possessing Hungarian nationality.

Presiding Judge: Evacuation from the German Reich?

State Attorney Bach: Here it talks of evacuation from the Reich. But evidently there was some intervention on the part of the Hungarian Government which, via the German Foreign Office, took an interest in these Jews.

And it says: “The present whereabouts of the Jews who were sent to the east cannot be determined at present. It is not possible, for reasons of principle, to grant the demand of the Hungarian Consulate-General or the Hungarian embassy to repatriate those concerned to Hungary.” Obviously the reference is to Hungarian nationals who were in the Reich at that time and who had been deported to the east.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1142.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 546, which shows the control of the Accused over the camps of Terezin and Bergen-Belsen. The issue here was whether Jews possessing Hungarian nationality ought to be in a detention camp in Bergen-Belsen, or whether they should be transferred to Theresienstadt.

For various considerations of convenience and location, the Accused decided that there were more suitable conditions in Theresienstadt. And I especially underline the last sentence: “Accordingly I have instructed the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Prague to leave the Jews in question in Theresienstadt for the time being.”

Clerk of the Court: This document has already been submitted and was given No. T/851.

State Attorney Bach: If that is the case, I draw the Court’s attention to T/851. Possibly it was submitted in connection with Theresienstadt.

The next document is No. 521 – it was submitted to the Accused and given No. T/37(157). Here the reference is to a Jew named Goldberger who, together with his family, emigrated to Belgium as Czechoslovakian citizens, and they were taken to the labour effort in the east. It is not possible to ascertain their present whereabouts. He, too, possesses Hungarian citizenship. This is a letter that Eichmann writes to von Thadden on 25 January 1944.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1143.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 1644. This is a rather lengthy report by Veesenmayer, dated December 1943. Its importance is actually in the very last page of this document, to which I draw your attention, in paragraph 7. In fact, throughout the document Veesenmayer hints that it is desirable that the German army – the German forces – should take control over the whole of Hungary. But the seventh paragraph indicates that one of the principal reasons for that proposed action is, as he calls it, the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Hungary.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1144.

State Attorney Bach: And now, Your Honours, we come to 19 March 1944, the day the Germans entered Hungary. Our document No. 1021 constitutes Veesenmayer’s report to the Foreign Office, to the effect that he had safely reached Budapest and had taken over control of matters.

He describes his entry into Budapest and adds: “After this I spent three quarters of an hour alone with the Regent; I introduced myself to him and informed him that I had been entrusted, together with him, with the task of setting up the new government. The spirit of the conversation with the Regent was a positive one – and we began making changes in the structure of the government.”

Presiding Judge: Was there also an exchange of ambassadors here? Is it not it a fact that Veesenmayer was the ambassador later on?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. Actually he had then arrived for the first time. He came together with the army. Prior to that the name of the ambassador was Jagow.

Presiding Judge: I see that here it says “through Minister
Ritter.”

State Attorney Bach: Yes, but I do not know if he was then in Budapest or whether this was simply a means of delivering the letter to Ribbentrop. For Your Honour will notice that in paragraph two it is stated that Ambassador von Jagow informed the Regent today of such-and-such. This means that the German ambassador was then von Jagow, but the notification to Ribbentrop was passed on by Ritter.

Judge Halevi: Did the meeting between Horthy and Hitler not precede this?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. Such a meeting had taken place. This episode is mentioned in the Kasztner report. This was on 19 March. I believe that the meeting took place on 17 March. Immediately afterwards there was this operation, the entry of the German army.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1145.

State Attorney Bach: At this stage, with your permission, I should like to lead the evidence of Mr. Pinchas Freudiger.

[The witness makes an affirmation.]

Presiding Judge: What is your name?

Witness: Pinchas Freudiger, previously Philip von Freudiger.

Presiding Judge: Please answer Mr. Bach’s questions.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Freudiger, you are a native of Budapest?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. You first studied in Budapest and then went to work at a factory which had been founded by your grandfather, of blessed memory?

A. Yes.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: He wrote a book on this subject. He is in Hungary; we have not summoned him as a witness in this trial. If Counsel for the Defence wishes to submit Levai’s book in evidence – the book which, as I said, he wrote on this subject – there will be no objection to that by the Prosecution.

The rest of my argument I believe I have already put to the Court. I agree with Counsel for the Defence that large parts of the report are of no concern to us in this trial, but this, of course, does not invalidate the numerous other parts concerning Dr. Kasztner’s direct contact with the Accused; these parts are extremely relevant, and they are supported and explained by many other documents we shall submit and which, no doubt, will shed much light on the background of this chapter and on the chapter itself, and will assist the Court in establishing the facts. Therefore, I ask the Court to accept this document as evidence.

I mentioned earlier that Kasztner had testified that he was actually the author of the report; in the declaration made by Mr. Tel, the Deputy District Attorney for Jerusalem, he also confirms that this was the report from 1946 which was written by the late Dr. Rudolf Kasztner.

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 5O

We admit as evidence the report which prima facie was prepared by Dr. Kasztner, who is no longer alive, concerning the activities of the Jewish Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950. We shall accept as evidence those parts of the report which relate to the subject of this trial.

State Attorney Bach: As I have mentioned, this was marked T/37(237).

Presiding Judge: Are you now submitting it again?

State Attorney Bach: I am submitting it once again. I have attached a translation into Hebrew of those parts that are relevant to our case. I also wish to submit to the Court the Hebrew translation of the whole report, the same translation that served the Supreme Court in the case I mentioned, if it should be needed, together with a declaration by the person who made the translation.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1113.

I understand that you only have a single copy. Actually we do not need it, if we have the translation.

State Attorney Bach: This is only in case the Court should want to refer to parts which have not been translated.

Presiding Judge: What is this? There is also a declaration here by Dan von Weisl.

State Attorney Bach: He made the translation at the time, and he declares that he made it from the original.

Presiding Judge: Dan von Weisl’s declaration will be marked T/1114. Mr. Tel’s declaration will be marked T/1115.

State Attorney Bach: The report contains a number of relevant parts. With the Court’s permission, I shall refer to these parts when we come to a specific matter, when they will be relevant. At this stage, I wish to draw the Court’s attention perhaps only to those parts of the report which deal with Gisi Fleischmann, who has already been mentioned.

The report begins with an introduction, and on page XI he describes Mrs. Fleischmann’s assignment who, at the risk of her life, forwarded to addresses abroad the first authenticated eye-witness reports on the massacres and the use of gas. It was she who organized the rescue of Polish Jews to Slovakia. She was arrested twice and managed to be released; she did not heed repeated appeals to her to escape to Hungary and join her children in Palestine. She stayed on, unwavering.

She was arrested while fulfilling her task, writing her last report, which was to to be sent abroad. During the short time of her arrest, Gisi Fleischmann displayed the same courage, the same contempt of death, which had characterized her throughout her work.

Gisi Fleischmann earned a special place of honour among the great women of Jewish history as a noble and wise woman, warmhearted, courageous, truly a Woman of Valour!

Of what happened to her, we first read on page 99; there we find a report on her meeting with Brunner, at which Brunner asked her for details about her contacts with Jewish organizations abroad and assured her that then nothing would happen to her. Her answer is: “I would do that gladly, if I were sure that this would help my poor brethren; but just to save myself is not worth that much to me.” Brunner’s reply was: “You better watch out, Fleischmann! Even if nobody else is taken away from here, I’ll make sure that you are sent to Auschwitz by a special train!”

Presiding Judge: Pages 90 and 91 are missing in our copy.

State Attorney Bach: I will give you another copy.

Presiding Judge: Can we use it? It has your notes on it.

State Attorney Bach: This is the copy von Weisl used when he authenticated the translation; since this is the one that should have been submitted to the Court in the first place, Your Honour may use it.

To return to the Kasztner report. It reports an escape attempt by Gisi Fleischmann, but Brunner was careful and foiled it. She was deported to Auschwitz and taken to the gas chambers. On page 148 Kasztner states the following: “The letter I had with me, from Sally Mayer, addressed to Becher, contained at my request an inquiry about the fate of Gisi Fleischmann.

In response thereto Becher sent the following telegram to Eichmann, then in Berlin: ‘Reichsfuehrer SS wants to know the whereabouts of Mrs. Gisi Fleischmann of Bratislava.’ On 8 January, Eichmann’s telegraphic reply to Becher: ‘The Jewess Gisi Fleischmann was caught by the Slovak police in the act of composing an atrocity report about Slovak measures against Jews, addressed to a Swiss Jew of the Joint, despite the fact that she, that Jewess, had been assigned by Brunner to the task of trust of looking after the Jewish detainees.

Moreover, the Jewess Fleischmann had also told the Swiss consul in Pressburg that the Germans were already so badly off as to require the economic assistance of the Jews’.”

Dr. Kasztner adds: “The telegram is clear, but I pretend that I do not understand it, and I ask Becher to get a straight answer from Eichmann.”

Judge Halevi: All this took place when she was already dead?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Sir, I believe that at that point she was already dead.

These are the items I wanted to quote from the report at this stage. I will come back to it later on. By the way, the Accused commented on the parts of the report from page 2917 and following pages.

With the Court’s permission, I will now call on Dr. Bedrich Steiner to take the stand.

Presiding Judge: [to witness] Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Steiner: Yes, I understand Hebrew.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Dr. Bedrich Steiner.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Steiner, are you a native of
Slovakia?

Witness Steiner: Yes, I was born in Nove Mesto nad Vahom.

Q. Up until 1939 you were in Prague, practising as a lawyer?

A. Yes.

Q. At the end of 1939 you went back to Slovakia?

A. In 1939 I went back to Slovakia, having received permission from the Gestapo to do so, in the form of a laisser-passer of the Gestapo, from the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Cechovice near Prague.

Q. Did you go through the regular process laid down by the Zentralstelle fuer Juedische Auswanderung in Prague?

A. Yes. We had to obtain questionnaires, fill them in and  deliver them, each questionnaire consisting of some seventeen pages, with 15-20 questions a page. The questionnaires were divided into twelve parts. We handed them in, and two or three weeks later we had to report back, and then we were told whether or not the laisser-passer was being granted to us. Obtaining the documents was not always a pleasant experience.

Q. Were you allowed to take your money with you, or what were the rules on that subject?

A. We were allowed to take with us what at that time was the equivalent of 2,000 Czech kronen.

Q. What was the equivalent of that?

A. About 60 dollars.

Q. Later, when you were in Slovakia, did you work in the Jewish Centre?

A. Yes, I went back to Slovakia. When Czechoslovakia fell apart, I became a Slovak citizen, since my home country at birth was Slovakia.

Q. My question was whether you then worked in the Jewish Centre.

A. Yes, afterwards, after a while, I think in June 1940, I began working in the Jewish Centre, where I was asked to take charge of the statistical department.

Q. Were you at that time aware of Dieter Wisliceny’s role in Bratislava?

A. The first time I heard about Eichmann…

Q. Not Eichmann, Wisliceny.

A. I heard about Wisliceny later on; this was, I think, at the end of 1940, although it may have been earlier. I cannot remember that exactly.

Q. When did you really first hear about Eichmann?

A. I had already heard about Eichmann in Prague, in 1938. Then Jews came back, mainly from Vienna, to Bohemia and Moravia, and told us about the Emigration Office there, and later in Prague.

Q. Did you have any personal contact with Wisliceny?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Steiner, in the course of your work in the statistical section, did numbers and lists of Jews who had been expelled from Slovakia come into your hands, during that period?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. So these lists did get to you. At a later stage, even while the War was still on, did you have an opportunity to verify whether the numbers you received were correct?

A. Yes, I was able to check these numbers as soon as the War ended, i.e., after the liberation.

Q. How did you have this opportunity? On what occasion? Please tell the Court.

A. After the War an institute was founded, or rather an operation for documentation, in Pressburg, Slovakia, by the Zionist Organization and the Union of Jewish Communities. I was asked to take charge of this operation. We undertook the task of collecting all the statistical data. We applied to various institutions, among them the National Court, the Prosecution, and asked them to put at our disposal all the documents they had relating to the Jews. I think we submitted that request in writing. Our request was approved, and I was able to read all the documents, also during court proceedings, and I was also permitted to photograph the documents.

I should add that I had the support of a committee which functioned during the operation, administered it, and laid down the guidelines for our work. The committee consisted of Dr. Tibor Kovacs, Dr. Oscar Krasnansky and the architect Andrej Steiner.

Q. In the course of this work, especially in the contacts with the Czechoslovak State Prosecution, after the War, did you see documents relating to the expulsion of the Jews from Slovakia?

A. Yes.

Q. Perhaps you could tell the Court in connection with which trial in particular you saw these documents?

A. In connection with the trial of Dr. Vasek.

Q. Who was this Dr. Vasek?

A. Dr. Vasek was director of Section 14 in the Ministry of the Interior, the section which was primarily charged with the implementation of what was called “The Final Solution of the Jewish Question.”

Q. Based on this information, can you tell the Court what were the numbers of Jews deported from Slovakia, first of all in 1942?

A. Yes. May I consult lists?

Presiding Judge: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: You may refresh your memory with the help of lists.

Witness Steiner: In 1942, a total of 57,837 Jews were deported, by 57 transports, divided as follows: To
Auschwitz, 19 transports with 18,746 Jews; to Lublin, four transports with 4501 Jews, and to the Opole area, 34 transports with 34,590 Jews. Each transport contained about 1,000 people.

Q. Do you know where Opole is?

A. I think it is somewhere near Warsaw, south of Warsaw, but I am not sure. There were children among the deportees.

Q. How many children?

A. 2,482 children up to the age of four, and 4,581 children between four and ten.

Q. On the basis of these figures, do you know how many of the deportees were exterminated?

A. Of those who were deported in 1942, 284 came back.

Q. Did you calculate how much that is percentage-wise?

A. About one half of one percent.

Q. Do you have the figures for the deportations in 1944?

A. Yes, in 1944 and 1945; it began in September and ended by the end of March. In 1944, or rather in 1944-45, 12,306 Jews were deported, in 11 transports, the first five of which with 7,936, and the other six to Sachsenhausen and Terezin – 2,732 to Sachsenhausen and 1,638 to Terezin. The transports were divided up on the way; they included women and men. The women and children were sent to Terezin and the men to Sachsenhausen. That, at any rate, was the case with my transport.

Q. Did you say how many went to Auschwitz?

A. 7,936 went to Auschwitz.

Q. Do you also have the figures for Jews who were murdered in Slovakia, by German Einsatzgruppen?

A. After the War about 150 mass graves were found inside Slovakia. It was determined that 12,000-15,000 persons were interred in those graves, amongst them women and children.

Presiding Judge: How many corpses were found, all in all?

Witness Steiner: 12,000-15,000. I had the record of all the graves before me, and I tried to estimate how many Jews were among them and arrived at the figure 3,500; this figure, I believe, is the correct one.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Steiner, we have heard that before the War 89,000 Jews lived in Slovakia.

Witness Steiner: Yes.

Q. How many of the 89,000 Jews of Slovakia were murdered by the Germans during the Holocaust, by total estimate?

A. As I said, of the first deportations about 300 came back; 57,500 perished; 3,500 are estimated to have been killed in Slovakia; of the 12,000 who were deported in 1944-1945 about 8,000 perished – that is also an estimate. There is one other element that has to be taken into account.

In 1942, especially in that year, 7,000-8,000 Jews from Slovakia fled to Hungary; some of these came back and were deported in 1944-1945 (also from Hungary). Of these 7,000-8,000 it is estimated that 2,000 did not come back. The total losses, therefore, add up to about 71,000 from among the 89,000, which means about eight per cent.

Q. Dr. Steiner, can you tell us what is the total sum, the total value of the Jewish property that was plundered in Slovakia?

A. In 1940, a census was carried out by the Government Bureau of Statistics, according to which the total assets owned by the Jews in Slovakia amounted to 4,300 million kronen; that includes economic assets, houses, factories and capital assets, all together.

Presiding Judge: Have we been told what the value of the Czech krone was?

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 1228. The Accused writes to Rademacher: He has heard that there were Jews emigrating from Romania via Hungary, Croatia and Italy. Since these are precisely the well-to-do Jews, there is a danger that in the end only the main body of destitute Jews will be left in Romania. And he says:

“In the interest of the smooth implementation of the planning for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe, I request you to prevent this development through all suitable measures. Please inform me on the situation at your convenience.” Signed: Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1016.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 531. Richter writes to Lecca, objecting to the fact that a Jew by the name of Fritz Kaufmann is still working in a leading position with a certain firm, and he was not only a Jew but was also married to a Jewess from Istanbul.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1017.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 469. Here, statistics about the Jews of Romania are transmitted to Richter by the head of the research department of the Central Office of Statistics of Romania.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1018.

State Attorney Bach: And in the next document, our No. 526, Richter transmits this statistical information, which he received in the preceding document to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann – “Population Census of 6 April 1941 – The Jewish Population in Romania.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1019.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 574. Suhr from Eichmann’s office informs Richter about Zionist activities for illegal emigration to Palestine and asks him to check these rumours, to investigate and report.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1020.

Is there a Hebrew translation of this document, because it  is very difficult to read the original?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, there is a Hebrew translation.

Presiding Judge: We received only one copy. Do you have additional copies?

State Attorney Bach: I have a translation, but all sorts of remarks are written on it. I may be able to provide the Court with these translations during the intermission.

Now, Your Honours, I have reached the three central documents concerning the chapter of the Jews of Romania. The first document is our No. 181, which was shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(130).

This document was written in Section IVB4, signed by Mueller, and sent to the German Foreign Ministry. It says that, starting approximately on 10 September 1942, the Jews from Romania are also to be sent in special trains towards the east. In the first instance, those Jews are to be sent who are fit for work. He asks that this be noted, and he assumes that also on the part of the German Foreign Ministry, there is no objection to these measures.

I draw the attention of the Court to the date: This letter was written on 26 July 1942, and it speaks of Jews who are fit for work and who are to be deported from Romania from 10 September onward.

Presiding Judge: Signed: Mueller.

State Attorney Bach: Signed Mueller. The Accused was asked about this document, and he admitted that it was he who drafted the document and dictated it. His comments begin on page 1068 of his statement, and at the bottom of page 1772 he was asked who drafted this letter. His reply:

“I drafted this letter and I dictated it, this is clear, is it not, it says here IVB4 and this went to Luther; Mueller signed. I dictated the letter.”

Presiding Judge: When it says “IVB4″ without an additional letter, that means he dictated it himself?

State Attorney Bach: He personally dictated this letter.

The next document is No. 561. From the office of the Reichsfuehrer SS a letter is sent to the personal office, the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer, enclosing a letter which was also sent on 26 July 1942 from the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, and it also says that the Reichsfuehrer SS asks that this be brought to the attention of the Reich Foreign Minister.

We see here that on the same day the letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS from the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service was also written, and he asks that this be brought to the attention of the Foreign Ministry, among others.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1022.

State Attorney Bach: Now, Your Honours, what was that letter written to the Reichsfuehrer SS on that day, 26 July? This we learn from the nex t document, No. 562, which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(177). Here is an internal note of the German Foreign Ministry.

They have now received the copy of the letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS, and it says here that this is a report to the Reichsfuehrer SS of 26 July, and here also the subject is the expulsion of the Jews, on 10 September as the intended starting date, to the Lublin district, where “…der arbeitsfaehige Teil arbeitseinsatzmaessig angesetzt wird, der Rest der Sonderbehandlung unterzogen werden soll. Es ist Vorsorge getroffen, dass diesen Juden nach Ueberschreiten der rumaenischen Grenze die Staatsangehoerigkeit verloren geht” (…those who are fit will be put to work, while the rest is to undergo the special treatment. It has been arranged that these Jews will lose their Romanian citizenship after crossing the Romanian border).

At the end, there is further information for the Reichsfuehrer SS. Firstly, that negotiations have already been held with the Reich Ministry of Transport, and besides, that, in accordance with an order from the Head Office for Reich Security, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Richter has been in direct contact with Mihai Antonescu and has received a letter from him which confirms the concurrence of the Romanian Government. And he encloses this letter.

Thus the Court will realize that two different versions were sent on the same day from the same office – one to the German Foreign Ministry, in which there is mention only of  fit people who are able to work, and one to the Reichsfuehrer SS, in which there is mention of “special treatment” for those who are unable to work.

Only through an error, apparently in the office of the Reichsfuehrer SS, they were not aware of this, of this attempted camouflage, and they routinely sent a copy of this also to the German Foreign Ministry. And, therefore, we have seen both letters side by side, because we obtained the archives of the German Foreign Ministry, which included both versions of the letters which went out on the same day.

The Accused was interrogated about this document also, starting on page 2218 of his statement. On page 2220 he explains that this was really a report, a summary from IVB4 to the Reichsfuehrer SS about what they were able to do in this matter. And then, on page 2221, he was asked what was the meaning here of Sonderbehandlung.

Was the meaning that all those who could not work would automatically have to be given the “special treatment”? And he said: “Yes, I have already said so.” And then he said that that person, the special representative in the Head Office for Reich Security, was Richter, “my man, who dealt with this matter.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1023.

Judge Halevi: Who signature is this – Rintelen?

State Attorney Bach: Rintelen belonged to the German Foreign Ministry at that time; he sent this report to Luther, amongst others. He was a kind of roving ambassador, and he appears in many places.

Presiding Judge: What does “Feldmark” mean? Is this Ribbentrop’s train?

State Attorney Bach: That was Sonderzug Westfalen (Special Train Westphalia). Feldmark was, if I remember rightly, Ribbentrop’s headquarters during a certain period.

The next document is our No. 850. Here the German Foreign Ministry informs Eichmann that it has no objection to the inclusion of the Jews of Romania in the framework of the measures against the Jews. He mentions Lecca’s visit to Berlin and says: “Then the matter will be discussed with him without binding us.”

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1024.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 470. Here Richter again reports to the Accused about the law which was published in Romania on Jews in labour service. This will no longer be called Arbeitsdienst (Labour Service), which is too respectable an expression for that kind of labour. He encloses the law.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1025.

State Attorney Bach: I proceed to our document No. 570. Richter reports to the Accused by telegram saying that in accordance with a suggestion by the Adviser – i.e., Richter – the Zionist organizations in Romania have been dissolved by order of Government Commissioner Lecca to the Central Board of the Jews, dated 7 August 1942.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1026.

State Attorney Bach: I pass on to our document No. 403. This is also a report about co-operation between the German Foreign Ministry, the Head Office for Reich Security, and Lecca, in carrying out the deportations. The beginning of the deportations from the districts of Arad and others are mentioned in particular.

It is also mentioned that the Adviser of the Romanian Government for Jewish Questions – Lecca – has asked, through the intermediary of the German legation, to be allowed to go to Berlin, in order to negotiate details of the deportation of the Jews from Romania with the Head Office for Reich Security.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1027.

State Attorney Bach: I proceed to our document No. 1348. Here Rademacher transmits an invitation from the Accused to Richter in Bucharest. Richter is invited to a meeting in Section IVB4 in Berlin on 28 August 1942. The Court will remember this meeting, which I have already mentioned in connection with the representatives in France and Holland, who were also invited and who reported about it.

Not only the invitation for that date is important here, but also the hand-written remark at the end of the document, which says: “The study day, in which mainly heads of the Department for Jewish Affairs inside Germany will take part, will deal with technical questions of camp administration and will consist almost exclusively of two inspections accompanied by suitable instructions.”

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1028.

Is it known which camps are referred to?

State Attorney Bach: We did not know which camps. There are several possibilities of camps that are not too far from Berlin, but we do not know which camps they were going to visit. One can only guess the nature of the camps, since it is a matter of the specialists for Jewish Questions from the various countries and from the Stapostellen of Germany.

I go on to our document No. 178. It is von Killinger’s reaction to a letter which we do not have, a letter which he apparently received from the German Foreign Ministry after the two versions were received in the ministry – the letter which was addressed to the ministry and the information sent to Himmler, from which is was apparent that Richter arranged the whole thing with Antonescu.

Killinger writes to the German Foreign Ministry that he cannot understand how they could think that he would leave the treatment of this matter in the hands of an SS officer alone. “Mr. Mihai Antonescu may write as many letters as he likes, this makes no difference to me.” And he says that, of course, everything was done under his direction.

He also says, by the way, that when Lecca went to Berlin without prior co-ordination with him, he was not received by the officials of the German Foreign Ministry, but only by the officials of the Head Office for Reich Security, and he was really angry and offended. Such a thing is not done!

Then he says: “I have now written a letter to the Romanian Government.” From this letter it transpires that the steps taken so far were only preparatory, and that only now will he begin the real negotiations. I draw your attention to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the letter. In paragraph 7 he requests that in future matters of this kind be dealt with in a different manner.

And in paragraph 8: “In addition I should like to point out that all letters to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann were sent through the German Foreign Ministry, so that the ministry was informed about what was going on. That Mr. Eichmann naturally did not think it necessary to get in touch with the German Foreign Ministry does not surprise me at all, since I am sufficiently familiar with the methods of the gentlemen of the SS. Moreover, I should like to point out that everything I report to Department Germany reaches the Security Service.”

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I should like to remark that during the quick perusal one passage may have been neglected, a passage which has special importance for determining the nature of the Service and the responsibility. In paragraph 3, on page 1, it says: “The Adviser on Jewish Affairs did the preliminary work in accordance with my instructions.” It is obvious that this means on the orders of the person who issued them, and therefore not on the independent initiative of the Accused.

State Attorney Bach: I think that I emphasized this very passage, and it shows, precisely in this context, that  obviously Killinger did not even know about the letter which Richter received from Antonescu; Killinger himself indicates the meaning of the same passage.

Presiding Judge: I also see that in this letter Killinger complains when he says: “Ich bedauere dass der Herr Reichsaussenminister meine Gegenargumente…nicht erfaehrt” (I regret that the Reich Foreign Minister is not being informed of my counter-arguments), and somebody wrote a note here underneath the letter. Was this Rademacher or Luther?

State Attorney Bach: This is Luther’s signature.

Presiding Judge: “I regret that Minister von Killinger apparently does not want to understand.”

State Attorney Bach: What we have here, so it seems to me, is very clear from the four letters I have submitted, i.e., a feud between the two offices, a complete by-passing of Killinger by Richter, on instructions from Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: But Luther does not support Killinger?

State Attorney Bach: They must have reprimanded him. This seems obvious from his reply to the letter of 17 August.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1029.

State Attorney Bach: We can now imagine Killinger’s state of mind when he has to send the next cable, our No. 215, in which he has to inform the German Foreign Ministry that Lecca invited Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, at the time of his visit to Berlin in August, to visit Romania, that Antonescu has agreed to this visit, and that Lecca requests Eichmann to come in January 1943.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1030.

State Attorney Bach: With the permission of the Court, I should now like to submit three documents together, because they refer to the same subject and could be given a joint number, since they are interconnected.

They are our numbers 989, 990, and 991. Here Killinger complains again and says that IVB4 has directly informed the Adviser for Jewish Affairs at the embassy – in other words, Richter – that the property of former German Jews in Romania may remain in Romania, and that the German Government does not claim this property for itself.

This is actually the application of the “territorial principle” to Romania, a principle we have already encountered, where the property of German Jews who are deported – in this case from Romania – may remain in Romania. And Killinger asks: What about this letter? Was this true, and what should he do about the matter?

The subject of document No. 990 is the internal procedure within the German Foreign Ministry; Rademacher reports to Luther. I direct your attention specifically to the hand-written remark on the left side of the document, where it is explained who Suhr is – “a specialist for Jewish questions abroad under Eichmann.” This is actually only a matter of information, and there is no question of principle involved; they only wanted to receive an explanation.

Nevertheless, we find in document No. 991 that Klingenfuss writes to Eichmann informing him that Suhr has written such a letter directly to Richter, and asking him to transmit in future all questions of principle to foreign countries via the Foreign Ministry.

Presiding Judge: The three documents together will be marked T/1031.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 194, which here has been marked T/37(131). This document is being submitted in order to show the channels of communication, again between Richter and the Accused. Killinger informs the Foreign Ministry that he has written to the Romanian Government, and then Richter informs Eichmann that such a letter has indeed been written and transmits its contents.

He (Killinger) adds: “On the basis of the conversation between the head of the Romanian Transport Administration and the representative of the German Reich Railways in Bucharest, no difficulties are to be expected with the implementation of the transports, once the date of the deportation has been fixed.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/1032.

Previous | Index | Next