The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Q. Was it clear from what he said that he understood that he had no longer any hope of staying alive?

A. Yes. According to Law No. 81/45 and also under Regulation 1440/45 of the Prime Minister, both the instigator and the accomplice to a crime are punished in exactly the same way as the principal offender. Therefore he knew from what he heard from me – and he noted it and understood it – that he, being one of the major war criminals and liable to such punishment, could not in any way escape the penalty of hanging, and he took note of that and understood it.

He told me not only that he had been the Commissar for Jewish Affairs, but that he had also been State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, that is to say the holder of one of the highest offices in the land. From time to time, when for some technical reasons he had been unable to fulfil orders, the Accused rebuked him on account of these matters in the severest terms.

He complained about this also to his Minister, Andor Jaross and Andor Jaross replied: “We have been delivered up into the hands of the Germans and we have to do what they order us to do.” I don’t remember whether Baky met with the Accused or spoke with him. Possibly there had been no meeting between them. But on the other hand, I remember Endre always passed on the orders that he received from the Accused.

Q. Can you tell us, perhaps by way of summing up, what Endre said to you about his relationship with the Accused, what was, in fact, the administrative or operational connection between the Accused and him?

A. I did not doubt for a moment that the Accused gave the orders. He (the Accused) supplied him with the plans and he was but the one to carry them out, as a representative of the Hungarian Government.

Presiding Judge: Who is that speaking now?

Interpreter: The witness.

Presiding Judge: This is unimportant for us – what is important is what he heard from Endre.

State Attorney Bach: I understand that the question in Hungarian was not put in such a way that the witness could understand it in the sense it was asked. Perhaps I can ask him once again: What did Endre say to the witness about his operative and administrative relations with the Accused?

Witness Ferencz: He said not only to me but also in his interrogation that it was the Accused who gave the orders, and subsequently he reported to the Accused.

Q. Who decided, according to what Endre said, from which ghetto, and when, the Jews had to be evacuated and in what order?

A. I am not certain, I don’t remember exactly, that Doeme Sztojay, on his return from Germany, already brought with him the whole plan for the evacuation of the Jews. But I don’t know this with absolute certainty.

Q. Is this what Endre told you?

A. Not only Endre told me this, but it also came out in the trial of Doeme Sztojay who was hanged.

Presiding Judge: Please confine your remarks to what you heard from Endre, without drawing conclusions on the basis of something else you heard.

State Attorney Bach: The question is: What did Endre tell you – who in Hungary decided from which ghetto Jews had to be deported, when they had to be deported and to what place they had to be deported?

Witness Ferencz: It was the Accused, and he (Endre) also reported to the Accused.

Q. For how long did you converse with Baky?

A. Very briefly.

Q. Can you tell us only what he said to you about the Accused?

A. He said that the orders which Endre received from the Accused – were given to him to carry out. He reported the results to Endre. This was the procedure by which the events took place. I don’t remember whether Baky ever said that he had spoken face to face with the Accused.

Q. What were Baky’s duties in the Hungarian Government?

A. Baky was also State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior. He was in charge of the gendarmerie, he controlled the gendarmerie and he passed on orders for implementation to the commanders of the gendarmerie.

Q. By the way, were these matters, the contents of your conversation with Endre and the contents of your conversation with Baky, recorded by anyone?

A. We prepared a minute which was placed in the secret archives. First I showed the minute to the Minister and afterwards it was placed in the secret archives.

Q. Did you also speak to Peter Hain at a certain stage?

A. Yes, I also spoke to Peter Hain before he was put to death by hanging, not before he was hanged. This was a complicated affair, for he was hanged twice. On the first occasion, when he was being led to the gallows, he escaped from his guards and jumped from the third floor, and broke his spine, so that they had to take him to the prison hospital, where he lay for some time, and only after that was he hanged.

Q. At any rate, you spoke to him at a time when he believed that he was about to be executed?

A. I spoke to him, when his application for clemency had been rejected before the first so-called hanging, inside the death cell.

Q. I do not remember whether I have already asked you what were the duties of this Peter Hain?

A. Peter Hain was an Inspector of Police, who did everything, interfered in everything, in political matters. Officials in his department or his subordinates in his department seized high-ranking persons from the first day the Germans entered Hungary, on 19 March 1944; they seized Jews, mainly. When the Germans arrived, he transferred his office from the police headquarters to the Majestic Hotel.

When I questioned him before his execution, he told me for the record, that he was in the closest contact with the Accused and with the Accused’s Section, with his office. He received orders for implementation partly from the Accused and partly from the Accused’s Section and also, according to the reports which he delivered to the Accused, it was the Accused who gave instructions for the arrest of various people.

Q. Can you tell us who Gabor Vajna was?

Szálasi Ferenc

A. I believe that it was on 16 October 1944, when members of the “Arrow Cross” took control of the regime in Hungary, after the Sztojay Government left and was replaced by the Szalasi Government. And then, after Andor Jaross, Gabor Vajna, a member of the “Arrow Cross,” was appointed to be Minister of the Interior in his stead.

Q. Was he also placed on trial, and if so, what happened to him?

A. Yes. He was sentenced to death and executed by hanging.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  As leader of the Arrow Cross movement, Ferenc Szálasi led a Fascist government in Hungary during the last year of the war. He staged a coup against Admiral Miklós Horthy's government when it attempted to make peace with the Soviets in the fall of 1944. As a close ally of the Germans, Szálasi's government viciously persecuted Hungary's Jewish population. Szálasi was executed on March 12, 1946.]

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

Dr. Servatius: Yes. Witness, you said that in the proceedings against them, both Endre and Baky pleaded in justification that they were acting under superior orders. In this way they wanted to exonerate themselves. Is that correct?

Witness Ferencz: When I questioned them in the death cell, they no longer pleaded in justification or used this as a defence, for their lives were about to end.

Presiding Judge: The question referred to their defence at the trial.

Witness Ferencz: Yes, in Court they defended themselves on the ground that they acted under orders. All of them
defended themselves in this way.

Q. On whose orders did they base this?

A. I can no longer remember exactly to whose orders they referred in the Court proceedings, since I came and went and also received reports from the Prosecution. These were long proceedings and hence today I can no longer remember exactly to whose orders they referred.

Q. Who was likely to have issued orders to them? Not the Minister? Not the authorities of their Hungarian Government?

A. It was common knowledge that both the Minister and the authorities during those times did what the Germans ordered.

Q. Wasn’t the German Ambassador Veesenmayer the man who maintained contact with the Ministers and issued orders to them on behalf of the Germans?

A. He, too, was in contact with the Ministers. But, for example, at the Royal Hotel on Arzibt Road there was a particular department of the Gestapo which also gave instructions independently.

Presiding Judge: In the Royal Hotel?

Witness Ferencz: This department in the Royal Hotel also gave instructions independently.

The Germans, for their part, had no need – not at government level or at a lower administrative level – for any seal or rubber stamp in order to issue instructions or in order to act.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, I presume that an official can receive orders from one authoritative source only, namely his superiors. If that is the case, the statement which Endre made later on that Eichmann gave him the orders, was a false one.

Witness Ferencz: This is nothing but the opinion of Defence Counsel. But I am a witness testifying under oath, and I am telling the truth.

Dr. Servatius: I have no more questions to the witness.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, do you have any questions?

State Attorney Bach: I do not wish to re-examine, Your Honour.

Judge Raveh: I understand that in the trial of Endre and Baky, you did not know whether they mentioned Eichmann or not. Did I understand you correctly?

Witness Ferencz: As I have already said, I was the head of the General Prosecution, and in every important case I was in charge of its conduct. I was assisted by 112 lawyers and a huge staff, who conducted the proceedings. So that I would enter the court-room, sit down, listen, and leave and give instructions. I cannot testify – for I am on oath – whether Eichmann’s name was mentioned in the course of the proceedings in court, since I can only testify to the truth.

Q. What was your purpose in wanting to talk, after the trial, to them – to Endre and Baky?

A. It was the opinion of my Minister that it was necessary, prior to the death sentence on war criminals, to hear the views of these accused, not only of the war criminals I have spoken about, but of all the criminals in this category, to determine their views once again, finally.

Q. Does any kind of verbatim record exist of the case against Endre and Baky?

A. Certainly.

Q. Did you read this record after the case was over?

A. I surely read all these records, since my lawyers presented me with reports, particularly of the trials of the main war criminals, since I myself exercised control over them.

Q. Also from reading the record you do not recall whether Endre and Baky mentioned Eichmann in the course of the trial?

A. I don’t remember, since this prosecution was a kind of routine matter and since I myself didn’t conduct these trials. It didn’t seem all that important. The records are there. They are preserved in the Budapest Court, which succeeded the People’s Court, in a special place in the archives which are in the basement.

Judge Halevi: Does a record still exist of the conversations you conducted with Endre and Baky?

Witness Ferencz: These records were dealt with separately, and secretly. In the autumn of 1956 there was a revolution in Hungary. A substantial number of the war criminals, who were serving their sentences in various prisons, were freed, and many documents were then destroyed by them. Therefore, I don’t know now, for sure, whether this record is extant. For by then I had already, some time previously, terminated my duties in the People’s Prosecution office and I had no influence over affairs.

Judge Halevi: Did the Prosecution take any steps to obtain the record from the Hungarian Government?

State Attorney Bach: No, Your Honour. With regard to this record, I asked the witness and he said that he was unable to give me a reply as to where this record was kept. As far as the records of the trials are concerned…

Judge Halevi: I am not referring to the records of the trials, but only to the specific record of these conversations on which the witness has testified before us orally.

State Attorney Bach: No; we did not approach the Government in this matter for we could not even say where this record was being kept.

Judge Halevi: In general, did the Hungarian Government extend any help in this trial?

State Attorney Bach: We submitted a list of a large number of documents mentioning them specifically, various documents of whose existence we were aware from various books, and also asked for the records of the trials. We received some material, not precisely according to the list we submitted, and more than that we did not receive.

Judge Halevi: At any rate, the best proof of these conversations would surely be the verbatim report, to the extent that it is possible to secure it.

State Attorney Bach: This would certainly be more desirable. I was simply not especially optimistic in regard to this matter when the witness was not able to give us even some hint as to where it is being kept.

Judge Halevi: He told us something about its being placed in a secret archive. Perhaps he can tell us in which secret archive?

Witness Ferencz: This is a special archive, a secret one, in which items were kept which had been marked with a double ‘O’, and even if the record were to be found – they would not supply or even disclose any material from this archive. Only very few persons had authority to examine material in this archive.

State Attorney Bach: In view of Your Honour’s observation, I am prepared to ask our Ministry for Foreign Affairs again to request the Hungarian Government to make an effort to discover the material, and if we shall receive it up to the end of this trial, we shall submit it to the Court.

Judge Halevi: If the reply is in the negative, we shall have to be satisfied with the oral evidence. [To witness] Did Endre mention, in his conversation with you, only the name of Eichmann, or other names as well?

Witness Ferencz: He mentioned various other names of members of his Section. For instance, I recall the name of Krumey. He also mentioned other names, but I don’t remember them.

Q. Anyone else?

A. Yes, he also mentioned various names, but I don’t remember them.

Q. Did he mention the names of Hungarians?

A. He did not mention the names of any Hungarians who gave orders and to whom they had to report – with the exception, of course, of his Minister – Jaross – to whom he reported.

Q. Was Jaross the Minister of the Interior?

A. The Minister of the Interior.

Q. Was he a minister in the government of Sztojay or in which government?

A. Yes.

Q. You say that he told you that he was obliged to give a report to Jaross as well?

A. Whether he had to report to him or not – about this he did not speak clearly. But, amongst other things, he also said that he had turned to Jaross and had complained about the Accused because he had rebuked him, had been annoyed with him; after all he was a State Secretary – what was he to do? In reply to this Jaross had said that the Germans were the masters and they gave the orders.

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

We shall adjourn now. The next Session will be held next Monday, at 9 o’clock in the morning.

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.

Edmund Veesenmayer

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 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: 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

Q. If I understood you rightly, he denied his own responsibility for the persecution of the Jews and the deportations?

A. I had not accused Ribbentrop of exterminating Jews. I was there talking with him about Hitler – and whether Hitler was alive or dead. And he immediately began to defend Hitler, that Hitler wasn’t responsible for these terrible conditions which were found in the concentration camps and he was not responsible for the terrible things that the SS men did and the man who was really responsible, he said, was Adolf Eichmann and his great regret was that Hitler had placed this unlimited faith in Adolf Eichmann. That was the motif of his entire monologue.

Q. You were in Nuremberg for a long time during the hearing of the trial before the International Military Tribunal and long afterwards. Do you know whether documents were submitted from which it appears that Ribbentrop himself insistently demanded these measures?

A. I do not question that at all.

Q. If so, could I refresh your memory and read to you an extract from a document dated 17 July 1944 – a message from Ribbentrop that was sent to Ambassador Veesenmayer?

Presiding Judge: Has this already been submitted to us, Dr. Servatius?

Attorney General: This apparently refers to the subject of Hungary.

Dr. Servatius: No, this has not yet been submitted. It says here:”The Fuehrer expects that the Hungarian Government will now implement, without any further delays, the measures aimed against the Jews in Budapest, with the exceptions which have been agreed upon, in principle by the Government of the Reich on the suggestion of Ambassador Veesenmayer.

But these exceptions should not be allowed to give rise to any delay in the practical steps directed against the Jews in general, for otherwise it would be necessary to cancel the consent to these exceptions which was given by the Fuehrer.”

Do you read this as something done by the Minister at Eichmann’s urging?

Witness Musmanno: I certainly do not know the history of  the entire Foreign Ministry of the Third Reich, but I do know this, Dr. Servatius, that in Ribbentrop’s attempt to exculpate himself – as you apparently assume – by accusing Eichmann, he failed in this – because he was hanged.

Now, what gave verisimilitude to the reply of Ribbentrop and the reply of Goering and the reply of Hans Frank and all the others that I mentioned this morning, in which they say that Eichmann was the man who headed the extermination programme of the Jews, was that they did not select – and if they were really clever in that respect and were not spontaneously speaking the truth – they did not select the man who might have been more obviously acceptable as the culprit, and that was General Mueller who was at the head of the Gestapo.

So therefore it was not a matter of logic; it was a matter of telling just what the facts were; and it does not follow that just because a criminal is accused and even convicted, that everything he states must be erroneous and a falsehood, because – as you well know, Dr. Servatius – in Nuremberg practically all of the men who were convicted on their own words, on their own statements, on their own confessions.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you spoke of Eichmann as an SS General?

Presiding Judge: He was speaking about General Mueller, head of the Gestapo. These were expressions of opinion – not evidence.

Witness Musmanno: Yes – I was attempting to show that what these men said was to me true, because if they were merely trying to exculpate themselves…

Dr. Servatius: Sir – that is sufficient for me. I should like to read to you a portion of the Nuremberg Judgment and to hear your opinion as to whether the statements made here are correct or not.

“He (von Ribbentrop) played an important part in Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question. In September 1942 he ordered the German diplomatic representatives accredited to various Axis satellites to hasten the deportation of Jews to the East. In June 1942, the German Ambassador to Vichy requested Laval to turn over 50,000 Jews for deportation to the East.

“On 25 February 1943 Von Ribbentrop protested to Mussolini against Italian slowness in deporting Jews from the Italian occupation zone of France. On 17 April 1943 he took part in a conference between Hitler and Horthy on the deportation of Jews from Hungary and informed Horthy that the ‘Jews must either be exterminated or taken to concentration camps.’ At the same conference Hitler had likened the Jews to ‘tuberculosis bacilli’ and said if they did not work they were to be shot.”* {*Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1947, Vol. I, p. 287.}

Presiding Judge: After quoting this passage, what is your question? What do you think of this, Judge Musmanno?

Witness Musmanno: There is no doubt, I think, about the veracity of what has been read. There is no doubt whatsoever about the wisdom which dictated those words. There is no doubt about the justice embodied in all those words and there is no doubt about the correctness of the decision that was rendered against Ribbentrop which took him to the gallows. He was hanged for what he did, as pointed out in that judgment.

Presiding Judge: It seems to me that Defence Counsel’s question was something else: How do these remarks fit in with the questions that were asked about Eichmann’s pressure on Hitler, and so on?

Witness Musmanno: Ribbentrop was speaking in the quicksands of irrefutable guilt, and he tended to pull down those who were guilty with him.

Dr. Servatius: I understood that you spoke to Kaltenbrunner, who was Chief of the Security Police of the SD after Heydrich, and I believe that he, too – according to what you stated – said that he had no connection whatever with the persecution of Jews, that this was the responsibility of someone else. Is that correct?

Witness Musmanno: I did not say that he said that he was not guilty. I said that he said that the men mostly responsible for the extermination of the Jews were Hitler, Himmler, Bormann, Heydrich and Eichmann. After all, I was not accusing these men. They were merely talking to me, and telling me and, perhaps, out of a guilty conscience, protesting that they were not the ones – although they did not put it that way. They merely referred to Eichmann; they all seemed to agree that Eichmann had a very powerful and authoritative hand in this programme of the extermination of the Jews.

Presiding Judge: You say they did not speak about their own guilt regarding the extermination of the Jews. Is that right? None of them?

Witness Musmanno: Yes.

Q. None of them?

A. No. They did not go into that.

Judge Halevi: Did you talk to them before their trial, or after their trial?

Witness Musmanno: It was during the trial.

Q. During their own trial.

A. Well, yes. But it was not at the trial. You see, I arrived there to enquire about the facts regarding Hitler. And so I went from one to the other, trying to find out when they saw Hitler last, what was his attitude and that time there was a great deal of discussion about the…

Q. Before judgment was given by the International Court?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Thank you.

Dr. Servatius: And this was when judgment had not yet been passed, but you were there during the interrogations and you were present at the sessions as an observer?

Witness Musmanno: Yes, I was an observer at the first trial.

Q. Were you present at the interrogation of Kaltenbrunner?

A. You mean at the trial?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Did Kaltenbrunner not allege all the time that he had never himself signed any order for executions and did he not persist in that allegation when his own signature on such orders were shown to him?

A. Yes, he did. And he was proved to be a liar over and over.

Q. You also spoke to Frank, who was Governor General of Poland?

A. Yes.

Q. If I understand correctly, Frank, too, declared that he had nothing whatever to do with the persecution of Jews and deportations?

A. No, no! He did not say that. No – the contrary, he admitted his guilt on the witness stand.

Q. How do you, then, account for the fact that the same Frank who wrote a diary extending over 39 volumes, did not at all mention Eichmann in one of them?

A. There were many things that Frank did not mention in his diary. I remember reading the able speech of the Attorney General in this very trial, in which he stated that Frank made no reference to the forced march of the Jews into Poland, of the tortures that they underwent, the privations that they suffered. Of course his diary was quite extensive, but I have no way of knowing what he put in or what he left out.

Q. And you said that Frank did not deny his guilt before the American Tribunal at Nuremberg, but do you know what the Tribunal itself said about this in the judgment? I am now going to quote part of the judgment…

I.M.T. vol. 1, p. 298:

“At the beginning of the testimony, Frank stated that he had a feeling of ‘terrible guilt’ for the atrocities committed in the occupied territories. But his defence was largely devoted to an attempt to prove that he was not in fact responsible.”

Q. Was this a true admission of guilt or a false account, which merely served to relieve him of the moral burden when he saw that there was no way of escape for him because of his own diary.?

A. Frank was a very volatile individual. He kept changing his view. Professor Gustav Gilbert in his book NurembergDiary tells how one day he would be very contrite and very penitent and then the next day or a few days later he would be defending what he did and would even in a way be defending Hitler. I spoke to him in Italian.

He spoke very good Italian and he said to me that the greatest regret that he would have as long as he would live was that he did not shoot Hitler when he had the chance to do so. And yet later on he would be defending Hitler. So I do not know what you attempt to derive from these quotations.

Dr. Servatius: This is not the moment for drawing conclusions from the evidence. This should take place at a later stage in the trial.

You spoke to the General of the Air Force, Koller, and he said that during the last days he was together with the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler in the bunker underneath the Reich Chancellery. Is that correct?

A. Well, I do not mean by the last days right up to the day that Hitler actually shot himself in the mouth and took poison. But he was with Hitler in the bunker during the last period. He left the bunker, I think, before General Ritter von Grein arrived to supplant Goering. He travelled all over Germany attempting to summon airplanes and so on. He was not up there at the last moment, no.

Q. These were at any rate the last days of the battle for Berlin. Therefore, I take it that military problems were probably the focal point of the conversations?

A. Not when he was starting with me. It was all over.

Presiding Judge: No, no, he was referring to the conversations between Koller and Hitler; that they would have been likely to be talking about military problems.

Witness Musmanno: Hitler assumed this to be very much a military problem to execute the flyers, to deter other flyers from dropping bombs on Germany.

Dr. Servatius: Was it not strange that precisely at that time they should talk about the Jewish problem, as if it was the most burning and pressing, at a time when the end was upon them, because they were talking about Jewish pilots?

Witness Musmanno: The Jewish Question was uppermost in Hitler’s mind all the time. In his last will and testament, with his very final breath he blasphemed the Jews. There was never a time when he had any vacation from his main object in life to kill Jews.

Dr. Servatius: And the Air Force General Koller, who was, in those days, so close to Hitler, did he have any different ideas? Was he a friend of the Jews? How am I to understand that?

Witness Musmanno: I do not know Koller’s feelings. I did not know them, but certainly in my conversations with him he made it very clear that he looked upon the shooting of the Allied pilots, men in uniform, as sheer murder. And that when Eichmann said, and mind you he had the approval of Kaltenbrunner, even Kaltenbrunner went along with him and said: Yes, it is not right to kill these men in uniform.”

And then Kaltenbrunner said: “But you know Eichmann is very jealous of his prerogatives and his job is to kill Jews, and if you are going to protect these fliers and save them you cannot save those who are Jewish born, had Jewish parents, were of Jewish lineage, were of Jewish blood.

Q. Who was then responsible for the war prisoners, was it the civil authority, the party authority or the military itself?

A. I would say the military. But so far as executing prisoners, that was a matter of the SD and was incorporated into Hitler’s orders, so regardless of where the competence lay, when Hitler declared what should be done, that for them at that time was the law.

Judge Halevi: Excuse me, Justice Musmanno, did I understand you correctly that the subject of Jewish pilots, this specific Jewish Question of pilots, did not come up in the conversation between Koller and Hitler himself?

Witness Musmanno: No, no. Koller of course was very brave in refusing to go along with this order and knowing that there was the order, that the prisoners had been turned over to the SD, he went to see Kaltenbrunner. And of course he was very much surprised that Kaltenbrunner went along with him.

Dr. Servatius: Was that not courage after the defeat? Could not Koller who was constantly with Hitler have stated his position to Hitler himself? Do you not believe that this was a process of thought worked out by Koller after the War, in order to shift the guilt on to Eichmann?

A. Koller was not accused of any crime – he did not have to shift any guilt. I was talking to Koller about Hitler, and I must repeat that that was the primary object of my conversations with these various individuals whom I have mentioned.

Previous | Index | Next