The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

11 Sivan 5721 (26 May 1961)

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

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, I should like, first of all, to inform the Court that Kappler regarding whom the Court decided to examine the possibility of interrogating in Italy, is in military gaol in Gaeta, which is to the south of Rome; hence the most suitable place for interrogating him would be in a Court in Rome.

We would accordingly suggest that the Honourable Court should request the Italian Minister of Justice to give instructions for the interrogation of this witness by representatives of the parties.

Presiding Judge: Should the approach not be directly to the Italian Court, and only passed on to it by the Ministry of Justice?

State Attorney Bach: We understand that the proper approach in this instance should be to the Italian Ministry of Justice, and there they will take the appropriate steps.

Presiding Judge: Is this in accordance with the Convention or is there no provision there?

State Attorney Bach: I do not remember exactly. Perhaps the Attorney General could tell us.

Attorney General: The Convention leaves the option in the hands of the Italian authorities to decide whether they will comply with the request or not. In other words the matter still rests within their discretion. Therefore we ask the Court to request the Italian executive authorities to exercise their discretion and to forward the application to the Court. This is provided for in the Convention.

Presiding Judge: One further matter. When we spoke yesterday about the matter of the questionnaires, I forgot about the problem of the addresses of Juettner and Grell.

Dr. Servatius, do you have the addresses of these witnesses?

Dr. Servatius: No, I shall probably receive a telephone message only today, at midday.

Presiding Judge: Very well, please continue, Mr. Bach.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, our next witness is Avraham Gordon.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Gordon: Yes, I speak Hebrew.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Avraham Gordon.

Presiding Judge: Please reply to Mr. Bach’s questions.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Gordon, were you born in Hungary?

Witness Gordon: Yes.

Q. In Budapest?

A. Yes.

Q. In what year?

A. In 1927.

Q. Where were you in 1944?

A. I was in Budapest. I was at school in the sixth grade of the Gymnasium ( Secondary School) – this corresponds to the tenth grade in Israeli terms.

Q. Do you remember 19 March 1944?

A. It was a Sunday, the day on which the German army occupied Hungary and also entered Budapest.

Q. How did this affect your studies?

A. In the following two weeks our studies went on, and thereafter, a general closure of all the schools in Hungary was declared. We finished the school year and after that classes were stopped and also the air-raids began. This was the reason given for ceasing all teaching in Hungary that year.

Q. Did the studies of all pupils cease?

A. Of all.

Q. Not only of the Jewish pupils?

A. No – all of them.

Q. Were you living with your family?

A. Yes. I was staying in the district of Buda, Quarter No.
1.

Q. Who were the members of your family?

A. My father, my mother, my brother, my grandfather and grandmother.

Q. When were the Jews ordered to wear the yellow Shield of David?

A. As far as I remember, it was on 5 April. This is the date I recall.

Q. Do you remember receiving, on one of those days, a certain order from the German authorities?

A. That was about a week before Hitler’s birthday, on 12 or 13 April. I think that this order came from the Jewish Council, with the approval, and by order, of the German security services.

Q. What was the order?

A. It was stated in the order that we were to report on the Schwabenberg in the morning for labour service.

Q. What was the Schabenberg?

A. Before the War Schwabenberg served as a resort place, and it had many private villas. When I arrived, I found most of the headquarters of the German army there.

Q. You say there were private villas there?

A. There were private villas, and hotels.

Q. Were there also Germans in the occupying army?

A. Yes. There were many German soldiers.

Q. And did you report for labour service?

A. I reported, and I was referred to a Jewish engineer named Kolbach.

Q. Only you, or were there other Jews as well?

A. When I came to the Schwabenberg, I found between one hundred and one hundred and fifty other Jews.

Q. Were they all about your age, or were there also people of other ages?

A. Most of them were young people under the age of 18, but there were approximately 20-30 older persons, about the age of 50.

Q. Please tell the Court what happened after you reported to Mr. Kolbach?

A. They detailed us to various types of work. They were drilling two tunnels there, one in the direction of the Eden Hotel which was opposite the Majestic Hotel and the other leading to the Majestic Hotel. We did not know exactly the uses to which these tunnels were to be put. We thought they would serve as shelters and as arms depots.

Q. Arms depots and shelters for whom?

A. For the German army.

Q. You say that you reported to Kolbach. Was he in charge of this work?

A. Kolbach was the person in charge on behalf of the Jewish Council, but there was a liaison officer on behalf of the SS, named Buehring, a young man who was also an engineer, and he supervised all these works.

Q. How long were you engaged in this work?

A. I was engaged in this work for approximately one month.

Q. When was this, roughly? From when to when?

A. It was in 1944, from the middle of April to the middle of May 1944.

Q. And throughout this time, you worked at the same place?

A. They also sent us to so-called outside jobs. We worked both at the Eden Hotel and also at the sanatorium, and once or twice I was also sent to work in the building of the Hungarian Political Police. The building of the Hungarian Political Police was near the Majestic Hotel.

Q. Mr. Gordon, did you see Adolf Eichmann at the time you were working there?

A. No. during the time I worked on the Schwabenberg, I did not see Adolf Eichmann.

Q. Did you see Adolf Eichmann at all while you were working in that service?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. After the middle of May 1944, we received an order; we were classified – they sorted out about fifteen Jews – about ten young people and five adults – and we were transferred to a particular place, which was called the “Rose Hill” in one of the districts of Buda, and we were taken to a villa, which as it turned out afterwards, was the private residence of Adolf Eichmann. Previously, before the War, this villa belonged to a Jewish industrialist, the owner of the Tungsram and Orion factories.

Q. What was his name?

A. Leopold Aschner.

Q. Was Leopold Aschner the Jew to whom the villa belonged?

A. Yes. He was the legal owner of the villa.

Q. And that was where Eichmann lived?

A. Yes.

Q. What were you supposed to do in this district?

A. First of all, a German awaited us – he was dressed in short trousers, a man by the name of Slawik, and he showed us a small storeroom for work tools at the rear entrance of this building, and he gave us tools, and we went out into the garden of the building. It was a large garden, and he ordered us to dig ditches.

Q. When you say “us” – how many were you?

A. There were fifteen of us.

Q. Were these the same fifteen?

A. The same fifteen.

Q. Do you know who this Slawik was – what was his rank and his duties?

A. We did not know exactly what his duties were, but we thought he was Eichmann’s bodyguard.

Q. Did he sometimes walk around in uniform, or was he always dressed in the way you have described?

A. I only saw him wearing civilian clothes.

Q. How did you know his name was Slawik?

Q. He introduced himself, saying that his name was Slawik and that “you had better beware of me.”

Q. And he made you dig these ditches?

A. It was in this garden, a very large garden, and we were forced to dig about twenty ditches in that garden.

Q. How long did you work there?

A. I worked at that place for about a month, until the middle of June.

Q. Every day?

A. Yes.

Q. And all the time with the rest of your companions?

A. No. Although the group did not change, in the middle of this period, when the deportations began from the suburbs of Budapest, from Ujpest, Kispest and so on, there were also some Jews from these localities who came to work. And in the middle of this period they suddenly stopped coming. And then we understood that they had been deported.

Q. You told us about Slawik. How did you know that this villa served as a residence for Adolf Eichmann?

A. First of all, the engineer in charge of us told us that one of the Gestapo commanders from Budapest, whose name was Adolf Eichmann, lived there, and Slawik also mentioned his name.

Q. Did you also see Eichmann?

A. I saw him a number of times.

Q. You see the Accused here. Are you able to say with certainty that he is the man?

A. I must point out that he has changed since then. But I have seen old pictures of him.

Presiding Judge: Where did you see his pictures?

Witness Gordon: In the press.

State Attorney Bach: Mr. Gordon, look at these photographs. Are you able to say anything about them?

Witness Gordon: This is the man – without a shadow of a doubt.

Q. There are three photographs here, Mr. Gordon. To which photograph are you referring?

A. To the right-hand photograph, mainly, at the top.

State Attorney Bach: I would apply to submit this document to the Court. The Court will notice that this exhibit is actually signed on the reverse side by the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Has it been showed to the Accused?

State Attorney Bach: Yes. And he has acknowledged it.

Presiding Judge: Did he acknowledge it in his statement?

State Attorney Bach: I believe that these photographs, each one separately, were shown to him. But I shall check this matter once more. If it should be necessary, we will submit additional proof on the question of this signature.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1125.

State Attorney Bach: When you saw Eichmann, how was he dressed?

Witness Gordon: He used to walk around inside the villa. I saw him first on the verandah, on the balcony of the second floor of the villa – what in European terms is called the first floor.

Q. How many floors were there in the villa altogether?

A. I would say one floor, but in Israel this would be referred two as two floors. There was a ground floor and another floor.

Q. And where did he reside?

A. He resided on the upper floor.

Previous | Index | Next

10 Sivan 5721 (25 May 1961)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Attorney Bach: On the question of Kappler?

Presiding Judge: Yes.

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

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

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

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

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

Q. Did you go to the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened at that meeting?

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

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

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

Q. A special permit from whom?

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

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

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

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

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

Q. What kind of people?

A. Some of them I knew.

Q. What people? Jews?

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

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

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

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

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

Q. “To him” – who was that?

A. To Wisliceny.

Q. And you went?

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

Q. From whom was the letter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness Freudiger: No.

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

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

Presiding Judge: That is enough, that I understood.

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

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

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

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

Q. Who was appointed as Minister of the Interior?

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

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1084 – the problem of repatriation to Croatia of Jews at present in Hungary. Information is given here, on 10 July 1944, that the Government of Hungary intends to repatriate Jews holding foreign nationality and it states that the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in Hungary (this is in July 1944, about three months after the German invasion) have not been informed of this.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/923.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1085 – an SS Obersturmfuehrer, whose signature cannot be deciphered, writes to the Accused on 22 August 1944 on the same subject and informs him that so far no agreements of the kind referred to in the decree mentioned have been made between Croatia and Hungary. Nothing is known about the repatriation of Croatian Jews from Hungary.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/924.

There are too many quotations. You must recall the remark I made quite some time ago. You are again in fact quoting  entire letters. This is impossible.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I will end this chapter with document No. 166, a letter from Guenther to von Thadden dated 6 April 1944 in connection with the employment of a  certain Jew in the “Petrolej” Company.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/925.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I ask that you now hear the Attorney General.

Presiding Judge: Very well. This concerns Kappel?

Attorney General: Yes. It concerns the interrogation in Italy. I can inform the Court that we shall be able to conduct the interrogation in Italy under the Convention existing between ourselves and Italy. However, we are asked to submit the questionnaire in French, not in Italian.

Presiding Judge: Can we do this?

Attorney General: The Italian authorities are ready to accept the questionnaire from us in French on the assumption that we use one of the official languages. It seems that we cannot be represented there, that the State cannot be represented, but will have to ask for the assistance of the Italian Prosecution with this matter, so we have been told.

Presiding Judge: A Convention does exist at any rate?

Attorney General: A Convention exists, it contains a paragraph about taking evidence, and we can invoke it.

Presiding Judge: Has it been published?

Attorney General: Yes, it has been published in the official Collection of Conventions. I shall let the Court have the details. Our problem was only the procedure, and this is what we found out through our embassy in Rome: The Defence can only be represented by an advocate who is licensed to appear before the Italian Courts.

Judge Raveh: Can the man be located?

Attorney General: He is in prison. There is no difficulty at all.

I have a further announcement after this, about quite a different subject.

Presiding Judge: But we had better conclude this subject. You will have to submit your questionnaire in the matter of Kappel. So far we have only the questionnaire from Dr. Servatius.

Attorney General: If the Court will give us time until tomorrow at this hour we shall submit our questionnaire.

Presiding Judge: Let us do it in Italian. You can prepare the Italian translation, and if you have difficulties I think that Mr. Rosen, the interpreter, will be able to help you.

Attorney General: Until tomorrow we may be able to make arrangements for the Hebrew only.

Presiding Judge: Never mind, submit it in Hebrew and we shall see to it. In order to conclude this subject, Dr. Servatius, do you have any comments? Will you be represented by a lawyer there?

Dr. Servatius: I shall have to engage an attorney there, but the difficulty will be to find a lawyer who is ready to appear in this case. I have myself some experience in this in Germany, so that this may cause a delay.

Things might perhaps be arranged in such a way that the Italian attorney appears officially and that then my assistant puts the actual questions. For it will not be possible, will it, to familiarize the Italian colleague so quickly with the essence of this interrogation. At any rate, I shall do my best in order to expedite the matter.

Presiding Judge: And now the second subject.

Attorney General: The second subject concerns the article in Life magazine. I was asked by the Court to contact the editors of the magazine and ask for the manuscript which it received from Sassen, the journalist, and which contains the memoirs of the Accused, or things which he said. I did as instructed by the Court and approached the magazine. Their reply was that, since under the terms of the acquisition of the manuscript they are not allowed to transfer it, they cannot, to their regret – so they say – comply with my request.

At the same time I can inform the Court that efforts have been made to obtain the manuscript and that it is now in our hands – not from Life magazine.

Presiding Judge: What is is? Is it a copy?

Attorney General: It is a transcript, there also the taped conversations and we shall hear a dialogue with the Accused apparently. We do not have the tape, but the Accused replies to questions and gives explanations about points he was asked to explain. The material is not short, over sixty tapes, not much less than we have here, covering several hundred pages. I have at this moment almost all the tapes except five.

Presiding Judge: Is it the tapes?

Attorney General: The transcripts of the tapes. Because they are typewritten, the question of verification may arise, how to verify that they are in fact connected with the Accused, since I have no other way of authenticating the document I wish to submit. We hope to overcome this difficulty within a few days and then I shall be in a position to submit to the Court the authenticated document.

Presiding Judge: Very well. When you have something to submit we shall revert to this, and of course hear Dr. Servatius on the subject.

I do not remember that a decision was taken in advance on this matter, whether to accept or not to accept anything.

Attorney General: No ruling was given in advance. I shall of course be ready to put a copy of the material at the disposal of Dr. Servatius, as soon as I can. He said at the time that he is also interested in having this material submitted to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: I would be interested, if I am given a copy.

Presiding Judge: Very well, when you are ready, we shall revert to the matter.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bar-Or, please continue.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We pass on to the chapter of Bulgaria. Document No. 1023, a letter, or rather a telegram, from Luther to Beckerle, the German Minister in Sofia. This is the beginning of the negotiations with the Government of Bulgaria about the expulsion of the Jews. I draw the attention of the Court to the remark in the margin.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/926.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Beckerle’s reply to the German Foreign Ministry. He reports contents of his conversation with the Bulgarian Prime Minister on 16 November 1942.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/927.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 127, a document which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(52). The Accused was asked to give his opinion on this document on page 1153 ff. It is a letter from the Accused to Gesandtschaftsrat (Legation Councillor) Dr. KLingenfuss at the Foreign Ministry dated 17 November 1942, in which he uses, inter alia the phrase: “…im Zuge einer umfassenden Loesung der europaeischen Judenfrage…” (in the framework of a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question).

Presiding Judge: Where is this, Mr. Bar-Or, at the end?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the passage before the last sentence. The meaning is that in the course of a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question in Europe he wishes to persuade the Government of Bulgaria to stop giving emigration permits.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/928.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1925, a letter from Klingenfuss of the Foreign Ministry dated 23 November 1942 enclosing copy of a report from the German legation in Sofia and a memorandum from the Government of Bulgaria. Wisliceny is mentioned as Advisor to the legation in Sofia, to the Bulgarian Government.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/929.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 233 which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(53). Again Klingenfuss to Beckerle at the German legation in Sofia. A change of plan: Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker is mentioned in place of Wisliceny. There is also mention of what should be demanded from the Government of Bulgaria as compensation for each Jew expelled.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/930.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1026. There are two papers here: first a letter dated 10 December 1942 from IVB4, signed by Mueller, about the expulsion of the Jews from Bulgaria; and then there is a letter from the Foreign Ministry to Mueller. Here the subject is a request from the Government of Bulgaria concerning the dispatch of a counsellor for the Jewish Question. Wisliceny cannot be spared.

In his place Mueller has designated Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who had served until then as specialist for Jewish affairs with the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service in the area of the military government in France. A paragraph on page 2 deals with the official status of Dannecker, who is to serve in practice as specialist for Jewish affairs under the Police Attache, who was there before Dannecker’s assumption of his post.

I should perhaps direct the attention of the Court to the question why Mueller signed this and not the Accused. The reason is that this paper goes directly to Unterstaatssekretaer (Undersecretary of State) Luther.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/931.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1028. On 8 February 1943, Beckerle transmits Dannecker’s first report, dated the same day, about the commencement of his activities. He says that before Dannecker took up his duties he (Beckerle) had already discussed the problem with the Minister of the Interior, whose intention is clear – to expel all the Jews. Dannecker, on his part, speaks of 10,000 to 12,000 Jews who are available for immediate expulsion since they do not hold Bulgarian citizenship.

I draw the Court’s attention to the first paragraph. Here the expulsion of the Jews from Thrace and Macedonia is mentioned for the first time, not the Jews of Bulgaria proper, but the Jews of those parts of Bulgaria which the Germans annexed to Bulgaria. And there are more details about the negotiations between Dannecker and Belev, the Commissioner for the Jews in the Bulgarian Government, who operates from the Ministry of the Interior.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/932.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1029, a telegram from Beckerle to the German Foreign Ministry dated 16 February 1943. Beckerle says that the Bulgarian Prime Minister has informed him that the Bulgarian Parliament has so far only approved the expulsion of 20,000 Jews from the liberated areas, i.e. Thrace and Macedonia. He also says that Dannecker has already fully taken up his duties.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/933.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1030, a letter from Dannecker to the Attaches Group. On top of the letter it says: Seen and signed: Beckerle. He had actually no right to transmit these reports at all; they ought to have gone through Beckerle.

But sometimes he writes directly and then Beckerle signs confirming that he has seen it. So this goes on to Head Office for Reich Security – Attaches Group for IVB4. The Attaches Group acted of course in the name of all the Sections of Head Office for Reich Security, not only of IVB4. If you wanted it to pass the matter on to the Accused, you had to write “for IVB4.”

This is Dannecker’s second report and he writes about the implementation of the first stage of the expulsion. The document is dated 12 February 1943. He also mentions that, without waiting for the decision by the Council of Ministers regarding all the Jews of Bulgaria, the expulsion of the Jews of Thrace and Macedonia is being undertaken immediately. Belev will first seize what he calls “undesirable Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/934.

State Attorney Bar-Or: A letter dated February 1943 from von Thadden to the Accused. Von Thadden transmits a summary of what we have just seen in document No. 1030 to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/935.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1032 – Guenther’s letter of 9 March 1943, to von Hahn at the Foreign Ministry about the first transport of 20,000 Jews from Bulgaria. The technical preparations have been completed and it is expected that the expulsion will take place on 15 March. The Jews will be expelled to the Generalgouvernement in two special trains of 2,000-3,000 persons each week.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/936.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1033. There are actually three letters here which are grouped together. In the last one Rademacher, in handwriting, passes on the gist of the matter to the Accused: A report from Beckerle about further developments in connection with the expulsion, and about negotiations in the Bulgarian Parliament concerning the inclusion of the Jews of Bulgaria itself in the deportations.

Here we find Peshev, who is especially active in the Parliament, before which the above-mentioned Belev who worked directly with Dannecker was of course responsible. In the margin the Foreign Ministry is asked to inform Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about the contents of the letter.

Finally there is a telegram about the Session of the Parliament where the majority passed a vote of non-confidence without stating reasons, in the Vice President of the Parliament, Peshev, because of his intervention on behalf of the Bulgarian Jews. It seems that, in the end, this and similar steps succeeded in preventing the expulsion of the Jews from the border of Bulgaria, in spite of Peshev’s resignation.

Presiding Judge: Where is the name of the Accused mentioned?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The name of the Accused appears on the document entitled Arbeitsexemplar (working copy) which contains the marginal comments I have quoted.

Presiding Judge: I cannot see the name of the Accused here. This begins: “Sofia, den 26. Maerz, 1943.”

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

Presiding Judge: Were you reading a translation?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the translation we wrote it out in full. There are two handwritten notes here. The typed distribution list was not copied. The handwritten notes have been fully translated and typed.

Presiding Judge: So this is a marginal note.

Previous | Index | Next

3 Sivan 5721 (18 May 1961)

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

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court’s permission, I have reached Prosecution document No. 1369. I should like to ask the Honourable Court for a decision on this under Section 15 of the Law. We are here submitting parts of the record of the main interrogation of Karl Rahm, on 25 March 1947, as recorded by a Czech court in Leitmeritz. Rahm was put on trial for having commanded the Theresienstadt camp. He was the third commandant there. As we have heard, the first was Seidl, followed by Burger, and he (Rahm) was the third and last one, and he remained in the camp until it was handed over to the Red Cross. Karl Rahm was sentenced to death; the death sentence was carried out.

Rahm enumerates very briefly before his judges the most important events which connected him with his superiors, among them the Accused, during his period of administration as commandant of Theresienstadt. And here we do not have to rely on second- or third-hand evidence, here we have a most important source for the understanding of the relations between the Accused and the Dienststellen, the various offices in Prague and Theresienstadt.

We are aware that Rahm was far from being “an upright man,” not in his generation,* {*After Genesis 6:9.} and not in Theresienstadt, but it seems to me that certain details will be of value. I ask the Court to accept this record of court proceedings.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 38

We accept the record of the court proceedings of Rahm’s evidence for the reasons given in our Decision No. 7.

State Attorney Bar-Or: As I said, this is our document No. 1369. I shall briefly outline the contents of this document. In the excerpts submitted here, Rahm first gives a general description of the staff of the Central Office in Vienna, whom he knew well.

Presiding Judge: Before you continue, Mr. Bar-Or, I see the text in Czech, and then a German translation.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have no German translation. [After looking at the documents before him] That is correct, Your Honour, we received this document from Prague in a translation which had been prepared by the Czech authorities. I submit the Czech text to the Court, together with the Hebrew translation.

Presiding Judge: Will you keep this [one of the copies which were handed to him] in your file?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not intend to submit this. This letter is part of the document as we received it from Prague. It might perhaps be better if it were kept with the rest.

Presiding Judge: What is in the file of Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Counsel for the Defence has received a summary of this testimony, in German of course.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you will hand a copy to Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not mind this copy being handed to Counsel for the Defence, I shall not need it.

Presiding Judge: Then perhaps you will give it to Counsel for the Defence?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/864.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With your permission, I shall continue. In this record of the court proceedings, Rahm gives a bodily description of the Accused, whom he knew as Head of the Central Office in Vienna, and also describes the people who were there with him at the time.

He speaks about Obersturmfuehrer Guenther (the brother of Hans Guenther), i.e., the Accused’s permanent deputy. He talks of Alois Brunner, who was employed in Guenther’s office. And then he speaks about his posting to Theresienstadt and mentions that he replaced Burger. When he took over the command, present was not only Burger but also the Accused, as well as the Head of the Central Office in Prague, Hans Guenther.

Further on he says – and I emphasize this passage, in view of what we heard today – that “from the administrative-technical point of view, I was subordinate to the Central Office in Prague, and from the political point of view, to the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin,” and that “political questions were within the field authority of Hauptsturmfuehrer Moes of Berlin, who would come to Theresienstadt in case of need and give me appropriate orders and instructions.”

And he continues:

“Until about March 1944, I knew nothing about the prohibition according to which women in the ghetto were forbidden to bear children. One day the Jewish Elder Eppstein came to inform me that a certain woman was in her eighth month of pregnancy, and drew my attention to the order issued earlier by Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, whereby women in the ghetto were forbidden to bear children.

Eppstein told me then that he thought that – in accordance with what had been agreed between himself and Eichmann – the general prohibition in force in Germany concerning artificial abortions did not apply to Jews, and this agreement was exploited by Eichmann, in order to force Jewish women in the ghetto to have abortions, and afterwards this became the usual procedure.

On this occasion, Eppstein drew my attention, in fact, to the duty of performing abortions on Jewesses, and when Guenther came to visit me, I asked him about it, and he confirmed to me that I did not have to see to this personally, because it was already a matter for the Jews themselves, and that the Elder of the Jews had received notification about it from Eichmann directly.”

There follows another passage which is important to us, in which he says:

“In my opinion, 21,000 persons of all ages were deported from Theresienstadt to various places” (he refers, of course, to his period). “I was never informed that anybody had died on the transport. I put the responsibility for carrying out these transports on Moes and/or Eichmann and the whole Head Office for Reich Security.”

Then – I read from the bottom of page 2 – he says:

“When the transports were first organized, I learned during a conversation in which Moes, Guenther and I took part, that Eppstein would also have to leave on one of the transports for some place in central Germany, a town whose name I do not remember.”

He continues to talk about Eppstein and relates finally that he was taken away.

On page 3 he gives most important information about the visit of the Red Cross in June 1944. He says:

“Before the inspection by the International Red Cross, about which advance information had been given, the ghetto and its installations were examined by State Minister Frank, Eichmann from Berlin, the Minister of the Protectorate, and others. I did not have close contact at all with these personalities. They dealt directly with Eichmann.”

At the bottom of this page he says:

“It is a fact that these international delegations were shown only the best. What these delegations were allowed to see in Theresienstadt was decided in advance, in detail, by the representative of the Head Office for Reich Security in Berlin on the one hand, and by the representative of the BdS (Dr. Weimann and Guenther) on the other. The person responsible on behalf of the BdS, as well as Moes and Guenther from Prague, were also personally present during these inspections… The explanations were given to the members of the delegation by Weimann, Eichmann, Moes, and also by Guenther and Guemmel from Prague.”

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I ask, for the sake of clarity, to read one sentence from the record of court proceedings, since it is important in principle for the  position occupied by Eichmann. This does not refer only to Theresienstadt. It says here at the bottom of the first page:

“At this transfer of the management Eichmann informed me that I was subordinate to the Central Office in Prague, and therefore to the BdS, the Commander of the Security Police in Prague from the administrative-technical point of view, and from the political point of view to the Head Office for Reich Security in  Berlin, and that political questions are within the field of authority of Hauptsturmfuehrer Moes from Berlin, who will come to Theresienstadt in case of need to give me appropriate orders and instructions.”

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is unnecessary to translate this passage for the record, because I just read the paragraph in full in the Hebrew translation.

Presiding Judge: All right, this was only emphasized by Dr. Servatius on his part, as I understand it.

Dr. Servatius: I think the words “and therefore to the Commander of the Security Police in Prague” were omitted from the reading. This was the essential part of the sentence. From the document one can see that this Commander, i.e., Weimann, is constantly being mentioned.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to our document No. 1197 – an invitation to a dinner in Prague. – I see that we are not ready with the copies. I apologize to the Court, we shall submit the document at a later stage.

Judge Raveh: I should like to ask something in connection with the previous document. On the third page, where the deportation of Eppstein is mentioned, what is the place mentioned in the eighth line?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Moes took him to the railway station at Bauschewitz. That was the station belonging to Theresienstadt. The Court has before it a drawing of the great procession from Bauschewitz to Theresienstadt. In the end the Jews in Theresienstadt built an extension of the railway track from Bauschewitz into the ghetto.

With your permission, I will go on to the last document on the Theresienstadt chapter, our document No. 855. In respect to this document, too, I request your permission to submit it in accordance with Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law.

This is a short section of the report about the activities of the International Red Cross in the concentration camps in Germany during the years 1939-1945. It was prepared by a Red Cross official whose name we know by now: M. Dunant.

Presiding Judge: In what connection was his name mentioned?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Mrs. Salzberger mentioned him. She heard about what was to have happened to the transport from this representative, who took over the Theresienstadt camp from the SS.

I shall submit yet another document. I said that on 6 April 1945, just a few days before the entry of the Red Cross into Theresienstadt, an apparently final meeting was held between the SS people and the representative of the Red Cross, in which the Accused took part. At a later stage I shall submit the invitation card together with the list of the participants.

I beg to submit here a small part of the official report issued by the International Red Cross in Geneva, which concerns two camps that interest us in particular, namely Theresienstadt, and a short passage dealing with Bergen-Belsen. The Red Cross was, in fact, not able to enter and visit Bergen-Belsen. This report actually constitutes an official document. We have explored the possibility of inviting the official of the International Red Cross who was responsible for the preparation of the report, and whose name I have mentioned.

We were told that, in accordance with the accepted practice of the International Red Cross, its officers are not allowed to testify about the contents of official documents published by the International Red Cross. But it seems to me that this fact does not diminish the value of this document for the purpose of producing evidence against the Accused in the trial. To a certain extent, this is not only an official report, but certain statements by the Accused himself are also contained in it.

I therefore feel that I am not entitled to ask for permission to submit this part of the report only. I am, of course, not submitting only part of it; I have, of course, the whole report in my hand, and Counsel for the Defence has also received it. Because of the references to the Accused, it seems to me that I have to request your permission under Section 15.

Presiding Judge: To which parts do you wish to refer?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have prepared a printed copy of the part, beginning on page 99.

Presiding Judge: And do you wish to submit all this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are actually a little over three pages of the report which cover the whole period of the War. This is what I wish to submit.

Presiding Judge: Do you also have the complete report?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There is also the complete report,
and it is at the disposal of the Court, of course.

I wish to add only one thing: We have shown this passage to the Accused in the German translation – the report was written in French, of course – and the passage is therefore before you, marked T/37(240). The Accused speaks about it in his statement on page 2967. He was given an opportunity to state his opinion on these three pages. I therefore request permission to submit it.

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection to the submission. I should only like to request that the complete document be handed to me for perusal, and that I be permitted to revert to it if something further should emerge to the benefit of the Defence.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Obviously the whole report is at the disposal of Counsel for the Defence.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 39

We permit submission of the excerpts from the report of the International Red Cross which were mentioned by Mr. Bar-Or, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

This will be Exhibit T/865.

Previous | Index | Next