The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

Q. Do you know anything special regarding the transport in which Gisi Fleischmann travelled, some special instruction which was given in respect to Gisi Fleischmann?

A. My “Aryanizer” wanted to know whether I was still alive, or whether I had escaped. Some days after this he came to Sered; he came to the office and asked whether he could speak to the Jew, Adolo Rosenberg. There was a Jew there, one of the clerks, named Weiss. He extracted a card from the card index and said to him: “No, he left already, with the transport of 17 October.”

To this he responded: “Thank you very much, Heil Hitler!” and left the place. This Weiss told me, on the same day or the next day, that my “Aryanizer” had been there, and that I should take care that no one should see me. Weiss mentioned to me that he had not only said that I had left, but that there was a notation there “R.U.”

Q. What did this “R.U.” stand for?

A. I asked Mr. Weiss the same question, and he replied “Rueckkehr unerwuenscht” (his return is undesirable).

Q. Do you know whether there was a similar notation attached to the file of Gisi Fleischmann?

A. There was a similar notation attached to two persons, apart from me – to Gisi Fleischmann and to one other Jew from Bratislava.

Q. I understand that Gisi Fleischmann left on the same transport as your parents. Did you get to know, subsequently, what happened when the train reached Auschwitz?

A. After the War, two women from that transport of 17 October returned to my town. I asked them about my parents, whether they had seen them. One of them told me that my father, of blessed memory, was very glad that I was not there, for when the train arrived, they opened the carriages and called out three names, that of Gisi Fleischmann, mine, and one other. My father said: “Thank God he is not here.” They told me that they took Gisi Fleischmann and the other Jew away while the rest were still in the carriages.

Q. Please tell us one more thing – incidentally, did they tell you afterwards what happened to Gisi Fleischmann, after they removed her separately?

A. No.

Q. What kind of treatment did Brunner mete out in cases of attempts to escape from the camp?

A. In cases of attempted escape, if someone ran away by night, orders were given to kill him the following evening by shooting. Anyone who tried to escape had to traverse the same route, and in the same manner, as that in which he had attempted to escape, and he was killed on the very spot where he was caught.

Q. Did you also see gypsies in the camp?

A. Yes. Once – it was in the winter – they brought 20-25 gypsies to the camp. I saw them at the entrance to the camp; after that they took them to wash themselves. In front of the entrance to the wash-house, they told them to get undressed. It was snowing, it was winter, approximately December or January. They were standing there outside, naked, and after they came back from the wash-house, the camp barber was ordered to provide each one with a different kind of haircut, in order to ridicule them.

Q. What was the fate of these gypsies?

A. On the first transport that left after this, they, too, went off to the east, together with the Jews.

Q. Was this also on Brunner’s orders?

A. Yes, yes.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no questions.

Presiding Judge: Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg, you have concluded your testimony.

State Attorney Bach: With this I have completed the chapter of Slovakia. My colleague, Mr. Bar-Or, still wishes to submit to the Court three documents, as supplements.

Presiding Judge: Is this also about Slovakia?

State Attorney Bach: They refer to previous chapters.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court’s permission, I have, first of all, to supplement document T/864, which is the record of the interrogation of Rahm of 25 March 1947.

At the time, the Court requested me to secure additional copies of the translation into German. Your Honour will recall that the record was drawn up in the Czech language. We submitted it in the original, together with a Hebrew translation. I have here a certified copy of the original, translated into German, together with three additional copies of the official translation into German.

Presiding Judge: Has Dr. Servatius received a copy of this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Dr. Servatius already had a copy at the time.

Dr. Servatius: I presume that it is in the office upstairs.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, with your permission, Your Honours, I return to Prosecution document No. 351, which is an affidavit of Advocate Asher Rafael Moissis, by means of which I sought to submit the diary of the late Advocate Yomtov Yekuel, which is attached to the affidavit.

Presiding Judge: What exhibit number was it given here?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It has not yet been submitted, since Defence Counsel did not have a German translation. I requested the Court to use its powers under Section 15, and so far there has been no decision, since I was obliged to furnish Defence Counsel with the translation. Yesterday I delivered to Defence Counsel a literal translation of those extracts from the diary on which I want to rely. I hope that he has meanwhile received it.

On the basis of my arguments which are recorded in the record of proceedings, I ask for a decision to admit the diary attached to the affidavit of Advocate Moissis. Your Honours will surely remember that the original of that diary was written in the Greek language, and we are now about to submit its Hebrew translation. I have brought with me today the Greek original as well, authenticated by Moissis.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, have you now received a translation of it?

Dr. Servatius: I presume so. I have before me now the German text.

Presiding Judge: Do you have any comments to make?

Dr. Servatius: I cannot examine it hurriedly.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With your permission, I should like to point out: I can see the document on the table of Defence Counsel. I think that he is mistaken. We are talking of document No. 351, and I see there a number consisting of four digits. That is not it. I dictated this translation to Dr. Servatius’ secretary yesterday. He has surely received it from her.

Dr. Servatius: Yes. The mistake arises from the fact that I have another document in front of me. I have no objection to the submission of this document.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 53

It is decided to admit in evidence the diary of Advocate Yekuel, together with the affidavit of Advocate Moissis. I have marked it T/1134.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour.

I shall permit myself to draw the Court’s attention to a number of extracts from the diary – not too many. I shall refer to the Hebrew translation and will quote the number appearing at the head of each page.

On page 2, in the first excerpt, there is a reference to the poor physical condition of the Jews after the Germans had entered – this has already been mentioned by a witness on this aspect. Thereafter, the author of the diary describes the growth of the special project for feeding the children, which grew to two thousand children who received free meals daily.

On page 3, paragraph 2, the reference is to the first year, from April 1941 to July 1942, which passed without any anti-Jewish laws. The writer states that the German attitude was without a plan and without an objective throughout the first fifteen months.

On page 5, in the last passage from chapter 3, it describes the publication of the first set of regulations of the Military Government for Salonika-Aegeis, in July 1942.

On page 6 we find the events of that morning, in the early hours of that Sabbath day, concerning which the Court has heard evidence from another witness. In passage 3 the Court will find proof of how it happened, and pictures which have come into our possession of the events in the square that morning. From this it is clear that, already at that time, care was taken that the events should be photographed and publicized.

I pass now to page 21 of the printed copy – passage 5. Here it refers to the delegation which was in Athens, and to the fact that, at the same time, a high officer of the Gestapo arrived in Salonika; he merely wanted information, mainly precise news about the life of the community, about its members and its institutions, and he flew back to Berlin immediately. Now it is of course clear to us that the person concerned was Guenther, the permanent deputy of the Accused.

I now go on to page 23 of the printed text. Here, for the first time in this diary, there appear the SS officers, Wisliceny and Brunner. Brunner is identified here as the same Brunner who afterwards became known as the liquidator of the Jewish Question in Vienna. They remain there and charged the community council with carrying out their instructions, after making it known that it was not the military government, but they, the appropriate department of the SS, who would be responsible for operations in connection with the Jews. The second sentence on page 24 says this explicitly: “The implementation has been entrusted to the department of the SS.”

Further details will be found by the Court in passage number 4 on page 34. Here we are also given figures of the Jews of Salonika. It speaks of 50,000 persons, of the conduct of Brunner when he appeared before the leaders of the community in the offices of the community council, in order to give his instructions, of the feverish pace at which the community council was charged to carry out these instructions, and so forth.

I pass to page 28. Here there is an interesting passage dealing with the successful efforts made in order to arouse the sympathy of the Christian public in that part of Greece for the aid of their Jewish neighbours. A most poignant story in this context will be found by the Court at the foot of page 29 and the top of page 30, that is to say, until the end of the first passage. It there mentions a Christian woman who saw, for the first time, a Jewess wearing the Jewish Star of David in the street. She wanted to approach her and console her.

And then she suddenly noticed the writer’s maid who did not seem to be Jewish, laughing. She was laughing from pleasure; the Christian woman thought she was joking. She turned to her and said: “Why are you laughing, my daughter? You should be participating in their sorrow – they are also human beings as we are. You know, perhaps it might be our turn tomorrow.”

On page 32, in passage 5, there is reference to the introduction of regulations concerning the registration of Jewish property, and to the feeling of relief that this step gave to many Jews, as they believed that the SS sought taxes, not human beings.

The illusion is revealed as such afterwards, in passage 4 on page 33 of the diary. And on page 34 the diary breaks off in the middle of the word “Jews” in the Greek language. From the affidavit we know that, after his flight to Athens (the diary was actually written in Athens), the author was arrested, exiled to Auschwitz, and there he met his death.

Presiding Judge: He was arrested in Athens, not Salonika?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He escaped to Athens. When the Germans entered Athens, after the revolution in Italy, he was arrested and sent to Auschwitz. The Court will find the details in the affidavit of Moissis.

With your permission I would crave your indulgence for one more document which appertains to the chapter of the Jews of Germany. This document was in our possession, but we have only now received verification of this document. I refer to Prosecution document No. 186. This is part, actually the last part, of the diary of a German poet named Jochen Klepper. Jochen Klepper was married to a Jewish widow, and, while being married to her, took into his house the Jewish daughter of his Jewish wife.

In November 1942 preparations were made for more vigorous and extensive action against the Jews of Germany, as the Court has meanwhile heard. Jochen Klepper was concerned about the fate of his Jewish wife and daughter. He applied to the Swedish authorities and secured entry visas into Sweden. And now he needed exit permits. He had many acquaintances amongst the German officer corps. He turned to his friend, the Minister of the Interior, Frick. He describes his meeting with Frick. Frick says:

“I cannot help you. I can only advise you to go immediately, for we are on the eve of even more drastic measures. There is one thing I can do. I can see to it that, through the intervention of one of the department chiefs of the Ministry of the Interior, you will be granted an interview with Eichmann.”

He relates that, due to the kind help of the Minister of the Interior, he was, in fact, received in interview by the Accused, and that the Accused wanted to go into the matter and promised to do so. He said to him: “I cannot promise you, but I hope that it will work.” The next day he was called again. We do not know exactly what happened during that conversation.

The diary concludes with the following words: “I was in the offices of the Security Police – tonight we shall be going, together, to our death.” That is the end of the diary. The difficulty was that, while this part of the diary was known and published in Germany, in various forms, in the past, it was not so easy to obtain authentication of the author’s handwriting. We have now obtained this authentication with the help of the German authorities.

I request the Court to allow me, by virtue of its powers under Section 15, to submit document No. 186.

Presiding Judge: Who authenticated the handwriting now?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The authentication comes from the Magistrate’s Court in Berlin, dated 4.5.61. This must be read in conjunction with the letter of the publisher to the State Attorney in Frankfurt, in which the publisher confirms that he did, in fact, receive this handwritten document, which has been verified here, from the sister of Jochen Klepper. A photostatic copy of that letter to the State Attorney is also in our possession.

Judge Halevi: Where did Klepper leave his diary?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Evidently with his acquaintances, and it was handed over for publication by his acquaintances, naturally after the War. It seems to me that under Section 15 the Court can be satisfied in this way, if it so desires, that we do, in fact, have before us the diary of Jochen Klepper.

Presiding Judge: Was the diary published in book form?

State Attorney Bar-Or: As far as I know it was published twice. That portion on which I rely, namely the last part of the diary, was published in a book entitled Du Hast Mich Heimgesucht Bei Nacht (I Had a Visitation from You by Night), which appeared in Munich in 1960. The diary of Jochen Klepper, as a whole, appeared through another publisher, “Die Deutsche Verlagsanstalt” in Stuttgart, already before that.

Presiding Judge: You say that you are applying to submit the copy of the publisher’s letter which confirms that he received the manuscript from the sister of this poet?

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct – from Miss Hildegard Klepper of Berlin.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection.

Presiding Judge: Is the poet himself no longer alive?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He committed suicide, together with his wife and daughter, on 10 December 1942.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 54

We admit the extracts from the diary of Jochen Klepper, together with the authentication of his handwriting, by virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950. This will be T/1135.

State Attorney Bach: With regard to the chapter of Slovakia, I should like, in conclusion, to draw your attention to three excerpts from the interrogation of Wisliceny, which has already been submitted to you. This was our No. 856 and was given the number T/56.

Here, in the interrogation on 14 November 1945, on pages 4- 5, Wisliceny describes how he was sent by the Accused to Slovakia. He says:

“I received the following instructions: To advise the Slovak Government on all questions relating to the Jewish problem. To strive, insofar as possible, to see to it that the Slovak Jewish legislation should be assimilated, insofar as possible, to the German. This was the central point or nucleus of the instructions. Everything else was left to me personally.”

Presiding Judge: From whom did he receive these instructions?

State Attorney Bach: He says that he received directives from the Accused and from Guenther to attempt to adapt, as far as possible, the Slovak anti-Jewish legislation to the German legislation.

Thereafter, in the interrogation of 15 November 1945, on page 13, he talks of the negotiations that he conducted with Jewish institutions, and of the fact that Eichmann told him to break off all these negotiations, “and that, if anything would go wrong, he would not hesitate to drop me entirely, that he would not protect me against any actions by superiors.”

On page 14, when he talks about the desire of the Slovaks to visit the camps, and when he ultimately reveals to him where the Jews were going to, he says: “He said to me at that time verbally the Slovaks won’t be able to see their Jews any more because they are not alive.”

And the last extract from that interrogation – on page 21. He speaks several times about Alois Brunner and refers to him all the time as “Schweinehund” (swine), and the interrogator asks him: “You used the expression Schweinehund in connection with Brunner’s name. Why did you do that?” He answered: “He was an extremely unscrupulous individual, one of the best tools of Eichmann. He never had an opinion of his own, and as Eichmann himself described him, he was ‘one of my best men’.”

And now, Your Honours, in the course of our comprehensive description of Europe from west to east, the seizure of Jews and their transfer to extermination camps, we come now to the last territory, the last country – and that is Hungary.

Previous | Index | Next

Q. In what camp?

A. Sered.

Q. Was this at a later stage?

A. Yes.

Q. I would ask you to submit these three signs.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps he would like to retain them. We have already had a case such as this. He has shown them to us, and that is sufficient.

State Attorney Bach: But I think the witness should be able to get them back…it is possible that the Court has already seen these signs previously.

[To witness] You mentioned here the camp at Sered. When were you taken to Sered?

Witness Rosenberg: I was taken to the camp at Sered at the beginning of September 1944.

Q. Who arrested you?

A. Men of the “Hlinka Guard” arrested me.

Q. When you reached Sered, did you arrive alone, or with your family?

A. Alone.

Q. Where was your family?

A. They were in a bunker.

Q. Outside the town?

A. Yes. Outside the town.

Q. Who was in charge of the camp of Sered when you arrived there?

A. When I reached Sered, the man in charge was Knollmeyer.

Q. Was he an SS man?

A. He was a young SS man, about 20 years of age.

Q. A German?

A. A German, from Bratislava.

Q. Please tell the Court how they behaved towards all of you
at Sered at that time?

A. When they arrested me, they took us from the “Hlinka Guard” to the SD at Trencin, from there to Jihlava prison, and from Jihlava they took us to the Sered concentration camp. We arrived there at night. When we got down from the railway carriages, there were young German lads and also men of the “Hlinka Guard” standing on the sides; and anyone who did not jump far enough away from the carriage was beaten.

Presiding Judge: We have already heard of the Sered camp from Dr. Abeles, is that not so?

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Abeles was there only at the final stage. There we were told about his mother, but that was later on.

[To witness] Do you recall an incident with a Jew named Grossmann?

Witness Rosenberg: Yes.

Q. What happened to him?

A. Grossmann was a Jew approximately 50 years old. He was cleaning the courtyard with a broom. Knollmeyer passed by him and hit him. The Jew then stood up and raised his arm in order to protect his face. And Knollmeyer said to him: “You accursed Jew – you want to defend yourself?” and he shot him there, in the courtyard.

Q. And killed him?

A. Yes, he killed him.

Q. Please tell the Court what the “Schoener Abend” (beautiful evening) was?

A. Schoener Abend – this was the name which I gave it in my memoirs. This was on the Sabbath of Penitence (during the ten days of Penitence starting with Rosh Hashana), in 1944.

It was after work, and all of us were already in the huts. Then the orderlies came and announced that there was an order for us to come out by nine o’clock, that all the prisoners had to assemble on the large square in the centre of the camp, and that all of us had to report there.

First of all the young people went there, and in the end, shortly before nine o’clock, they brought the elderly people and the children. From nine o’clock we were required to stand at attention there, all the time, and this lasted until midnight. Throughout that time we stood in one place.

And
during this time, from the building which housed the German headquarters, we heard a loud order to bring a rabbi, with a prayer-book, and then one of the orderlies went and summoned a rabbi – one of the rabbis – it was Rabbi Unger, of blessed memory, of Piestany, who was the youngest of them – accompanied the orderly.

Q. Was he the brother-in-law of Rabbi Weissmandel?

A. Yes, he was the brother-in-law of Rabbi Weissmandel. He went there. They were having a party there. Later on, some time afterwards, we noticed that they had requested the orderlies to bring blankets. And subsequently we saw that they were carrying out someone’s body inside the blankets.

When I was at home, in my town, I had worked as an assistant to the Burial Society. On the following morning, they summoned me, and I had to be one of the burial party. Then Knollmeyer gave orders that all these bodies should be buried there, in the camp, behind the bath-house.

Q. Was Rabbi Unger one of them?

A. One of them was Rabbi Unger, and there were two others whom they had killed that night.

Q. Do you know why they killed Rabbi Unger?

A. I heard it the following morning. At that time there was also Slovak gendarmerie in the camp, but they had no duties. One of the gendarmerie was an acquaintance of mine from our neighbourhood, and he told me they had seen everything. He had heard that they had told him to pray and to translate the prayers into German.

He then translated to them, but they told him that he was not translating correctly, and they began beating him, and in the end they took him to the toilet where they shot him. We heard this shot outside.

The following morning I saw the body of this rabbi, and I observed that one ear – it was the left ear, if I remember correctly – was hanging only by a piece of skin; it was  horrible to see what the body looked like.

Q. When did Brunner come to Sered?

A. After this “beautiful evening.” I heard there that one of the citizens of the town of Sered had gone to Bratislava, in order to report on what had occurred at Sered. The following day – or a few days later – I heard that a new commander had arrived, and the entire command was changed; they also dismissed the Slovakian gendarmerie.

Q. So, in that case, who was in charge?

A. That was when Brunner arrived, with a new team, namely  with the SS.

Q. When Brunner arrived, did the deportations begin?

A. When Brunner arrived, it was several days after this terrible evening, and five or six days thereafter the first transport started.

Presiding Judge: We have already heard about the Brunner period, anyway, Mr. Bach.

State Attorney Bach: We have heard about a particular action performed by Brunner. But I want to ask one further question. The witness was present on the occasion of a certain selection, of both Rabbi Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann, and I want to question him on this.

Presiding Judge: So please proceed with that – we have already heard a general description.

State Attorney Bach: When was the first transport?

Witness Rosenberg: On 30 September 1944.

Q. Who conducted the selection for each transport?

A. Brunner himself used to make the selection for each transport.

Q. Do you remember Rabbi Weissmandel?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him at Sered?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present when Rabbi Weissmandel was sent to a  transport for deportation?

A. Yes. This was in the selection for the third transport, on 10 October. We, all the prisoners, stood outside, and Brunner began selecting. Rabbi Weissmandel had a large family. I do not remember exactly how many – Rabbi Unger’s widow was there and the whole family. First of all he sent these large families to the right – this was the side for those destined for the transport, for deportation. He stood there with all his family.

Q. So he, too, as I understand, was sent to the right?

A. Yes.

Q. Where were you sent to?

A. I belonged to what they called the “Lagerinsassen” (camp inmates); as a carpenter, I worked in the carpentry shop. He himself did not only automatically give a sign regarding them – he also inquired as to their work. The Judenaeltester (the Jewish Elder) would stand at his side, and he would ask “Who is this?” “Who is this?” “Who is that?” Rabbi Friedel stood in front of me. There he was not the Rabbi Friedel, but “Friedel, the carpenter.”

Q. Was that what the Judenaeltester called him?

A. Yes. He stood there like a labourer, like all of us, and the Judenaeltester said to him: “Obersturmfuehrer, Sir, this is my best mechanical carpenter” – that is what the Judenaeltester said to Brunner. He gave his sign for him to go to the left. I was the next to stand there after him.

He asked about me, “Who is this?” I myself answered by saying “A carpenter, a bachelor,” for I knew it was worth something not to have a family with me. Then he gave the sign to go to the right. Each one had to approach the SS and then to turn to the left or to the right. I came up and turned towards the left, and he asked me: “Hey, you, where are you going, where are you going?” I replied: “Over there.” To this day I do not know how it happened, but that is how it was.

Q. Did you actually notice when Rabbi Weissmandel was put on to the transport?

A. I witnessed yet another incident with Rabbi Weissmandel. This was when Brunner and the Judenaeltester came and stood next to us, and then one of his deputies came along and said to him: “Obersturmfuehrer, Sir, there is a woman here who maintains that she is an Aryan.” On hearing this, he said: “Call Rabbi Weissmandel.” They fetched Rabbi Weissmandel, and Brunner said to him: “This woman maintains that she is an Aryan. What do you say about that?” To this Rabbi Weissmandel answered: “This can only be verified in the case of men.”

On hearing this reply he struck him with the stick that he had in his hand and with which he used to indicate his selection – he gave him a blow on his head with the stick, and on one side, and the stick broke. At this, he then took the piece which remained and threw it at him.

Q. In spite of the fact that you were saved in that incident, were you assigned later for a transport, for deportation?

A. Yes. Some days afterwards, about two or three days later, they brought my parents to the Sered camp. I saw them as they stood there with the rest of the Jews near the entrance, and I gave them a sign so that they should understand that I was not supposed to be there. Later on they took them and placed them in huts which had been prepared for the reception of new guests, as we called them.. I waited until they had gone inside, and then I went up to them.

At that very moment one of the orderlies came along and told me that I had to report to Brunner. I did not know what the reason was. When I came to Brunner, he said to me: “You swine, you sent a letter outside that we are sending off transports – how did you dare do such a thing?”

I told him that was not correct, that I had not written and that I had not passed on information to anyone. The truth was that I had indeed done so, and they had apparently found my note, for I had sent it with one of the guards.

Q. For this reason he gave an order to deport you?

A. Yes. Standing next to him was the deputy of my “Aryanizer,” the deputy commander of the “Hlinka Guard” – and because I maintained that this was not true, he said to him: “Do you hear what he is saying?” The man stood at attention and said: “Hauptsturmfuehrer, Sir, I wish to state, with due respect, that it is true.” With this, he summoned the orderlies and told them to take me away to solitary confinement.

Q. Was it clear to you, on that occasion, that you would now be included in the transport?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mrs. Gisi Fleischmann in the camp?

A. I not only saw her; I was together with her in that room for a day or a day-and-a-half, that is to say, until the night before the deportation.

Q. And were you, in fact, supposed to be in the same transport?

A. Yes, we were supposed to be in the same transport.

Q. And your parents were also supposed to be in the same transport?

A. Yes. We were, all of us, registered for the transport, myself included. Gisi Fleischmann stood there, behind me, and she tried to speak to Brunner. She wanted to speak to him several times. And then he turned around, turning his back on her. Subsequently she said to me: I have to try once more, and she suddenly stood before him. He said to her: Get away from here! This one, too, has deceived us.

Q. Mr. Rosenberg, how were you saved this time?

A. That night, before the deportation, we were together, all of us, in a part of the camp that was guarded by the “Feldgendarmerie,” which did not belong to the camp itself, and which had come there during the night. One of the chief orderlies had brought with him the cap and stripes of an orderly and said to me, in Slovakian: “Adolo, come quickly!” I went back, kissed my parents, and fled to a place where I would be able to change… Previously I had had a moustache, and I removed it.

Presiding Judge: Is your name Adolo?

Witness Rosenberg: This is a nick-name.

State Attorney Bach: You said that you parted from your parents. Did your parents know at that time what fate awaited them?

Witness Rosenberg: Yes. My father said to me, in German: “Do something to get out of here. Outside you have a wife and child. I, too, would like to go on living – but what can I do? This will not last much longer.”

Q. And then, by this means, you got out and were liberated?

A. I went back to the carpentry shop that same night, and there, in the carpentry shop, we had a place which we called our bunker. I went inside it. Some boards had been placed in front of it – they camouflaged the entire bunker, and I remained there until the transport left.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: The situation is always as follows:

Since the telegram goes to the German Foreign Ministry, Killinger has to sign it. But it always says at the top in brackets: “Richter, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer,” in order to point out who actually drafted the telegram.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1058.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 148. It was also shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(43). Again a telegram from Killinger, but in brackets it says: “Richter.”

It says that Lecca has informed him that Filderman has been arrested and deported on orders from the marshal, without consideration as to whether he is sick. The telegram was forwarded to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1059.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 133. It was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(15). There are actually two documents here. The second one is signed by the Accused, who writes to the German Foreign Ministry and asks to inform Richter that the emigration of the Jew Max Ausschnitt, who lives in Bucharest, be prevented by every possible means, and he asks to be informed of the action taken.

Von Thadden transmits Eichmann’s request to Richter. The Court will remember that this is the same Max Ausschnitt who was first mentioned in 1941, when the Romanians wanted to allow him to emigrate, on condition that they could confiscate his property. The Accused comments on this document on page 588 ff.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1060.

State Attorney Bach: The reply is contained in von Thadden’s letter to Eichmann, our document No. 993, informing Eichmann that Ausschnitt has been arrested and sent to a camp.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1061.

State Attorney Bach: I should now like to submit to the Court a set of documents under our No. 979, all of which are reports by Richter to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. The intention is to show the various types of reports, what was reported to Eichmann – about emigration of Jews from Romania, about a Jewish information service, about an exchange of letters with Jewish youth movements, about Portuguese consuls, about Filderman, etc. – in fact, everything about the Jews in Romania, and also about the Romanian authorities, insofar as it might concern the Jewish question in any way.

Presiding Judge: There are only the subject headings of the letters here.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, the letters themselves are not included. We are submitting the subject headings simply in order to point to the kind of things which were reported.

Presiding Judge: This is marked T/1062.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 581. It concerns six Jews who were released from forced labour, because of their employment at the Romanian Commercial Bank. Richter asks Lecca to revoke the release immediately.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1063.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 996. Eichmann writes to von Thadden and complains about the French commercial attache in Romania who has taken a stand against the levy of four billion Lei which the Jews were required to pay.

Eichmann expresses his displeasure and says that there is a rumour that this attache is a Jew. This is checked in the first document appended here and the conclusion is reached that this is not so, that the man is not a Jew.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1064.

State Attorney Bach: The first document says that the German legation in Paris was contacted in this matter, and that there it was confirmed that the man was not a Jew.

The next document is No. 517. Guenther informs the German Foreign Ministry that the Jewess Koenig has meanwhile been transferred from Auschwitz to the east for a work assignment, and that her present whereabouts are unknown.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1065.

State Attorney Bach: Now we have three documents which deal with a Jew named Hans Erwin Wolff who is of mixed parentage.  In document 634 von Thadden proposed to give this man three months’ time to liquidate his property, and then he would be able to return to Germany.

This was the arrangement at that time, that persons of mixed parentage, citizens of the Reich, could return to Germany within a specified period. The document says that a copy was sent to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, asking for his agreement.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1066.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 635. Here is the reply of the Accused, who says that he is not opposed in principle, but that he objects to these three months, and that the period should be shorted to one month and a half. He also wants to know where this Mr. Wolff will be living in future.

And here we see a note by von Thadden who says that, since the liquidation of the property will take three months, there is no point in shortening the time limit to a month and a half, and he fixes the time limit nevertheless at three months.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1067.

State Attorney Bach: Document No. 363. Here it is again Richter (Killinger signed the letter, but Richter wrote it) who sends Eichmann the final report about this Jew. He summarizes Wolff’s biography, saying that he has a Christian mother and a Jewish father and is therefore of mixed parentage in the first degree.

He says that Wolff left for the Reich on 14 October and adds that during his stay in Romania he acquired “Balkan habits”: He published a letter to his friends in the Bukarester Tageblatt, in which he wishes them au revoir on the occasion of his return to the Reich. Finally it says here:

“In view of the conduct of the half-Jew Dr. Hans Erwin Wolff, I request that, after his return, he be subjected to suitable Security Police measures.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1068.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1231. This is a report by von Thadden about the arrest, in the south of France, of Dr. Filderman’s son, and he says that Filderman is the son of the organizer of the Jews of Romania who lives in Bucharest.

He says that this son is a close collaborator of his father’s, and that the Head Office for Reich Security expects to obtain important information from him during his interrogation. He says that Filderman junior is suspected of espionage, but that there is no proof so far. There are objections to Filderman’s return to Romania, although he is on the list of Jews who are entitled to return to Romania from France. Von Thadden has asked to keep his place of detention secret.

“Furthermore, I have received Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann’s agreement to include us in Filderman’s interrogation, which will be held in Berlin. To the extent that it will be possible to discover interesting details about the activities of the Jews in Romania from Filderman, it will have to be considered how far these results may be used as an opportunity to raise the Jewish question in Romania anew, whether by utilizing it for propaganda purposes, or for a diplomatic intervention.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1069.

State Attorney Bach: Our No. 1232. Kryschak, of the office of the Accused, writes to the German Foreign Ministry about Filderman’s son and suggests that his place of detention not be divulged to the Romanian legation, and to tell the legation instead that Filderman is not in a detention camp. He says, by the way, that he is still in Berlin, since it has not been possible to transfer him to Sachsenhausen because he has come down with diphtheria.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1070.

State Attorney Bach: There is a note by von Thadden on the letter saying that he has interrogated Filderman. And there is also attached a request by the government of Romania asking for Filderman’s release.

The next document is our No. 150. Here Guenther informs [the German Foreign Ministry] that the International Red Cross again has plans for bringing Jews to Palestine, and that it has three ships at its disposal for this purpose.

“This matter is brought to your attention with the request that you urge the Romanian Government again to prevent the emigration of Jews not only in theory” (nicht nur theoretisch zu unterbinden).

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1071.

State Attorney Bach: And now I should like to ask the Court to accept as evidence the last document about Romania – the declaration given by Dr. Alexander Safran, today the Chief Rabbi in Geneva, who was then the Chief Rabbi of the Union of Jewish Communities in Romania, about his activities during those days.

Presiding Judge: Was he Chief Rabbi at that time?

State Attorney Bach: He was Chief Rabbi of the Union of Jewish Communities in Romania. As we have already heard from Dr. Loewenstein, Dr. Safran worked most actively in order to avert the deportation planned for 10 September 1942. We did not think it necessary to trouble the rabbi [to come here].

He describes in particular the background to those events, his intercession with the Catholic clergy and his contacts with the Romanian royal family. By virtue of section 15, I request that this declaration be accepted in evidence.

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge: This is a sworn declaration?

State Attorney Bach: The declaration was made before our consul, but I think that it is not a sworn declaration. It says: “I, the undersigned, declare the following.”

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 46

We accept the declaration by Chief Rabbi Dr. Safran in accordance with our authority under section 15 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.

State Attorney Bach: At the outset of his declaration, Dr. Safran says that he is now Chief Rabbi of the Community of Geneva, that he was the Chief Rabbi in Romania, and that in the past he was a senator in the Romanian parliament.

Presiding Judge: Is his name Safran or Shafran?

State Attorney Bach: The spelling we have is Safran, but it is pronounced Shafran. In the beginning he describes the crimes of the years 1941, 1942, when hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered. We have already heard evidence about this. Then he speaks of Lecca’s visit to Berlin where he was invited to go in August 1942. Safran goes on to describe Richter’s activities and his influence over Mihai Antonescu.

He relates that Richter himself used to deal with the provision of railway carriages and with schedules, especially for the deportation trains for the Jews of southern Transylvania, where the deportation was to begin at the end of 1942. That was when he turned to the head of the church in Transylvania, the Metropolitan, Monsignor Balan, who responded to his personal request and came to his office in Bucharest.

The meeting was very dramatic, he says. “Metropolitan Balan informed me after only a few hours that he had succeeded in obtaining from Marshal Ion Antonescu the annulment of the decision to deport the Jewish population from Transylvania.” But, he says, the Germans did not acquiesce in this step, as he learned from King Michael and Queen Mother Helena who always listened attentively to his requests.

Killinger declared in high circles that he did not accept the non-participation of the Romanian authorities in the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Richter meanwhile made every effort to undo the lenient orders given by the government leaders by means of administrative orders for deportation, which he tried to obtain from General Vasiliu, the Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior who headed the department for deportation of Jews.

In the autumn of 1942 the subject of deportations was raised again, and more urgently. Again Safran approached Marshal Antonescu, but this time without success. This time Antonescu was more favourably inclined towards the demands of the Germans. At this point Safran alerted Monsignor Cassulo, the representative of the Pope and head of the diplomatic corps in Bucharest. “I was the only representative of the Jewish population who was in direct and constant contact with him during the whole period of Nazi oppression in Romania,” says Safran.

The representative of the Pope did his utmost in order to persuade the two Antonescus – Ion, the marshal, and Mihai – but without success; this time the marshal was not willing to make any concessions. In my conversation with Monsignor Cassulo, after his stormy Session with the Antonescus, I was given to understand that “our fate was sealed,” and that the deportations would begin in the autumn.

At that point, Safran says, he asked that a representative of the Pope travel to Rome and bring a special message from there to the Antonescus, which might still impress them, shake them, before it would be too late. “I told the Nuncio that I impose this on him in the name of the respect he owes to the Creator and to his creatures.” The Nuncio did, in fact, go to Rome and then he returned to Bucharest. Safran says that the appeal by the Nuncio, which was not publicized, was energetically supported by the representatives of Sweden, Switzerland and the International Red Cross, and this intervention resulted in the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Romania.

The Germans suffered a defeat when, at the very last moment, Marshal Antonescu objected to the deportation of the Jews. The Council of Ministers stopped the deportations officially in the middle of October 1942. The representatives of the German Government reacted sharply to the decision of the government of Romania, and Richter excelled in his brutality on this occasion.

And further on he says:

“We had become used to Richter’s impudence and cruelty. He is the one who succeeded in imposing on the Romanian civil and military authorities the formula of deportation `with family’ of Jews who were to be expelled because of `transgressions’ relating to obligatory or forced labour and other `laws’ affecting the Jews. He took pleasure in persecuting, arresting, deporting and condemning to death Jewish children, pupils, students and halutzic youth, and this was confirmed to me by Radu Lecca himself, when I went to see him in order to intervene on their behalf. It was he who impeded the rescue operations and the return of the orphans and other surviving deportees from Transnistria. He asked for severe sanctions against the Zionist leaders who were under arrest, and he did so even towards the end of the War, when the Romanian authorities were looking for an `honourable’ way out of their vicious policy against the Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1072.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, with this document I have concluded the Romanian chapter. I should like to ask for a break here. In the afternoon we shall submit documents about Slovakia.

Judge Halevi: What was the end of this Richter?

State Attorney Bach: Richter lives in Germany now. He was in Russia for about ten years, in Russian captivity, I believe. Then he was released and returned to Germany. I understand that now an investigation is under way against him, in order to bring him to trial, even at this stage.

Presiding Judge: The next Session will be at 3.30 p.m.

Previous | Index | Next

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1016.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1017.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1018.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1019.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Signed: Mueller.

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

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

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

State Attorney Bach: He personally dictated this letter.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1023.

Judge Halevi: Who signature is this – Rintelen?

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1024.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1025.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1026.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1027.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1028.

Is it known which camps are referred to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Attorney Bach: This is Luther’s signature.

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

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

Presiding Judge: But Luther does not support Killinger?

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1029.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next

Judge Raveh: Mrs. Mark, you said that someone obtained permission for you to remain in Czernowitz. Was that a Jew or a Romanian?

Witness Mark: He was a Jewish colleague, who had studied at university with me.

Q. How was it possible for him to request such a permit?

A. It was possible for special people.

Q. About how many people remained behind in this way?

A. I cannot say today – I don’t know. We were not allowed to leave the house, so we just did not meet one another.

Q. Throughout all these years you could not leave the house – only during the first years, or throughout the entire period?

A. No, not all those years. We were not allowed to go out for a couple of years – as long as the Germans were there, we were allowed to go out only between 11 and 1 o’clock. And then it was dangerous, because we wore the yellow star. We were outlaws – anyone could just shoot us down.

Judge Halevi: How long did the Germans remain there?

Witness Mark: Until 1944. Then we came here.

Q. Was that after liberation by the Russians?

A. No, the Germans were still there, the Russians came only later. We were separated, we had received certificates from Palestine, these were special certificates and we left immediately. It was a ramshackle ship, but we made it.

Q. Did you go via Constantsa?

A. Yes, we travelled via Constantsa.

Q. And before the German occupation, the Russians were also in Czernowitz?

A. Yes, the Russians were in Czernowitz for a whole year.

Judge Halevi: Thank you very much.

Presiding Judge: Just one more question: From whom could this special certificate, this special authorization to remain in the town, be obtained?

Witness Mark: It was a sort of company.

Q. Were they Germans or Romanians?

A. I think they were Jews, who somehow received permission to issue such and such a number of certificates.

Q. Just a moment, I am not now referring to the certificate which you obtained to leave in 1944. In 1941 you received authorization to remain in Czernowitz.

A. From the Romanians, not from the Germans.

Presiding Judge: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mark.

State Attorney Bach: I would now like to submit a series of exhibits:

The first document is our No. 472. Here von Killinger, the German envoy in Bucharest, informs the German Foreign Ministry that since the problems of Aryanization and Romanization of Jewish property in Romania have reached a crucial stage, it is absolutely vital that Hauptsturmfuehrer Richter, the Accused’s emissary, come to Bucharest immediately, either in person or someone else, in order to help with these procedures, as an expert in these matters is required.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1001.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, our No. 840, is an agreement between Germany and Romania on the area of Transnistria – the area between the Dniester and the Bug, and between the Bug and the Dnieper. Here I would draw your attention to paragraph 7 of this agreement, enclosed here in a frame. This appears in the original.

The special emphasis  appears in the original, and it says here that “the expulsion of the Jews across the Bug is not possible at the moment. For this reason, they should be concentrated in concentration camps and put to work – until it is possible to move them eastward, after the operations are completed.”

Presiding Judge: Of course, it is impossible to say who put this into the frame. You say that it was marked in the original, but the document passed through a number of hands, did it not?

State Attorney Bach: I only wanted to point out that we did  make the marking. I assume that this was not in the original. Somebody in one of the German offices added it.

Presiding Judge: Who signed it? The Romanian General Staff and the German Army?

State Attorney Bach: General-Major Hauffe signed for the German army and Brigadier-General Tataranu for the Romanians.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1002.

Judge Halevi: Was the river Bug the western border of Transnistria?

State Attorney Bach: I think it was the eastern border. The area between the Dniester and the Bug – that was Transnistria, and they objected to deportation across the Bug.

Judge Halevi: Who objected?

State Attorney Bach: In this agreement, the Germans objected to uncontrolled deportations at that stage. We shall submit more documents on this subject. But it was part of the agreement that, in the meantime, Jews were not to be deported beyond the Bug.

The next document is our No. 43. Dr. Braeutigam of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Areas reports about a meeting between Rademacher and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann on the one hand, and Amtsgerichtsrat Dr. Wetzel on the other, the same Wetzel who has been referred to in other documents.

He transmits a copy of the Tighina agreements, i.e., the document I have previously submitted. He says (in his letter): “I draw special attention to paragraph 7 of the agreements.” This may be an indication who put in the emphasis.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1003.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is numbered 573. Here Richter has already arrived in Bucharest and reports about a meeting with Prime Minister Mihai Antonescu on 12 December 1941. He says that draft laws prepared in co-operation with Commissioner Lecca were discussed; the population census is mentioned; there is mention of the dissolution of the “Union of Jewish Communities in Romania” headed by a man named Filderman – who will be mentioned later; Antonescu is reported to be in agreement with the German proposal; and the request of the Reichsfuehrer to prevent emigration (of Jews) from Romania is raised and reasons are given for it; then we find objection to the emigration of five thousand Jews to Palestine; Richter says that he suggested the establishment of a central Jewish organization after the French pattern – basing himself on the new law in Romania, under which it would be possible to deal appropriately with Filderman.

Finally, he reports about the case of Max Ausschnitt, a very rich Romanian Jew, to whom the Romanians are willing to give permission to emigrate, on condition that he leaves his entire fortune behind. Antonescu had said that he was no longer dangerous because his health had already deteriorated.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1004.

State Attorney Bach: In order to save time, may I now submit two documents together, as they belong to the same subject – our documents Nos. 576 and 577.

Richter informs Lecca that several Jews, whose names are mentioned in the documents, must not be allowed to pass through Germany for the purpose of emigration. He asks to check whether it is possible to recruit these Jews for work. In document No. 577 he says: “It seems appropriate to put Baratz (the applicant) into a work camp.”

Presiding Judge: Document No. 576 will be marked T/1005.
Document 577 will be marked T/1006.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 571. It was shown to the Accused and was then numbered T/37(173). Here we find that Richter already reports directly to the Accused. He mentions once more that Antonescu has agreed to stop the emigration, and for the first time he mentions the “Struma,” the ship on which seven hundred Jews are trying to reach Palestine. He says that as a result of his intervention, the ship was actually forbidden to sail. But while he was away, the former chief of the Siguranta (Security) ordered the ship to sail, contrary to his decision.

He says that the “Struma” was now anchored in Istanbul, and would apparently be sent back to Romania because the Turks have had refused entry to the seven hundred Jews into Turkey. The Accused makes his remarks on this document on page 2161 (of his statement).

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1007.

Mr. Bach: Our next document is No. 1225, another report about a conversation between Richter and Prime Minister Mihai Antonescu. Richter reports that he asked the Prime Minister to publish the organizational regulations of the “Judenzentrale” (Central Board of the Jews) as soon as possible.

He again mentions the cessation of emigration and the “Struma” affair. He more or less repeats similar facts. I draw special attention to the third paragraph, which shows the control Richter exercised over events concerning Jewish affairs.

He told Antonescu about the division of functions between Representative for Jewish Affairs Lecca and Dragos,  who was Undersecretary of State for Romanization. He reports how he proposed to divide the various tasks, and that Antonescu was pleased with the arrangement.

Finally, in paragraph 4, he mentions the case of a Jew named Clejan, who was apparently asked to be a kind of leader of the Romanian Jews, and who made a number of conditions before accepting this function, and Richter adds this remark: “I pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister that nowadays it is no longer proper to allow Jews to make conditions.”

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1008.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 1226. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(310). While Richter had addressed the report I submitted before to the German Minister, he sends a copy of this present report directly to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Berlin.

The Accused was interrogated about this document beginning on page 3520, and on page 3524 he was asked by Inspector Less: “Did Richter always send all his reports to you?” And the answer is: “To the extent that the subject concerned Jewish matters, as for instance in the present case, of course, that was his duty.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1009.

State Attorney Bach: I now submit to the Court several Romanian reports relating to the district of Transnistria. The first document is our No. 474. Here, the commander of the gendarmerie (constabulary) reports to his superiors that German SS men have taken 120 Jews out of a Jewish camp and executed them by shooting. This has caused general panic and flights from the camp. He adds: “The information is reliable.”

Presiding Judge: Have you given Dr. Servatius a translation
into a language which he understands?

State Attorney Bach: I think so. A complete list of all the documents which are not in German was drawn up, and we supplied translations of all those documents. I hope that this is one of them. The list was given to us at the time by the Defence, and thus I hope that they are aware of the contents of this document also.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1010.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I have not yet received this document in German or in any other language. True, I can somehow decipher the general contents, but I should be very grateful if I could receive  the document in German.

State Attorney Bach: We shall provide translations of these documents to the Defence.

The next document is our No. 475. In it the same commandant of the constabulary reports to his superiors that German policemen took 1,400 Jews from the camp in two days and executed them by shooting. The property of the Jews was seized and the bodies were burned. All these things happened in the district of Berezovka. It says that the information is reliable.

Presiding Judge: Do we know under whose command these camps in Transnistria were?

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, later on we shall produce another witness, who will describe conditions in  Transnistria for us. As I demonstrated by that Tighina Agreement, it was actually a joint German-Romanian administration, and I think that matters were not always the same in every place. Later there were also sporadic operations, there were German units and special operations units; they would come and carry out special operations.

I also think that some of the reports of the special operations units, which have already been submitted in connection with their general operations, included these operations as well. I have included only one report of a special operations unit, which referred to Czernowitz only. But there are also joint operations for the district of Transnistria and special operations in the southern area.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1011.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 476, which reports that twelve hundred Jews were transferred to the area of the constabulary post in Huliacovka, and from there to a certain kolkhoz, and that afterwards the Germans, SS men, took these Jews from the German settlement of Lichtenfeld and shot them. The information is reliable.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1012.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 83, which was shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(256). The Accused writes to the German Foreign Ministry in connection with the expulsion of the Romanian Jews to the Ukraine.

And here he describes this process of expelling the Jews. In principle, he says, we agree to the removal of the Jews from Romania, but this disorderly expulsion entails various dangers both for the army and for the population, and this is detrimental to the progress of the deportation of Jews from Germany.

Therefore, in order not to lose sight of the general plan, he objects to these unorganized, haphazard expulsions. So far, he says: “I have abstained from taking Security Police measures, but if these activities continue, I reserve to myself the right to let the Security Police take action.” We shall see what that means in the next document. The Accused comments on this document on page 3068.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked 1013.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 99, which was before the Accused and was numbered T/37(257). Here, Your Honours, you actually see two documents. In the first one Rademacher informs the Accused that measures have in fact been taken in accordance with his previous letter, but I should like to direct special attention to the second document concerning the same matter.

What Rademacher says here is not especially important – he repeats the same request – but I draw attention to the hand-written note at the foot of the document, which says: “About 28,000 Jews have been taken to German villages in Transnistria; in the meantime they have been liquidated.” Rademacher’s signature follows, then the date – the 18th of the month.

This document was shown to the Accused, and when his attention was drawn to the hand-written note at the bottom, he said – on page 3074: “Naturally I have nothing much to say about this. If they were brought to Romania illegally (those 60,000 persons whom I mentioned in the preceding letter), then naturally action was taken in accordance with the instructions of the Reichsfuehrer SS.” And then he adds this: “…und haben durch ihre Kommandos die Sache auf ihre Art und Weise bereinigt” (…and they settled this through their special detachments in their own particular way).

Less: “Indem man sie liquidiert hat?” (By liquidating them?)

Eichmann: “Jawohl” (Yes).

This appears on page 3074, second part (of the statement of
the Accused).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1014.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 471, a report from Richter concerning the negotiations about a central authority for the Jews, negotiations with Antonescu, and about drafting all the Jews for work assignment in Romania.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1014.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 471, a report from Richter concerning the negotiations about a central authority for the Jews, negotiations with Antonescu, and about drafting all the Jews for work assignment in Romania.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1015.

Previous | Index | Next