The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

3 Sivan 5721 (18 May 1961)

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

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court. When I submitted Exhibit T/649, Mr. Moritz Henschel’s notes, it turned out that one of the pages of the copy was somewhat difficult to read, and I promised to provide the Court with cleaner copies. I have photographed the document again and now hand three photostatic copies to the Court.

Presiding Judge: Thank you.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now I shall complete the documentation on the German chapter. I understand that in the meantime Counsel for the Defence has looked at our document No. 455, the affidavit given in Nuremberg by Rudolf Hermann Emil Brandt. I request a decision from the Court to accept this affidavit in accordance with Section 15. The affidavit was given under oath in Nuremberg on 10 December 1946. Brandt was sentenced at the Doctor’s Trial, in Case No. 1 of the Subsequent Trials; he was sentenced to death and hanged. He had belonged to the headquarters of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.

In this deposition, he gives details about sterilization experiments carried out in concentration camps. He refers to three earlier depositions given by him on 30 August 1946, which are of no interest to us. In this affidavit, he describes the experiments connected with the name of Adolf Pokorny, experiments which were made with a North-American plant known in German under the name of “Schweigrohr.”

For some time they believed that it would be possible to grow this plant, apparently a tropical one, in Germany, too, and it seems that they wanted to use it for sterilization on a large scale. Here he describes the experiments and the negotiations connected with this matter. It seems to me that this evidence is highly relevant.

Presiding Judge: Is the Accused mentioned in it?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Accused is not mentioned here, but there are other things in connection with sterilization where the Accused is mentioned, some of which have already been submitted to the Court. The Court will well remember at least one Session at which methods of sterilization were mentioned. These experiments were, of course, brought to the attention of the Accused, and it is out of the question that sterilizations are discussed as a method in the field of activity of the Accused without also taking into account what went on in Germany in this field from the scientific point of view.

Presiding Judge: Is this not described in the judgment of the Doctors’ Trial?

State Attorney Bar-Or: In the Doctors’ Trial there is, of course, a full description of all these subjects. The sterilization experiments were, after all, one of the main subjects at the Doctors’ Trial. But, of course, you do not have that trial before you, and I have to select from it what I think is relevant for our proceedings.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your position?

Dr. Servatius: My position is that this matter is dealt with in the judgment of the doctors, and I am of the opinion that the document is not relevant. But if it will be submitted – I have no objection to it.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 34

We allow the submission of the affidavit by Brandt in accordance with our authority under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950.

This document will be marked T/816.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I direct the attention of the Court to two passages in the affidavit which particularly concern the matter before us. They are paragraphs 6 and 7. In paragraph 6, Glauberg is mentioned. This is Dr. Glauberg who committed suicide in the end, after the War. And it says here that in Auschwitz concentration camp he performed large-scale experiments on Jewish women and Gypsy women for the purpose of sterilization, and that he used mainly the method of injecting certain solutions which he was trying out.

In paragraph 7, the name of Dr. Schumann is mentioned, a doctor who has apparently not been found to this day, who carried out experiments of sterilization by means of X-rays on men in Auschwitz. The Court will hear viva voce evidence from witnesses about such experiments later in the trial.

And now, with your permission, we shall continue the Austrian file, on which we started yesterday. I proceed to Prosecution document No. 1152. This is a minute, again by Dr. Loewenherz, dated 29 December 1941, about a meeting with Brunner. The main point in this document seems to me to be a prohibition by Brunner, whereby the term “Evakuierungstransporte” (evacuation transports) is no longer to be used and the term “Abwanderungstransporte” (emigration transports) is substituted for it.

Presiding Judge: Where is this to be found?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2, paragraphs 5 and 7.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/817.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now go on to document No. 1153, a minute about the meeting* {*This was a telephone conversation} in January 1942. Dr. Eppstein of the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany has informed Loewenherz by telephone that Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther has approved the sending out of a circular letter concerning the wool collection, whereby all fur articles, all footwear and woollen garments, insofar as they are not absolutely needed for personal use, have to be handed over. Offences against the obligation to hand over these articles are punishable, or rather, severest punishment is threatened for it.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/818.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 1154, a minute by Dr. Loewenherz on a meeting with Brunner in Vienna on 1 April 1942. Brunner informs Loewenherz that persons who are Jews, or who are regarded as Jews, in accordance with Paragraph 5, Article 1, of the Reich Citizenship Law must be made to wear the Jewish Star. Here the obligation to affix the Jewish Star to the outside of the entrance door of (Jewish) homes comes into force for Austria, too.** {**According to the document: Persons who are obliged to wear the Jewish Star must now also mark their dwellings with the Jewish Star.}

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/819.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to Prosecution document No. 1155, a letter from Dr. Loewenherz to the Gestapo in Vienna, dated 4 April 1942. He repeats the instructions received from the Reich Governor in Vienna concerning the obligation to wear the Jewish Star. In the second passage, he expressly mentions the exemptions from these instructions. In the end – and to this I should like to draw your attention – he says that orders have been given “to refrain from publication; notice has to be given to the Jewish population through posting in the Jewish offices and institutions, and through word of mouth.”*** {***The document actually refers to a prohibition to use municipal tramlines.} By the way, I made a mistake – this letter is signed by Dr. Murmelstein and not by Loewenherz.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/820.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1156 is a minute about a meeting in the office of the Accused, dated 1 June 1942. He says that he appeared before the Accused together with Murmelstein, Eppstein, Menschel, Kozower, Kreindler and Lilienthal, and that Messrs. Weidmann and Friedmann from Prague were also present at Section IVB4. Then he relates what we already heard from Moritz Henschel’s notes, about the attack on the exhibition “The Soviet Paradise” in Berlin.

In paragraph 2 he says that, at the interview with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, he reported about conditions in Vienna, and about the estimated number of Jews over 65 years of age who were designated to be taken to Theresienstadt for permanent residence; and that Eichmann informed Loewenherz on the same occasion that the total evacuation of all Jews from the Old Reich, from Austria, and from the Protectorate was to be expected, and that Jews under 65 would emigrate to the East, while those over that age would be taken for permanent residence to Theresienstadt.

In the middle of page 2 we find that “For the purpose of financing the upkeep of the Jewish population settled in Theresienstadt, funds have to be mobilized from the three organizations (the Reich Association of the Jews in Berlin, and the Jewish Religious Communities of Vienna and of Prague).”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/821.

State Attorney Bar-Or: From this document, it clearly appears, so it seems to me, that there were two meetings on that day. The first one, which is also mentioned by Henschel, under the chairmanship of Mueller, and there the killing of the 250 hostages was made known; and afterwards the meeting with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about internal matters.

Presiding Judge: This is apparent from the title.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I wanted to emphasize it.

I should like to revert to T/154, a report by Loewenherz, which has already been submitted. I do not intend to read additional passages from it, but I wish to point out that the Court will, in fact, find in it what is contained in the records of the Community about the chapter with which we are dealing at the moment. Here the Court will find, in summary form, the course of events up to the closing of the Community’s offices in Vienna.

I shall therefore proceed to document No. 1157, a minute by Loewenherz of 22 June 1942. Again a meeting with Brunner. I should like to read paragraphs 6 and 7. Hauptsturmfuehrer Brunner repeats his instructions that demand to hand over dogs, birds, etc. must not be published in the Information Bulletin. And now paragraph 7: “Letters from the Red Cross in Geneva about the place of residence of Jews must not be answered, in view of the fact that the German Red Cross is very busy with forwarding the mail of prisoners of war. Private enquiries from abroad concerning the whereabouts of Jewish emigrants are not to be answered.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/822.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1158, a minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 24 July 1942. In paragraph 2 it says that “with respect to the refunding of the amounts advanced by the Jewish Community for the emigration transports, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann has decided that repayment will be made only at the end; as hitherto, the Community has to enter separately all expenses connected with the emigration, and to present a bill for every five transports to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/823.

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1159 is a minute by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting he had with Brunner on 5 November 1942. And here Brunner informs him that, as of 31 October 1942, the Jewish Religious Community is to be regarded as dissolved. It is transformed into an institution to be called “Council of Elders of the Jews in Vienna,” and the draft regulations of the Community are to be changed accordingly.

This follows organically after the dissolution of the Community and, of course, after the settling of the Community’s accounts in the way we know already from these records.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/824.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now on to document No. 1160, a minute by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner, dated 2 December 1942. Here we find, in paragraph 5, instructions for the transfer of the assets of the Jewish Religious Community of Vienna to the Emigration Fund for Bohemia and Moravia. We shall come across this special fund again when we deal with matters of the Protectorate; the Fund was, in fact, intended not only for the Protectorate. Here it is clear, at any rate, that the assets were to be transferred  to Prague.

I move on to paragraph 14. Here Loewenherz is asked, in fact is instructed by Brunner, to write to the Jewish Religious Community in Budapest, in order to find out how many Jews have immigrated into Hungary since 1 January 1941, and to ask the Community for the names and dates of birth of these immigrants. The reason to be given: These data are needed, in order to bring the tax register and the card index up to date.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/825.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 927, a letter from the Accused to von Thadden at the Foreign Ministry, dated 23 August 1943, about the stateless Jew Karl Israel Klinger. I draw the attention of the Court only to the last sentences on page 2, where the Accused says: “Since Karl Israel Klinger has been informed by his uncle Rudolf Israel Klinger about different occurrences in the various offices, there is an imminent danger that he will pass on what he knows to foreign authorities, and that in this way he will seriously endanger state security. For this reason I ask that extradition procedures be initiated against the above-mentioned without delay.”

Eichman, in fact, asks the Foreign Ministry to have this Jew extradited to the Reich.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/826.

State Attorney Bar-Or: In our document No. 928, we shall find von Thadden’s reply on this matter. It is his letter of 3 September 1943, and he simply informs the Accused that the existing rules of extradition between the Reich and Hungary do not apply to persons who are said to have committed offences of the kind he describes, and he asks Eichmann to give him additional information which would justify the request for extradition to the Hungarians.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/827.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have thus completed the chapter on Austria, and I go on to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The Court has before it the volume of weekly reports of the Jewish Community of Prague, and I should like to draw your attention to some additional ones among them.

Presiding Judge: What have we already received?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I have submitted weekly reports about the period up to Nisko.

Presiding Judge: How were they marked?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I believe that each weekly report was marked separately. Here I have No. T/163 which refers to the weekly report of 16 February 1940. I think they were all numbered T/163. I believe that the Court numbered the volume from which I submitted…

Presiding Judge: We have marked two volumes: T/162 and T/163.

State Attorney Bar-Or: So here I submit additional volumes from the archives of the Community of Prague which cover the period of the War itself, and from these I should like to submit some weekly reports to the extent that they concern our subject. Three volumes altogether.

Presiding Judge: We shall mark them T/828, T/829 and T/830.

State Attorney Bar-Or: First our document No. 1331, taken from these volumes, which is the report for the week ending 16 February 1940. It is page 89 in the original, which begins on page 77. I read from page 89: “In the week under review, an order by the Reich Protector was published about the exclusion of the Jews from the economy of the Protectorate.”

Presiding Judge: What is the heading of what you have just read?

Previous | Index | Next

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.

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

Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.

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

Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary: This has already been submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.

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

Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.

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

Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary: This has already been submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next

1 Sivan 5721 (16 May 1961)

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

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, my colleague, Mr. Bach, will now give the Court the names of the other declarants, whose statements have not yet been submitted, since their turn has not yet been reached at the stage of submitting the evidence, but the Prosecution intends to make use of them. If the Defence wishes to make any comment, we would ask the Court to decide whether they should be heard in the same way as was decided in the case of other declarants.

State Attorney Bach: We have, in fact, reduced the number of these witnesses – whose affidavits, or the record of whose interrogations, we should like to submit; we have reduced their number to three, and these three witnesses, in fact, belong to the chapter of the holocaust of Hungarian Jewry.

The first of the three is Kurt Becher, a former SS Standartenfuehrer. He was interrogated a number of times by the American military authorities at Nuremberg, and these interrogations have been included by us in two documents, bearing the Prosecution numbers 774 and 827. Document No. 774, which actually contains the majority of these interrogations, was, in fact, also shown to the Accused, and he made his comments on these interrogations.

Hence the document is already before you. It was given the number T/37(235). He made his comments on these interrogations from page 2888 onwards, and later on again from page 2903 onwards.

Kurt Becher was, in 1944, the head of the economic office of the SS in Budapest, and he was also Himmler’s accredited representative in the negotiations with the Jewish institutions in Budapest, in connection with the proposal to grant exit permits to a certain number of Jews from the German occupied areas, mainly Hungary, in exchange for the payment of money and the supply of goods to the SS.

He did that while maintaining a measure of contact with the Accused, as we shall prove. This statement, these interrogations, of Becher are most relevant from a number of points of view.

With the aid of what he stated, we want to prove, firstly, that Himmler was the one who initiated this proposal. We shall also see what were Himmler’s motives, mainly political, for this plan. We shall show that, in fact, Becher was required – as he himself put it – to promise the Jews anything he liked; what would be fulfilled was a totally different question. More important, as we shall see, the Accused was opposed to this deal right from the  beginning and was very glad when it failed.

We shall show what were Himmler’s motives in August 1944 in giving orders to stop the deportations and, in fact, to prevent the deportation of the Jews of Budapest – what caused it, and what preceded it; what caused Himmler’s order to stop the extermination of the Jews in October 1944. We shall be able to prove the attempts by the Accused to contravene and, indeed, to sabotage this decision of Himmler’s.

We shall also prove here, by the same statement, that Becher actually complained to Himmler about this conduct on the part of the Accused and that Himmler, in fact, summoned the Accused before him and rebuked him in the presence of Becher. I do not wish to go into details here, but this episode is exceedingly interesting in order to prove in which way the Accused exercised the initiative which was open to him.

This evidence also has ample probative value, for we shall be able to link it at almost each and every step, with all sorts of other evidence, whether oral evidence or documents we have discovered, mainly documents which have reached us from Himmler’s personal archives, and those we have received from the United States.

We have here an exchange of telegrams between Becher and Himmler, during those decisive days, with the aid of which, and with the aid of this interrogation – if the Court will admit it – and with the aid of other reports we shall ask to submit, we shall be able virtually to reconstruct the events of certain days almost hour by hour, during those decisive days.

Presiding Judge: Is Becher alive?

State Attorney Bach: Becher is alive, and already at this stage I wish to say that we shall not agree to summon Becher to come to the State of Israel in order to appear here. We shall not summon him to come here as a witness, and in fact he will be treated in the same way as the Attorney General has declared before you regarding other witnesses, such as von Thadden, Bach-Zalewski and others. For our part, there would be nothing to prevent the man from coming here, but he will not be granted immunity.

Presiding Judge: I do not understand – there would be nothing on your part to prevent him from coming; does that mean that he would be given an entry visa?

State Attorney Bach: Actually, the Attorney General has declared this in regard to other witnesses – that we shall not object to their coming here, but we shall not promise them immunity. He will be treated like all those others, except for Hoettl and Huppenkothen, who fall into a special category. The position of Becher in our opinion is exactly the same as that of all the other witnesses whose examination in Germany the Court has requested.

Presiding Judge: Has he been charged with having committed offences?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, with offences under the Nazis (Punishment) Law, both under section 1 and under other sections as well.

Judge Halevi: Not only for membership of the Nazi organizations?

State Attorney Bach: Not only for his membership. I should like to add here that, although we shall ask the Court to consider Becher’s statement to be trustworthy, namely that he was interested in the success of the notorious transaction “life in exchange for goods,” and at a certain stage also to the point of stopping the deportations, we nevertheless see no reason to remove him from the list of Nazis whom we regard as criminal offenders against the Jewish people, as persons who committed crimes against humanity.

In our opinion, the difference between him and the Accused lies in the fact that, whereas the murder of an additional several hundred thousand Jews would have done credit to the Accused as part of his task, in Becher’s case this would not have been regarded actually as a success on his part, but the plunder of further large sums of money from the victims who were destined for extermination, and the extortion of monies and goods – that would have been regarded as an achievement.

And we shall see, when we shall ask the Court to admit the report of the Head of the Committee for Relief and Rescue, Kasztner’s report, we shall see how he mentions, for example, that when there were negotiations about payment per head for each Jew allegedly to be saved, then the Accused mentioned a sum of money even smaller than Becher.

It is true that the Accused was opposed to the entire deal, but as long as he had to negotiate in this sense, the amount of money was not so important; it was important to Becher. For these reasons we do not regard Becher as not being a criminal under our law, and therefore we cannot promise him immunity.

Presiding Judge: Where does he live?

State Attorney Bach: I understand that he lives in Germany, I believe in Bremen. If Defence Counsel so wishes, there will be no objection on our part to his examination before a German judge, in accordance with the arrangement which the Court laid down in its Decision No. 11.

Accordingly, I would ask you at this stage – I think that would in fact be the correct procedure – to admit these two documents in evidence, and to give your decision along the lines of Decision No. 11.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you would first complete your whole list?

State Attorney Bach: The second witness is Horst Grell. That is our document No. 985. Here, too, there is an affidavit which was shown to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Were both statements of Becher sworn affidavits?

State Attorney Bach: In part, Your Honour. Here we have interrogations, partly on oath, partly not. I believe that, in fact, the interrogations that were tendered to the Accused, for his comments, are – for the most part – not sworn, whereas the second document contains sworn interrogations.

The second document is that of Horst Grell, an affidavit under oath, Prosecution document No. 985. It was submitted to the Accused and was given the number T/37(267). The part of the Accused’s statement referring to that document begins on page 3193. Grell handled Jewish affairs in Budapest at  the agency of the German Foreign Ministry in Budapest. He was a kind of liaison officer between Veesenmayer and the Accused’s Section IVB4.

Presiding Judge: Under what circumstances did he make this sworn statement?

State Attorney Bach: He made this statement at the trial of Veesenmayer, at the trial of members of the German Foreign Ministry, in defence of Veesenmayer. This man, as I have said, was the liaison officer between Veesenmayer and the Accused. He describes in this statement the division of authority between the holders of various posts, the camouflage efforts of the Accused vis-a-vis the German Foreign Ministry.

And, most important of all, he mentions an episode to which we shall attach special importance when we come to the chapter of the holocaust of Hungarian Jewry. That is the chapter of the Kistarcsa camp. That was an episode which came after an order had been given by the Regent Horthy, who forbade any further deportation of Jews from Hungary.

The Accused then made use of a ruse, and we shall bring its details before the Court, mainly through Jewish witnesses. By means of this ruse he succeeded in taking 1,500 Jews from this camp, and in bringing them to Auschwitz, despite the fact that they had previously been returned to the same camp in compliance with Horthy’s order.

As I have said, these are witnesses from the Jewish side, and we shall produce them before you. But Grell, in this affidavit, mentions this trick of the Accused, and it proves the existence of this trick. Details of the implementation of this special operation were also known to some of the Germans, and even to members of the German Foreign Ministry.

Presiding Judge: What was the name of that camp?

State Attorney Bach: Kistarcsa. That is, in brief, the contents of this affidavit, and hence it is relevant; it also has probative value – it links up with many of the testimonies and documents, and the Court will be able to assess its weight at the end of the trial.

Presiding Judge: Is his name Horst or Theodor Horst Grell?

State Attorney Bach: It says in the affidavit: Dr. Theodor Horst Grell.

Presiding Judge: Where does he live today?

State Attorney Bach: I think he lives in Germany. I am told that he lives in Frankfurt.

Judge Halevi: What would be his position in Israel?

State Attorney Bach: His position would be the same as that of Becher and the other witnesses. There is no doubt that he participated, very actively, in the operations that brought about the deportation of the Jews of Hungary.

The last witness is Hans Juettner. He was an Obergruppenfuehrer in the SS. He was a general in the Waffen SS. He was Chef des Fuehrungshauptamts SS – that was actually the same office of the SS as that of the Reichsfuehrer SS, of the Fuehrungshauptamt.

Presiding Judge: The chief of Himmler’s secretariat.

State Attorney Bach: The chief of Himmler’s secretariat. He was also the “Chief Adjutant” of Himmler himself. I think that this is sufficient to substantiate our claim that his position is similar to that of the two previous witnesses as regards granting, or declining, immunity to him. He also made an affidavit at Nuremberg. That is the document which was given the number NG 6216.

Presiding Judge: What is your number?

State Attorney Bach: Our number is 1297; and this affidavit, in fact, is submitted in respect to a limited episode. This man, in November 1944…

Presiding Judge: For what purpose was it submitted at Nuremberg?

State Attorney Bach: This is not so apparent here. I think it was one of the interrogations that was also conducted – so I presume – in relation to the Foreign Ministry, but not necessarily so; it is very likely that they used it for a number of cases. At any rate this does not emerge from the body of the document itself.

Presiding Judge: Is this statement sworn or not?

State Attorney Bach: It is a sworn statement.

Judge Halevi: Was he sentenced at Nuremberg?

State Attorney Bach: No. I do not think he was sentenced – I think he was not brought to trial. This man, in November 1944, visited Hungary in the course of his duties, and saw, en route, the notorious “foot march” – that forced march with the direction and execution of which we have charged the Accused.

He relates here that he was shocked by what he saw, how his attention was directed to these atrocities by Becher, how he tried to stop this thing, how he turned to Winkelmann, and how he realized that Winkelmann was unable to intervene, but referred him to the Accused and said that only the Accused would be able to change matters. He also described that he went to the Accused’s office, the contemptuous attitude that he experienced on the part of the Accused’s subordinates, and his reply.

This evidence is important, because it links up with other evidence, with the statement of Hoess, which we are still going to submit (Hoess is no longer alive, and no question about submitting his statement arises). That was the testimony of the commandant of Auschwitz, who also witnesses this “foot march,” and he also gives his reaction to that episode. Kasztner’s report also refers to that episode, and he mentions the same Juettner, so that Juettner’s intervention was known already then.

Wisliceny also says the same in his examination, in that statement which we have already submitted. So that here, once again, it has become possible to present the Court with a complete picture by means of these testimonies, which is more reliable and more weighty than is the evidence of witnesses who are able to come here and testify as to what occurred sixteen years ago. Accordingly, I apply to have this affidavit accepted in evidence.

Judge Raveh: Where is he now?

State Attorney Bach: Juettner, as far as I know, is in Germany. I do not know where.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what observations do you have on these applications?

Dr. Servatius: I request to summon the witness Becher here  for the following reasons: Firstly, he was a leading figure in the negotiations with Brand. Amongst the documents, there is one of a special character. That is an examination – I do not remember at the moment whether it is 774 or 827 – the strangest examination that I have come across so far.

It is a conversation between Becher and Brand, in which they exchange mutual compliments about their achievements in rescuing Jews. Thereafter, each asks the other: Do you remember that this is how it was? No? Perhaps you could make a special effort? And so it goes on, over many pages.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to confront these witnesses with each other.

Forgive me – I have been made aware of a mistake. The document refers to Becher and Kasztner – and not to Becher and Brand. Hence, what I have said about confrontation is invalid. At all events, in my opinion this document should not be admitted, but the witness Becher must be heard here.

With regard to the other witnesses, with regard to the witnesses Grell and Juettner, their examination in Germany will be sufficient for me, and I have submitted the appropriate applications. It will not be worthwhile to bring them to this Court, and in the known circumstances we should not demand this of them.

State Attorney Bach: May I be permitted to add a certain clarification? These interrogations of Becher were conducted in the normal way by the American military authorities, as appears from the transcript itself, by Curt Ponger and other interrogators of the American army.

The fact is that some of these interrogations took place in the presence of Dr. Rudolf Kasztner, upon the request of Becher who said that Dr. Kasztner might know a substantial number of facts that would be able to serve in his defence, since he was present during some of Becher’s activities; and therefore he asked the interrogator that Dr. Kasztner be present, and Dr. Kasztner was actually present at some of these interrogations.

Since, at a later stage, we are also going to ask the Court to admit the report of the Head of the Rescue Committee, namely Dr. Kasztner, it seems to me that the questions which were put by Dr. Kasztner can only add to explaining the background and establishing the weight of Becher’s evidence. At any rate, it was a perfectly regular interrogation and a confrontation in the normal manner.

Judge Halevi: What kind of interrogation was that? Was he being interrogated as a suspect or an accused?

State Attorney Bach: He was being questioned both as a suspect and as a witness. Here they question him both about his own activities and also about the activities of others. He covers the whole field and describes events that took place during that period in Budapest. He did not ask at that time to be confronted with the Accused – it was impossible at that stage to have such a confrontation. And, as I have said, it seems to me that this presence of Dr. Kasztner at the time certainly does not detract from the value…

Presiding Judge: Let us not discuss now the weight of the matter.

State Attorney Bach: It surely does not rule out the admissibility of the document as evidence.

Previous | Index | Next

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

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

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

A. I do not question that at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness Musmanno: Yes.

Q. None of them?

A. No. They did not go into that.

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

Witness Musmanno: It was during the trial.

Q. During their own trial.

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

Q. Before judgment was given by the International Court?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Thank you.

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

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

Q. Were you present at the interrogation of Kaltenbrunner?

A. You mean at the trial?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

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

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

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next