The Trial of Adolf Eichmann

State Attorney Bach: We shall immediately submit it. I thought that it had been submitted. It states here: “Eichmann summoned the Jewish Council to come to him at the Schwabenberg, to the Majestic Hotel and he laid before them the pro memoria plan.

Those present were Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann and Krumey, Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Wisliceny and another German officer. Representing the Jews: The President Samu Stern, the Vice-President Dr. Ernoe Boda, Dr. Ernoe Petoe and the counsel, Dr. Janos Gabor.

At the outset President Stern presented certain requests. Following this, Eichmann began his address, and spoke first of all about the Jewish star. He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide the star. There was some discussion on this matter and thereafter he said that as from 5 o’clock all Jews would have to wear the yellow star which would be exchanged afterwards by the one which the Jewish Council had to supply.

He said that the Jewish Council would have to provide about three million stars. He also demanded that the stars should be uniform throughout the country.

Afterwards he passed on to questions regarding housing. He said that in the case of a change of address, they had to notify him about it and receive permission from him. He said he would also deal with matters concerning Kistarcsa – he could not say when this would be.

This was in reply to a request that he release those who were detained in Kistarcsa when the Germans first arrived. He said they could apply to him in this connection, but he warned them not to deceive him. He expressed his opinion that the most important objective was to increase industrial productivity that was so essential to the war effort.

To this end he had created a labour force, and this was comprised of Jewish workers specifically. If the Jews behaved properly, nothing would happen to them, and they would be treated as all other workers, and this applied to work productivity. After that he added that these people would enjoy fair treatment and would receive the same wages as other workers. We said that, for this purpose, we would have to obtain a mandate. To this he retorted that we should have to abandon such liberal attitudes, and that we should not ask but command.

“At a later stage in the minutes Eichmann mentioned that he was taking a very great interest in Jewish artistic works and in Jewish libraries. Since 1934 he had been dealing with Jewish affairs and that he knew Hebrew better than we did. We told him that we had a Jewish museum in which antiquities and libraries were kept. He said he would visit it. Thereafter he issued various instructions regarding the supply of goods to the Germans and concerning the submission of lists of Jewish organizations.

Later on he stressed that these orders would be valid only for the duration of the War (that is to say the orders by the Germans) and that, afterwards, the Jews would be free and would be able to do as they pleased. Everything that was happening in regard to Jewish affairs was only for the duration of the War. When the War was over, the Germans would again be pleasant towards people, as they had been in the past (or, as he expressed it in German: ‘Die Deutschen werden wieder gemuetlich sein‘).

“He would prefer this to be carried out without violence. Only in case of resistance would there be need of force. If the Jews went over to partisan operations – he would kill them off without mercy. The Jews had to understand that nothing was being demanded of them except discipline and order.

If there would be discipline and order then not only would Jewry have nothing to fear, but he would defend Jewry and it would live under the same good conditions as regards payment and treatment, like all the other workers. He would especially appreciate it if they would make his views public amongst all sections of Jewry. He also stated that he would prevent all plunder of Jewish possessions and that he would punish those seeking to enrich themselves from Jewish property.

“After that there came a moment of excitement. Dr.Janos Gabor rose and said that he was very unhappy  because of the wearing of the Jewish star. His father had served in the World War as a mililtary judge, with the rank of major. His grandfather had been a ‘Honved‘* {*Popular name for a member of the Hungarian armed forces.} in the 1848 revolution. The wearing of the star would incite the riff-raff to shame the Jews in the street and to attack them. To this Eichmann replied that he would not permit anyone to suffer because of the star and if such incidents were to occur – he should be notified and he would attend to them.”

The Court will take note that Dr. Boda, in fact, confirms that his minutes are contained in a certain book, and they were printed there in Hungarian. What we have submitted to the Court is a translation of those minutes into German. We shall submit to you, later on, confirmation that this German translation is a correct translation from the Hungarian book which we are also prepared to place at the Court’s disposal.

Presiding Judge: Does not Dr. Boda himself confirm it?

State Attorney Bach: He does not confirm the translation and hence it is still necessary for us to compare the translation with the book.

There is another affidavit by Dr. Ernoe Petoe who also took part in that meeting. He is now living in Brazil. He is also about 79 1/2 or 80 and in a delicate state of health. He actually confirms two matters. Firstly he participated in that meeting and he, for his part, confirms the same details which I have already brought before you, and therein, naturally, there is additional corroboration, and I should like to bring this to your notice.

Apart from that he was the man who at the time established contact with the Regent Horthy and achieved the return of a train for the first time, that train which set out from Kistarcsa. This we have learned from other witnesses who heard it from him. He confirms that he found a way of approach to Horthy’s son and managed to secure the return of the train, and hence there is the additional weight of his evidence also on this point. He made a sworn affidavit about these matters before our consul in Brazil and I request the Court’s permission to submit his affidavit. The number of our document is 1300.

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

Dr. Servatius: I have received the contents of this affidavit, for my information. It exists only in the Hungarian language. I have no objection to its submission, but I would ask to be given a German translation.

Presiding Judge: [To State Attorney Bach] Will you see to that?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, of course. I have asked someone to read this document to Defence Counsel in German, but we shall also supply to Dr. Servatius a full translation of the document into German.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 56

We permit the submission of the affidavit of Dr. Ernoe Petoe.

State Attorney Bach: To my regret, here too I shall only be able to produce the original affidavit during the recess. We have been given only photocopies of that affidavit.

Presiding Judge: The document will be marked T/1157.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, he also mentions an interesting fact that the son of the witness, the son of Dr. Petoe, was in the company of Raoul Wallenberg in a student hostel in Switzerland in the summer of 1920. This later helped in the joint activity of the witness and Raoul Wallenberg about whom we shall still hear, who extended outstanding aid to the Jewish community, mainly in Budapest.

After that he describes this meeting. Here he only adds one point, that with regard to those goods and articles that Eichmann demanded to hand over to the Germans, Eichmann had at the time promised to make payment to the Jews, and that it never reached the stage of payment. This is on page three of the Hebrew reprint, on page two of the original.

After that there is an account of the meeting. I do not want to go over that again. Then comes the chapter on Kistarcsa. Here he again relates the whole story, including what happened at the Schwabenberg. He too, together with the Witness Freudiger: was at the Schwabenberg and he gives a first hand account of what happened there and what they learned later, in the evening, from Dr. Brody when the latter returned from Kistarcsa. He also mentions that the operation at Kistarcsa was carried out by Novak.

At the end he describes a certain change of attitude on the part of the Hungarian gendarmerie and about his contact with Ferenczy who told him that at first he did not believe that they were really exterminating the Jews in the east, but in view of the behaviour of the Accused, who would not allow them to go there personally to ascertain the facts, he began to believe that this was truly the fate of the Jews. It is on page 6 of the translation.

“In Ferenczy’s presence Captain Lullay delivered a ‘Philippic’ address to us, lasting hours, against the Gestapo and, in particular against Eichmann and his men, in which he said that they were now conducting a campaign of life and death against those who had now become a cause of danger to them as well. They wanted us to clarify to them what the truth was about Auschwitz, for they had asked Eichmann in vain to permit them to go there and personally to ascertain the facts. From this they came to the conclusion that the rumours about the incinerators for the destruction of Jews who were not capable of working, were correct. I pointed out to them the nature of the military situation according to which the defeat of the Germans was a fact.”

“The outcome of this discussion was that Ferenczy offered his assistance in thwarting Eichmann’s plans to carry out deportations.”

And here these are several particulars about the negotiations with Ferenczy.

“On 17 August I was taken to Eichmann’s headquarters
and from there I was put into a German prison. I was
released on 21 August on the intervention of the
Regent. On 23 August, Ferenczy appeared before Eichmann and informed him that, on the orders of the Regent, they would prevent the deportation, even by force of  arms. Meanwhile Ferenczy showed me the deportation schedule prepared by Eichmann, and which was to be carried out between 26 August and 18 September, from the brick industry zone in Csillaghegyi. The first transport was to include the members and officials of the Jewish Council, together with their families.”

“In view of this opposition, Eichmann was prevented from carrying out his plans, and he said that he would fly to Berlin and seek aid from Himmler. I later received a message for Dr. Wilhelm Karolyi from Mor, a Counsellor in the Hungarian Foreign Office, to the effect that Himmler had agreed to defer the deportations. In this way Eichmann’s plan to deport the Jews of Budapest failed. As a consequence of the change in the military situation, Eichmann was no longer capable of carrying out the deportation without the help of the gendarmerie. Thus Budapest Jewry was saved from deportation.”

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, may I be permitted briefly to interrupt the submission of evidence on the question of Hungary, and to request the directives and the guidance of the Court in a matter which is to take place next week?

It is our intention to exhibit in Court a number of documentary films in order to illustrate certain events about which evidence had already been led, and other events on which evidence will be produced next week. Naturally we will ensure suitable authentication of the incidents contained in these films. We shall produce witnesses who will be asked to testify under oath that this is how matters looked in fact.

It seems to me that we have the right to present these films, but in view of the fact that it is not a daily or normal occurrence for films to be shown in a court-room, I thought it would be proper to ask the Court’s guidance in this matter.

Presiding Judge: Is there a precedence for that?

Attorney General: Yes, Your Honour. Films were also exhibited at Nuremberg on several occasions. This was also the case in the Bergen-Belsen trial. These are two instances which I can recall at the moment, concerning this type of evidence. We sometimes make use of a film for another purpose, in order to identify a place, and so on. But this is not our purpose. Here the intention is to illustrate the events.

Presiding Judge: Were decisions given there – or was the matter simply taken for granted?

Attorney General: I believe that there was some objection, and it was decided that it had probative value and, on several occasions, the showing of films was allowed.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps you could show us where this appears in the reports.

Attorney General: Certainly. I think that it appears already in the early volumes.

Judge Halevi: What do the films contain?

Attorney General: One film is about Auschwitz after the liberation – showing the appearance of the survivors. One film which we will also show if we can manage to convert it from 35 mm to 16 mm, concerns the Warsaw Ghetto.

I say “if we can manage” for there is a technical problem in bringing a 35 mm projector to the Court. If we cannot manage, we shall be obliged to forego the film because of this difficulty. There is one film dealing with the transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck. There is another one showing scenes of the Mauthausen camp.

Judge Halevi: Was the film of Mauthausen taken after the liberation or before?

Attorney General: There are scenes which were photographed at the time of the event. There is one scene, really apocalyptic, of thousands of people standing at a roll-call, naked, which was certainly shot at the precise moment when it took place. And there will be a witness who will testify that this is indeed what it looked like.

Judge Halevi: Where do these films come from?

Attorney General: From various sources. There are documentary films which were made by various institutions,  immediately after the War. The film on Auschwitz has a Czech commentary. We will remove the sound – we do not need the Czech commentaries, but apparently this film is of Czech origin. There are films which were filmed jointly by Eastern and Western bodies, French and Polish, but these were private organizations, not official bodies. These films were taken immediately after the War.

Judge Halevi: The transport of Jews to Ravensbrueck, for example, that was filmed at the time of the event?

Attorney General: We are not aware of the origin. I cannot tell the Court with certainty who photographed it. We have our assumptions, but I do not want to deal with assumptions. At any rate we shall not exhibit anything which cannot be substantiated by witnesses.

Presiding Judge: Are there amongst these films such as have already been shown in those trials?

Attorney General: This, too, is not clear to us. According to the record of proceedings at Nuremberg, there was some authentication on behalf of the Allied military authorities at the beginning of the film. This authentication does not appear in the films in our possession, and hence we shall require a different method of authentication. There is also a film which the German television prepared towards this trial. It was shown in Germany and called “In the steps of the Hangman.” It was featured on West German television on the occasion of the opening of this trial.

It is a film which we do not propose showing to the Court in its entirety, because it adopts a moralizing tone in order to arrive at certain conclusions and clearly it would not be proper for us to ask the Court to view all of it. But it contains sections on the operations of the Einsatzgruppen, which were apparently filmed at the time they were taking place, and these, too, will be verified by witnesses. We shall extract this portion only and show it to the Court.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, before I can take a stand on this, I should have been shown the films, in order to enable me to evaluate them. And a further observation relating to the inclusion of the films in the Court record. I would ask the Court to determine the procedure in this matter, for obviously the films are not going to be annexed to the records of the trial. Therefore, the Prosecution, in my opinion, should have submitted a precis of the contents of the films.

Attorney General: QWe are ready to comply with both requests of Defence Counsel. We shall show him the films before we apply to exhibit them. We shall also prepare a precis for the Court’s use.

Presiding Judge: So when will we be able to obtain Defence Counsel’s reaction – after he has seen the films? In other words, when will you be able to show him the films?

Attorney General: Not before the end of next week, but we wanted a decision in principle before we start expending the sums of money involved in converting the 35mm film to 16mm. It is not a simple matter.

Presiding Judge: This is a sort of vicious circle.

Attorney General: Yes, to a certain extent, but, if I understand in general from the Court that subject to appropriate authentication, there will be no objection to this form of submitting evidence, we shall nevertheless undertake this expense.

Judge Raveh: But is the rest of the material ready?

Attorney General: Yes.

Judge Raveh: If that is so, it is possible to show it to Defence Counsel immediately.

Previous | Index | Next

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

A. About the “ghettoization.”

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

A. Those of the members of the central executive.

Q. Did you request that?

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

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

A. And was this carried out afterwards?

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

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

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

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

A. Yes. I was happy to read it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Is this a correct description?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Which are they?

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: 1,450,000.

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

Witness Freudiger: Another 300,000.

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

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

Dr. Servatius: On page 18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

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

Presiding Judge: Yes, Mr. Bach.

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

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

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

Presiding Judge: As he wishes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

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

Presiding Judge: Where do you live?

Witness Brody: Sao Paulo, Brazil.

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

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

Q. When did you leave Hungary?

A. On 24 March 1949.

Q. Were you in Budapest in 1944?

A. I was in Budapest in 1944.

Q. What did you engage in there?

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

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

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

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bach: 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: The next document is No. 575. Richter sends a letter directly to the German consulate in Galatz, in which he proposes to carry out “eine ueberraschende Razzia” (a surprise raid) on the Jews in Galatz, in co-ordination with the competent police organs, in order to determine who did not fulfil his duty under the census law of 16 December 1941.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1033.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 193, which was shown to the Accused and numbered T/37(133). Here it is again Richter who informs Eichmann about details in connection with the German proposal for the establishment of a “Generalkommissariat fuer Judenfragen” (Central Office for Jewish Questions), and he adds that this office will be headed by Ministerialdirektor Lecca, who was until that time Commissioner for Jewish Questions.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1034.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 479. Richter sends Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann the copy of an article from the Bukarester Tageblatt of 11 October 1942, which describes the efforts of the Jews Neumann and Filderman to prevent the expulsion of the Jews from Romania, with the help of all kinds of connections and influential personalities.

The article is full of the most vicious invective. At the beginning it mentions that already several weeks ago the Bukarester Tageblatt reported the intention to expel the Jews from Romania. I shall submit more evidence about the significance of these articles in the Bukarester Tageblatt. For the moment, I only draw your attention to the first paragraph of this article.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1035.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 579. It shows that Richter even intervened in judicial proceedings inside Romania. Here he writes to Lecca and mentions the trial of a Romanian official who received money from a Jew who wanted to emigrate from Romania. Various penalties were imposed on him, and the Court also ruled that he would have to return the money to that Jew.

Richter describes the trial and adds: “I should be grateful if you would bring this case which, as I mentioned, has made a great stir, to the attention of Minister of Justice Harinescu and point out to him that a court sentence of this kind – ruling in favour of Jews – is very damaging for Romanian justice.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1036.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is numbered 578. Richter writes again to Lecca and draws the attention of the Romanian authorities to a case of Jewish property which is camouflaged as Christian property, in order to avoid the regulations of the Aryanization law.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1037.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 480. Here Richter transmits to Eichmann anti-Jewish propaganda material, which is being distributed, mainly in the rural areas, by the cultural section of the legation, in co-operation with the Romanian Ministry for Propaganda.

We did not consider it important to attach the propaganda material; we wanted to point to the fact itself that there was such co-operation and that the material was brought to the attention of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1038.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, I submit the last document on Romania, document No. 572. Here we find the  first hint of a modification of the German plan. This document was also transmitted by Richter, who says that they are coming up against difficulties on the part of the Romanians, from Antonescu.

He reports that he met with Antonescu, and when the expulsion of the Jews, which was ready for implementation, was discussed, Antonescu suddenly said that there was a contradiction in the German standpoint: “At first you said that you did not want the Jews to be moved to the other side of the Bug, and now you want them to be deported after all.”

To which Richter replied that this was only an excuse, that they understood very well that this time it was not a matter of deportation beyond the Bug, of haphazard deportation as was the case then; this time the intention was deportation to the Generalgouvernement.

He says that now the Romanians are trying to go back on their commitment, and he quotes a letter from Marshal Antonescu which says that “the evacuation of Transylvania is only being studied. The implementation is being deferred. It will only begin when the right moment comes.”

Presiding Judge: Is Mihai Antonescu not the Prime Minister?

State Attorney Bach: No.

Presiding Judge: Is he his brother?

State Attorney Bach: No, they are not related. Mihai Antonescu was the chief minister, and Ion, the marshal, was the President.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1039.

State Attorney Bach: At this stage, with the permission of the Court, I should like to present the evidence of Dr. Theodor Loewenstein.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Theodor Loewenstein Lavi.

Q. Doctor?

A. Yes.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Loewenstein, you were born in Romania?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes.

Q. Until when did you live in Romania?

A. Until 1957.

Q. You were Professor of Jewish History and Philosophy?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. At the Jewish secondary school in Bucharest and also at a Jewish university.

Presiding Judge: At a Jewish university?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes, at the time of the war there was a college, a Jewish university.

Q. In Bucharest?

A. Yes.

State Attorney Bach: Did you also live in Bucharest during the period from 1940 to 1944?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes.

Q. In addition to the fact that you were in Bucharest during this period from 1940 to 1944, and that you were present at the events which took place there, did you also do some research on what happened in Romania during the War?

A. Yes. I work at Yad Vashem, doing research.

Q. In which section?

A. In the Romanian section. I have also published several research papers.

Q. Where were you during the summer of 1940?

A. In the summer of 1940 I was mobilized at the Hungarian border.

Q. Mobilized by whom? Within what framework?

A. In the Romanian army.

Q. When were the Jews expelled from the army?

A. In the summer of 1940, at the end of the summer.

Q. Perhaps you can tell the Court briefly what territorial changes took place in Romania during that period, between 1938 and 1941, as regards Bessarabia and Transylvania. Which areas were added to Romania and which were taken away, and what was the meaning and the influence of these changes on the Jewish population?

A. Bessarabia and Bukovina were annexed to the USSR, Northern Transylvania to Hungary, and part of the Dobruja to Bulgaria.

Q. When were these changes made?

A. In June, July 1940.

Q. And afterwards, when did Bessarabia and Bukovina come under Romanian influence again?

A. After the outbreak of war with Russia, in July 1941.

Q. From June 1941 on, what was the area, the districts, which came under Romanian influence?

A. Apart from Bessarabia and Bukovina, the areas between the rivers Dniester and Bug, what was then called by a new geographic name – “Transnistria.”

Presiding Judge: Why is this called Transnistria and not Transdniestria?

Witness Loewenstein: In Romanian the river is called “Nistro.”

Q. Is Nistro Dniester?

A. Yes.

State Attorney Bach: And what about Transylvania?

Witness Loewenstein: Northern Transylvania remained under Hungarian rule.

Q. And Southern Transylvania?

A. Southern Transylvania was under Romanian rule.

Q. When did you arrive in Bucharest?

A. In 1940 I was still director of the Jewish school in Ploiesti, and there were already many Germans there. Persecutions against Jews had begun and I could not return there, and then I came to Bucharest.

Q. And after that you remained in Bucharest?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you begin immediately to take an active part in Jewish life?

A. Yes, I was director of the Department for Education and Culture in the Executive of the Zionist Organization of Romania.

Q. Tell me, Dr. Loewenstein, when did the German army first arrive in Bucharest?

A. In the autumn of 1940, I think in October or November 1940. At the end of November, German units seized all the schools of the Jewish community in Bucharest. I was also director of a school, and a German officer together with a Romanian officer, came and seized the building. There were about thirty such buildings in Bucharest.

Q. How long was your school in the hands of the Germans?

A. Until the end of the War, all the time.

Q. Dr. Loewenstein, do you know when Hauptsturmfuehrer Richter arrived in Bucharest, and did you know this also at the time?

A. Of course, in April 1941. He appeared in public, together with Lecca.

Q. Had he also been in Bucharest before, without appearing in public?

A. I did not know this, but I read in Hilberg’s book that he was in Bucharest in 1940.

Q. But you had definite information, personal knowledge,  only since April 1941?

A. Not only knowledge, we felt his presence.

Q. What did you feel?

A. After a few months, he established the Jewish Centre along the lines of all the institutions of this kind. I have also seen the regulations of the Jewish Centre in, I think, Slovakia, and they were very similar.

Q. Where did you see these regulations?

A. I saw them in Bucharest.

Q. And the Jewish Centre in Bucharest was also based on the same regulations?

A. Yes.

Q. What was Lecca’s position?

A. Lecca was the person in charge, the Commissar for Jewish Matters in the prime minister’s office. But he was not in direct contact with the various Jewish institutions. Sometimes he would appear together with Richter.

Q. Where did he appear?

A. In Jewish institutions. For instance, he came to my office once; I was at the time head of the Department for Education and Culture at the Jewish Centre, and he came with Lecca.

Q. I shall ask you about this later, Dr. Loewenstein. Before that I have something else to ask: It is known that there was a certain political struggle in Romania between Antonescu on the one hand, and Horia Sima on the other. Perhaps you can tell us when this struggle took place, and how it affected the treatment of the Jews in Romania?

A. In the beginning, when Antonescu came to power, the Iron Guard was also in power. Horia Sima, the commander of the Iron Guard, was deputy prime minister. We know now from documents, from the memoirs of Hoettl, that the Security Service at that time sent instructors in order to organize the “Green Police,” i.e., the police of the Iron Guard.

Judge Halevi: How do we know this?

Witness Loewenstein: From the book by Walter Hagen – this was Hoettl’s pseudonym. They had organized a special police force, and they seized and arrested Jews. Everything the Green Police did was after the German pattern, and first of all the boycott.

State Attorney Bach: Are you saying this on the basis of personal knowledge?

Witness Loewenstein: Yes, I saw it.

Q. Did you see the Green Police in action?

A. Yes, I saw signs “Yid Shop” on Jewish shops. Antonescu published a book in two volumes later, and in it he included records of several meetings of the government. That was in the spring of 1941, and one can see there that he did not agree with this system. In Western Romania, for instance, they seized all the Jewish enterprises, threw out the Jews and destroyed all Jewish trade.

Q. Dr. Loewenstein, by my question I intended something else: How did this struggle between Antonescu and Horia Sima – what was its significance for the anti-Semitic actions of these two bodies?

A. Antonescu said that laws were needed, not all the laws were in existence at that time, and the Iron Guard acted without laws. For instance, they carried out the Romanization – as they called it – or the Aryanization of the Jewish shops and factories without any law. Sometimes, in most cases, they simply took – that is the Green Police – took over the shops and took over the factories.

Q. Which of these two branches, or these two parties, succeeded in the end in winning the support of the Germans?

A. There were not two parties; there was only Antonescu and his officers on one side, and the Iron Guard on the other. In the end victory fell to Antonescu. Matters came to a head in the revolt of the Iron Guard, what we call “the pogrom of Bucharest.” One hundred and twenty people were killed. The corpses were hung up in the slaughter-house of Bucharest with a sign “Kosher Meat,” etc.

Q. Who did this – the Iron Guard?

A. Yes, the Iron Guard, the Greenshirts, that is the SA and the SS of the Iron Guard.

Q. How do you explain that this struggle expressed itself in pogroms against the Jews, among other things?

A. I think the Greenshirts, the Iron Guard, thought that this was the best method to obtain the support or the help of the Germans.

Presiding Judge: Is this a researcher’s assumption?

Witness Loewenstein: This is not an assumption, if you will forgive me.

Previous | Index | Next

State Attorney Bar-Or: And on the second page we find Eichmann’s reply, given to the Foreign Ministry on 19 November 1941. Again, “in view of the coming Final Solution of the European Jewish Question,” the emigration of the Jewess to unoccupied France has to be prevented.

And now document No. 119, which was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(39). The Accused said what he had regarding this in his Statement on page 744 and following pages. This is one of the rare documents still extant in which we find the last, perhaps the only, record of the attitudes of the Jewish specialists within the Reich area in the Accused’s office.

Here is a report about a meeting, or a consultation, held in the Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4, on 6 March 1942. It is perhaps not superfluous for me to direct the attention of the Court to a few sentences in the report. It begins:

“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann spoke, by way of introduction, about the additional evacuation of 50,000 Jews from the Old Reich, as well as from the Ostmark and the Protectorate. Prague, from which 20,000 Jews are to be evacuated, and Vienna – 18,000 – are to take the largest part in this.”

Then it says:

“In this connection, Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann pointed out that the directives given, especially as regards age, infirmity, etc., have to be strictly followed since, in the transport to Riga, some forty to forty-five cases were reported by the Elders of the Jews to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, through District Party Leaders Liepe and Meyer, as having been deported without justification. Although, after further examination, most of these cases turned out to be perfectly justified, every effort has to be made to prevent complaints of this sort. For this reason, Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich imposes responsibility for the implementation of the directives on the State Police Commanders personally.”

And here is one more paragraph on page 2 of the report. He says (it is the man from Duesseldorf reporting to his superior):

“The Jews must not under any circumstance receive information about the preparations for the evacuation; absolute secrecy is therefore necessary. The so-called Special Account W is at the disposal of Section IVB4 of the Head Office for Reich Security since, in accordance with Regulation 11, that Head Office no longer has access to the property of the Jews.

In order to put enough funds at the disposal of the account, it is requested that the Jews be made to contribute substantial donations to Account W in the near future. It was said that so far small amounts have been received, apparently because of the misunderstanding that the account would benefit the Jews directly.”

Presiding Judge: That is to say, a misunderstanding on the part of the collectors, not on the part of the contributors?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The collectors, men of the Gestapo. We have already seen how the Reich Association announces, by order of the Accused, that these funds will be put at the disposal of the Reich Association. This was also the impression locally. For this reason, there was a misunderstanding which had to be cleared up.

Finally, the last sentence reads: “After this, notes were compared about the experience of State Police Offices which are already carrying out evacuations, and those for whom these are new tasks.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/734.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1189, a request from the Embassy of Italy, dated 20 February 1942, a document which comes, of course, from the files of the German Foreign Ministry. It says that, in accordance with information received by the Royal Italian Embassy, the police authorities in Magdeburg have ordered the confiscation, as of 1 March of that year, of the private dwelling of the Italian citizen, Countess Geltrude Irene Sacconi, aged 72. The embassy asks the Foreign Ministry to help the countess in her predicament.

Presiding Judge: She is Jewish?

State Attorney Bar-Or: It does not say so here.

Presiding Judge: It says: The confiscation is said to be based on the fact that she is supposed…to belong to the Jewish race.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you very much, Your Honour. The Italians write that she is reputed to belong to the Jewish race.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/735.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The matter is cleared up very quickly in our document No. 1190, the reply of the Accused to the Foreign Ministry of 13 March 1942. He writes briefly: “I have instructed the State Police Head Office Magdeburg to refrain from taking any measures whatever against the Jewess of Italian nationality, Countess Sacconi, especially from sequestering her personal dwelling, until further notice.”

With reference to the earlier question by His Honour, Judge Halevi, here also we have, of course, a matter which is not actually relevant, nobody speaks here about evacuation or deportation. This is a matter that was within the general field of activity of the Gestapo in Magdeburg. The Accused orders the Gestapo how to act, when to refuse, and whether to refuse. Always with respect to Jewish affairs, at least inside Germany. When we come to other countries, we shall, of course, also find other cases.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/736.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1279. There are again guidelines about deportations, transports of Jews to the area of the Generalgouvernement (Trawniki near Lublin), guidelines received by Gestapo Wuerzburg on 2 March 1942. Here I want to draw the attention of the Court to three matters which seem important. First of all, under paragraph IV, “Escort of Transports,” it says:

“An additional copy of this transport list must be submitted to the Head Office for Reich Security Section IVB4 immediately after the departure of each transport.” After this, and even more important, in paragraph VI, where matters of reporting, recording, or information are dealt with, detailed instructions are given on how to report about transports carried out. And this is what it says:

“The departure of each transport train must be reported immediately by urgent telegram, as per attached sample (Addendum 1) to: (a) Head Office for Reich Security, Section IVB4; (b) Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service, SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schoengarth, Cracow; (c) Commander of the SS and the Police in the Lublin district, SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, Lublin. The arrival of the transports and their orderly reception at destination will be reported by the receiving office (Commander of the SS and the Police in the Lublin District) by telegram, as per attached sample (Addendum 2) to Head Office for State Security, Section IVB4.”

I place special emphasis on the reporting arrangements, because it seems that here the Economic-Administrative Main Office no part whatever with respect to these transports, as from the beginning of 1942. No information has to be sent to it, and the reporting was exclusively between the  Generalgouvernement and the Section of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Who issued these orders?

State Attorney Bar-Or: These orders were issued by the Accused and his men to all Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo. We have already referred to two of them. The Gestapo Regional Headquarters copied the orders and passed them on to the branch offices. One of these was Wuerzburg, and it was from there that it reached us. In this way, we shall have to reconstruct, with some difficulty, the files of the Accused which were lost, and of which we have no copies.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/737.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we come to document No. 1289. Here it is decided in Nuremberg to establish a special commission in connection with the deportation of Jews from the Reich to Lublin, and the document starts right away: “By virtue of instructions from the Head Office for Reich Security of 31.1.1942, IVB4″ and so on. It refers to information which came by telephone from IVB4 to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo, according to which “a further 1,000 Jews will be evacuated from the three districts of Franconia” which we know already, “and deported to Lublin by a special Reich Railways train.

Simultaneously, the typewriters, bicycles, cameras and binoculars, seized from Jews in accordance with the urgent order from the Head Office for Reich Security of 13.11.1941, IVB4, are to be confiscated and stored.” These orders were issued by the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo on 11 April 1942.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/738.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Prosecution document No. 1288 is a telegram from the Accused sent from Berlin on 17 April 1942. It may perhaps be called a circular telegram to all Gestapo units and emigration centres. It is addressed to the Gestapo units in Vienna, Prague, Berlin, Hamburg, Bruenn, Frankfurt/Main, Duesseldorf, Hannover, Muenster, Koeln, Breslau, Kassel, Dortmund, Osnabrueck, Stuttgart, Nuremberg – from there it reached us – Kiel, and furthermore to the Central Offices for Jewish Emigration in Vienna and Prague, and also to the Liaison Office Bruenn and to the Inspectorate of the D.S. and the Security Service in Danzig.

It says: “With reference to the above-mentioned, I” – the  Accused – “inform you that Jews who hold the wounded soldiers decoration shall likewise not be evacuated to the East. It is intended to transfer these Jews at a later date to a special old age ghetto inside the Reich area. For your information and attention.” At the end of the telegram, there is the marking RSHA IVB4. Signed: Eichmann, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/739.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1290. Here Gestapo Wuerzburg reports about the evacuation of the Jews in accordance with the instructions for reporting, at which the Court has just seen. We find that this telegram was indeed sent to those addresses which were to be informed in accordance with the instructions of the Accused, i.e., first of all it was sent to IVB4 for the attention of Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann; it was sent to the Commander of the Security Police and the Security Police in Cracow; it was sent to the Commander of the SS and the police in the Lublin District.

And in the telegram it says that “On 25 April 1942, at 15.20 transport train No. DA 49 left departure station Wuerzburg-Main Station for Lublin-Izbica, carrying altogether 852 Jews. Another 103 Jews will be loaded on in Bamberg, so that the transport includes altogether 955 Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/740.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us now pass on to Prosecution document No. 1291. This is a settlement of account which Wuerzburg owes to Regional Gestapo Headquarters Fuerth about the collection, and especially the expenses in connection with the transport of 25 April 1942, which we have just mentioned. And here we find various payments which, of course, in the end are covered by the method with which the Court is by now already familiar. It says that on that day, 25.4.1942, 852 Jews were evacuated to the East from the area of jurisdiction of State Police Office Wuerzburg, and another 103 Jews from Bamberg. And then it goes on to list what was received and what was paid out, in full detail.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/741.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we go on to our document No. 1280. A telegram to all Gestapo offices, both in the Greater Reich and in the East. Litzmannstadt, Posen, Zichenau and other places are especially mentioned* {*According to Doc. T/742: “excluded”} here. The telegram is marked IVB4a and signed by Mueller, SS Gruppenfuehrer.

It
deals with lists of additional Jews who are to be included in the transport. He says, inter alia, that “In order to make use of the possibilities for reception still existing in the East, I ask you to report the number of those Jews remaining in your area who can still be evacuated while strictly respecting the existing guidelines.” In this context he mentions the exceptions who must not be included in the transports to the East, and who must be kept for transportation to the Old Age Ghetto Theresienstadt in the Protectorate Bohemia-Moravia when the time comes (zu gegebener Zeit).

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/742.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 730, which actually consists of two documents. These two letters were shown to the Accused and were numbered T/37(218). Somebody, who mentions Dr. Rasche, writes to Advocate Rajakowitsch, whom we know from the office of the Accused, and asks the advice of this lawyer about the treatment of Jewish property; he also mentions the special legal problems which arise in this connection. We find here one more minute for the file concerning immovable property which formerly belonged to Jews, and how this should be dealt with.

These documents are actually not very important for proving the version of the Prosecution; we showed them to the Accused only in order to clarify how it could happen that Rajakowitsch, who was an official in the office of the Accused, receives mail in Vienna, and acts as a private lawyer and appears here in an unusual, non-official capacity.

I have to say that the Accused – who refers to this matter on page 2595 ff. – does not contribute – I am not saying on purpose – does not apparently remember the matter, and he makes no significant contribution to elucidating the strange things that happened here.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/743.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 147, a letter from the Accused to the Foreign Ministry, addressed to Counsellor of Legation Rademacher. Eichmann asks how Jews of foreign nationality inside the Reich area should be treated. And this is what he writes:

“Since, as you know, the evacuation of Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands will also begin in the near future, the question of the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality abroad, in the occupied areas, and in the Reich – with regard to their evacuation – is becoming ever more urgent (e.g., Jews of Hungarian nationality in the occupied areas of the Netherlands). I should be grateful for early, comprehensive information about your attitude in principle on the question of evacuation, including the legal liquidation of property and its inclusion in the general measures taken against the Jews.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/744.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We now go on to document No.1569. This is a letter to which I alluded earlier, a letter to the Accused, Head Office for Reich Security, for Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. Subject: “Reich Association of the Jews in Germany – Sanatorium of the Rothschild Foundation in Nordrach/Baden.

On behalf of the Senior SS and Police Commander “South West,” Eichmann is approached and informed that the Lebensborn has cast its eye on this institution which has been vacated by the Jews. This property, these assets, pass to the Reichsvereinigung of the Jews in Germany. We have already submitted a document in which Eichmann orders this property to be transferred to the Reichsvereinigung. “In case you, Obersturmbannfuehrer, are not competent for this matter, I ask you kindly to forward my request.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/745.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now pass on to document No. 915. It is a letter sent to the Senior SS and Police Commander “South-West.”

Presiding Judge: Is there no reply to this request (in document T/745)?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is the document which I now submit. The letter was sent from Stuttgart on 30 September 1942, and it says, inter alia: “Accordingly, the property belongs to the Reich Association of the Jews, which is subject, as an institution of the Security Police, to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Bureau IV of the Head Office for Reich Security. For the purpose of transferring the building and the assets connected with it to the Reichsfuehrer SS or to Lebensborn, respectively, you would have to contact Eichmann.” It is assumed that it will be no problem to put the institution immediately at the disposal of Lebensborn in Munich, as requested by the senior SS officer.

Presiding Judge: “If they will not get hold of it quickly, the Air Force will get hold of it,” I see here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Judge Raveh: This apparently precedes T/745. This is not a reply, on the contrary. It seems that this was earlier. On the basis of it, the Accused was approached. Is there no date on the previous document, No. 1569?

State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1569 is dated 30 September 1942.

Judge Raveh: That is actually the same day.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It is actually the same day.

Judge Raveh: But this is not a reply.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It seems to me that these two documents actually run parallel.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/746.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1392. This also came to us from the Wuerzburg file. But this time the Accused writes to the State Police in Nuremberg about deportation of Jews to Theresienstadt.

Writing from Berlin on 31 August 1942, he refers to his telegram IVB4a of 21 May 1942. He says that the Jews still living in the Nuremberg district and who are eligible for evacuation to the Old Age Ghetto Theresienstadt can probably be deported to Theresienstadt by special train in the months of August, September or October. He transmits to Nuremberg a copy of the special guidelines prepared for the evacuation of old people in Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/747.

Previous | Index | Next