Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Vienna’

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann: Session 52, Part 5

June 19th, 2009

Q. What happened to those Jews afterwards?

A. A day or two after the Jews were returned to Kistarcsa, we received an order that all the members of the Judenrat were to come to the Hotel Majestic, to the offices of the SS. I came around 9:00, 9:30 to the office of the Judenrat.

All were nervous, because all of us, the whole of the Judenrat, had never before been summoned to come together.

Q. Where was the Hotel Majestic?

A. At the Schwabenberg, that was actually the headquarters of the Sondereinsatzkommando. There it said: Sondereinsatzkommando IVB4.

Q. Who were the German officers working there?

A. I did not know them all – Eichmann, Krumey, Wisliceny, Hunsche, Novak. Later on I met Klages on one occasion – he belonged to the SD – who was located elsewhere. He took the place of Krumey, because at the beginning of July they transferred him to Vienna from Budapest. Some other officer came in his stead, I think his name was Krueger.

Q. Were the offices of Eichmann, Wisliceny and Hunsche in the same place, in the Hotel Majestic on the Schwabenberg?

A. Yes.

Q. In the same place to which all of you were summoned?

A. We were all summoned to come on that one day.

Presiding Judge: When was that?

Witness Freudiger: It was two days after the train was brought back to Kistarcsa, it could have been, perhaps, 12 or 13 July.

State Attorney Bach: Did all of you actually go?

Witness Freudiger: At the beginning we all went, with one exception. Berend was not in the office at the time. Eight of us came, instead of nine. We came to the office on the Schwabenberg. We went in. They asked us whether everyone was present. I was somehow the spokesman. I said, Berend is not here. He was a young member – he had not been a member of the executive for long. They said he, too, must come here. We had a taxi, and they said: Send the taxi to fetch him. We sent the car back – it was six or seven kilometres from town. An hour later, Berend was also there. I told the officer there, Hunsche: Our complement is full.

Q. Was it mainly Hunsche who spoke to you on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he talk to you about, and how long did he keep you there?

A. This could have started roughly at 10 or 10.30. He said a few words to us and told us to wait, and that soon he would take us into his office. We waited an hour, an hour-and-a-half, two hours. Our members were extremely nervous.

Eventually Stern, who was seventy years old and not in good health, said to me: “Freudiger, go to Hunsche and ask him why they summoned us here.” I went to Hunsche and said: “We are all waiting, what is going to happen?” He replied: “Soon, soon.” And another hour passed. After an hour, our nervousness grew. I said to Hunsche: “What is going to happen? We would like to telephone our office to tell them we are here.” And he said: “No, do not telephone, I will phone right away.”

Then I asked him to provide something to eat. I said I was able to fast, I was an Orthodox Jew, but he should give food to the others. Stern was there, and he gave him a slice of bread and a cup of coffee. The others did not receive anything.

At approximately two o’clock, he took us to his office and began speaking about various subjects – that the life of the Jews had to be organized, how to organize the Burial Society, and all sorts of matters. That would have been an interesting subject for discussion, if there had been Jews in Hungary, but not when there were no longer Jews in Hungary. Thus the time passed.

Then he again sent us down, and we waited for him. By now it was six p.m. I said to him: “We are allowed to walk in the streets until eight o’clock only.” All of us, by now, had the yellow Shield of David. The whole Jewish population, as I have previously said, had permission to be in the streets from 2-5 p.m.; we had special permission – from eight in the morning until eight in the evening. I pointed out that it was now six o’clock, that we were up there on the Schwabenberg, and that we had to get home. He answered: “Don’t worry, I will provide you with an escort, and everyone will reach his home.” He said there was something we had to arrange.

After that, at seven o’clock, the telephone on his table rang. He began speaking. Then he stopped and went into another room. Apparently he did not want us to hear, that we should hear what he was saying. We heard him saying: “Well, very well.” After that he returned to the room. We were left in the middle of a sentence when the telephone rang. Then he came back and said: “All right, now you may go.” We went home.

Q. During all this time, from ten in the morning until seven in the evening, was anything at all discussed which seemed to you to be a matter of importance?

A. No. If there had been Jews in the country, it would perhaps have been important, but to talk about the Burial Society when the Jews had already been killed in Auschwitz?

Q. What did you find out when you returned home?

A. I, of course, could no longer go back to my home, for it had been destroyed by a bomb. I was living in the Old Age Home of the Orthodox community. It was not far from the Schwabenberg. It still had a telephone, because in institutions, in hospitals, the telephone was allowed to remain. I got back at eight o’clock, a little before eight, and I received a telephone call from Kistarcsa to the effect that SS men, a special contingent with Hauptsturmfuehrer Novak, and thirty trucks had arrived. They shut out the Hungarian police force under Vasdenyei and the remaining police who were in the Kistarcsa camp.

They took the Jews who had been on the train before, put them on the trucks, and left the place in a hurry. As I learned afterwards, the phone call Hunsche received was a message that a train had brought them to Hatvan, in a direction opposite to that of Budapest. They had transferred them to a town closer to Kistarcsa in another direction, and sent them in an express train beyond the borders, to Auschwitz. The call to Hunsche was to the effect that they had crossed the border. It was after this that they allowed us to go home, for they thought that if we got to know about it, we would again intervene and run to Horthy.

Q. Did you speak to Wisliceny about this episode?

A. Yes, definitely. On the next day or the day after I spoke to Wisliceny – I described the whole incident to him. Wisliceny said to me…

Q. Perhaps you would quote what Wisliceny said in German?

A. He explained the meaning of the telephone call. I told him the whole story. Then he said: “You stayed there until Hunsche received the telephone call that everything was in order.” And he said to me in German: “Was glaubt denn der alte Trottel, Eichmann wird diese Ohrfeige einstecken, dass er seinen Zug hat zurueckholen lassen?” (Does that old fool really believe that Eichmann would keep quiet at this slap in the face that his train was sent back?)

Q. To whom was he referring with the words “der alte Trottel” (the old fool)?

A. To Horthy.

Q. Was it only from Kistarcsa that Jews were later taken away by force, as you described?

A. There was one other place, about a week or ten days later, another concentration camp, at Sarvar, from where they also took away 1,000 or 1,200 Jews. But there they had  already begun with the second stage. They did not begin deporting them in trains, but came immediately with trucks and locked up the police. What they had done at Kistarcsa on the second occasion was the model for Sarvar. That we knew only after it was done.

Q. When you said “they came,” to whom were you referring?

A. Novak and his men.

Q. Did you also discuss this matter with the commandant of Kistarcsa – Vasdenyei?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he also confirm it to you?

A. He was really an honest man and apologized. He said: “What could I do?”

Presiding Judge: Who was this man?

Witness Freudiger: He was the Hungarian police chief of Kistarcsa.

State Attorney Bach: Did he express his regrets at this incident?

Witness Freudiger: Yes.

Q. By the way: What is the distance between Budapest and Sarvar, that second camp you mentioned?

A. It is further away. Sarvar is in the west of Hungary – it could be at least 120 kilometres away.

Q. After this occurrence, when you returned to the Schwabenberg and saw Hunsche and his comrades, did they again refer to the incident when you were held at the Schwabenberg?

A. Actually I did not have much to do with Hunsche, but he knew me. A day or two after I had been in the office there, when he saw me, he asked laughingly: “Sind Sie noch immer nervoes? Stern hat sich schon beruhigt?” (Are you still nervous? Has Stern already calmed down?)

Q. Mr. Freudiger, I shall not question you on details of the negotiations that were conducted between Brand and Kasztner and the Germans. We shall hear about this directly from Brand. I would ask you only this: Did you occasionally receive reports about these discussions from Dr. Kasztner?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that he once expressed himself on a certain matter concerning the wording of a draft proposal for a deal made by Eichmann?

A. Yes. He always reported on something when it was already done. He always confronted us with a “fait accompli,” and informed us that there had been such negotiations. He said that people would be sent to Bergen-Belsen, and after that also to Strasshof, there had been some haggling, trucks would be delivered, etc.

He asked him whether they were sending these people to Germany? Perhaps only to Bergen-Belsen. There had been no talk as yet of Bergen-Belsen, but only that the train was to proceed to the Spanish frontier – this was what was afterwards called the Bergen-Belsen train, instead of to the Spanish frontier.

It was after 6 June, after D-Day. Major battles had already taken place in France. We then asked what would happen if some disaster occurred, for the route was not all that safe? To that Eichmann once replied: “Nu, es ist keine grosse Sache. Getoetete oder beschaedigte Juden werden mit anderen ausgetauscht.” (Well, that is nothing of importance. Killed or injured Jews will be replaced by others.)

This is what Kasztner told me that Eichmann had once said to him, that he was an honest man, and if he sold 3,000 Jews, he would have to supply him with this number, and if they should be killed or injured, there would be others. He would supply other merchandise. His expression was: “This is nothing of importance, dead or injured Jews will be replaced by others.”

Q. The main thing is this expression “Vernichtete oder beschaedigte Juden werden mit anderen ausgetauscht” (exterminated or injured Jews will be replaced by others). Please tell the Court about your last meeting with the Accused on 21 July 1944.

A. As I have said, the whole of Hungary, with the exception of Budapest, was already judenrein by the beginning of July. A duel was being fought whether or not to deport the Jews from Budapest. We hoped that Horthy would be the stronger – we had some indication that, on the German side, too, that Veesenmeyer was also not so rigorous and was opposed to Eichmann’s plan to expel the Jews from Budapest at all costs.

On 21 July – I remember that day well, it was a Friday – I received an urgent telephone call from Wisliceny saying that he wanted to speak to me, and that I should come to him right away. I went to his private apartment on the Schwabenberg.

He told me that a day or two before he had been in Bratislava, where he had spoken to Rabbi Weissmandel and with all our Jewish friends; they had heard the B.B.C. broadcast which reported on Brand’s programme to exchange a million Jews for 10,000 trucks, and that the B.B.C. added that a guarantee had been required that these trucks would not be used except on the western front, but not on the eastern front against the Russians, and His Majesty’s Government could not do anything against its allies, the Russians.

Presiding Judge: I think you have made a mistake here. They wanted to say that the trucks would be used only on the eastern front, and not on the western front.

Witness Freudiger: That they should guarantee not to use them on the western front.

Q. You simply interchanged “east” for “west.”

A. His Majesty’s Government was very sorry – it could not accept this offer.

Q. Were those his words in English?

A. Yes, as far as I remember, he said that in English. But  it may be that I am mistaken. Afterwards the press, the Hungarian newspapers, also reported it. Rabbi Weissmandel told him that this was clear proof that the matter would now be carried out. It had already been going on for a month and a half.

Throughout this month and a half we had not heard a word about the whole matter. Now it was of no value. And why were the English disclosing such a matter, because they were seeking an alibi against the Russians? And now they would do it.

State Attorney Bach: Was this what Rabbi Weissmandel said to Wisliceny?

Witness Freudiger: Yes. Rabbi Weissmandel said this to Wisliceny, and the proof of it was that Mr. Freudiger already had 250 trucks which they could begin to deliver on account of the 10,000.

Presiding Judge: Were they already in the possession of the Germans?

Witness Freudiger: No, in the possession of Mr. Freudiger.

State Attorney Bach: Wisliceny said to Mr. Freudiger that he had learned from Rabbi Weissmandel that he (Mr. Freudiger) had 250 trucks?

Witness Freudiger: Yes. And he summoned me and asked whether this was true. I said it was true. Of course, I had neither 250 trucks, nor even one, but since he asked me whether I had them, I told him that I did – the Almighty would help me. After that he said to me: “Fine, if Eichmann calls you – I have spoken to him – confirm this, and in this way the question of the deportation of Jews from Budapest will be removed from the agenda.”

“Very well,” I said to him, “I am going to Eichmann.” It was about five to ten minutes from there. He was living at the Hotel Majestic. He said to me: “Eichmann must not know that I have spoken to you – do you know that he is angry with you and also with me? We have not spoken to each other – go down into town, and he will call you.”

I returned to the offices of the central executive, where there was already an uproar. They asked me: “Freudiger, where have you been? They are looking for you all over the city – Eichmann has already telephoned for you twice.” Of course, I was unable to tell them where I had been. I went back to the Hotel Majestic. Eichmann was not in his office.

I waited outside, and some minutes later he arrived in his car. He saw me waiting outside and came up to me and said: “Come in.” I went to him and stood there at attention. He said to me – perhaps I may repeat this, too, in German: “Ich habe die Verstaendigung bekommen, dass Sie 250 Lastautos zu Ihrer Verfuegung haben?” (I have received information that you have 250 trucks at your disposal). I replied: “Yes.”

After that he said to me: “Go to Obersturmbannfuehrer Becher, tell him about it and arrange with him for their delivery.” I said: “Very well.” He then said: “And see that he is satisfied,” and then – this was the first time that he had not shouted at me – “you, too, will be satisfied” (Schauen Sie, dass Sie ihn zufriedenstellen, Sie werden auch zufrieden sein.) (Endeavour to satisfy him; you, too, will be satisfied.)

Q. Mr. Freudiger, one other question connected with the matter of Kistarcsa. You said before that you had a member of the executive named Janos Gabor. A day or two after the incident which you recounted to us about the return of the train and its seizure for a second time, were you also informed of something by Janos Gabor?

A. I said that Janos Gabor was a liaison officer before he was appointed to be a member of the second executive, but after he was appointed as a member, he continued in that role, and day after day he used to go to the Hotel Majestic in order to deal with current matters. He came back and said that he had spoken to Eichmann and had received a telling-off – it was something awful.

Eichmann shouted at him and said: “What is this – you people are interfering in my affairs, you are here to assist us and not to meddle in our business.” He said that Eichmann was very nervous, and after that there were days when he did not want to go to the Schwabenberg any more, and he said that Eichmann had shouted at him in such a way that he was afraid to go. After that, nothing happened in this connection.

Previous | Index | Next

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann: Session 43, Part 7

June 1st, 2009

Presiding Judge: Where is this? In which paragraph?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2. In paragraph 5 it says that in this connection, Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann declared that he had taken over the direction of the Reich Authority for Jewish Emigration, and that he was determined to let the emigration offices in Berlin, Vienna and Prague operate separately.

None of these offices would be superior or subordinate to the other, Vienna would preserve its independence, and it was expected that the character of the Religious Community under public law would be assured until the end of 1940. This was, of course, a matter of special interest to Dr. Loewenherz.

In paragraph 7 he says he told Eichmann that the progress in emigration depended in large measure on the release of prisoners in protective custody in Buchenwald and Dachau.

He also told him about the news arriving from there about cases of death, and that in the Community there were unprecedented scenes of despair among the bereaved. In reply to a question by Eichmann in this matter, Loewenherz said that since the autumn 355 deaths were reported, and that the burial of the urns was being carried out by the cemetery office of the Community, which caused feelings of shock.

Eichmann said that he did not deal directly with the concentration camps, but asked Loewenherz to inform him in writing about the matter by 27 December. Eichmann also informed Loewenherz that he would divide his time, spending two weeks every month in Berlin and the other two weeks in Vienna, Prague, and the Generalgouvernement in Poland. This is in paragraph 13.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/798.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to No. 1140. Again a memo by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Eichmann on 26 January 1940. I direct your attention to paragraph V: The Jewish Community in Moravska Ostrava has informed Eichmann that they have spent 300,000 Reichsmark for setting up the camp in Nisko; Loewenherz says he was told to contact the Community in Moravska Ostrava and to demand from it, on the basis of this report, an exact summary of the expenses and the purpose for which the various sums were used.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/799.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And finally, in paragraph VII, one  more question – whether the Jews who were taken to the territory of Poland would be given a chance to return to Vienna.

I go on to document No. 1411, a minute about a meeting which took place in Eichmann’s office in Berlin. Again there is mention of the release of the officials of the Community and the Palestine Office, who are still under arrest in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Eichmann asks that a request for their release be transmitted to him to Berlin (paragraph 5).

Paragraph 7 is also of interest. Loewenherz says:

“I asked for the release of Rabbi Dr. Arnold Israel Frankfurter from the Buchenwald concentration camp and stressed that he is apparently in protective custody only because of the name Frankfurter, but no doubt he has no connection with the attack on Gustloff. Eichmann gave me permission to submit a request for the release of Rabbi Dr. Frankfurter to him through the intermediary of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/800.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1142, a meeting between Loewenherz and Brunner at the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna. Brunner told him what he had heard in a telephone conversation with Eichmann about what is here called “the impending return of 152 persons from the relocation area in Poland.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/801.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1143, again a meeting of Loewenherz with Eichmann in Berlin on 3 July 1940. Loewenherz is told to submit to Eichmann, within four weeks, statistics about the Jews living in Austria, their institutions, etc. As regards the financial affairs of the Community, Dr. Loewenherz is asked to appear before Eichmann on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m. Again an urgent request is made for the release of the detainees in the concentration camp. Eichmann says that this is not possible now: “The same applies also to the further request that young detainees should be released from protective custody.”

What is said here, in paragraph 4, about migration is of some interest:

“Eichmann said that efforts in connection with emigration via the Far East, and also via Lisbon, must be continued. However, after the end of the War, a comprehensive solution of the European Jewish question would presumably have to be sought. This would be a matter of about four million Jews. Eichmann then asked whether ideas or plans with this in view had already been discussed.”

Today we know already what Loewenherz was asked to submit to Eichmann, what kind of data. During those months Eichmann was actually occupied with preparations for what was called “the Madagascar Plan.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/802.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to a minute in document No. 1144. I do not want to dwell on its contents, it is about a meeting with Untersturmfuehrer Brunner on 26 June 1940, and is of interest only because it has an annex. The annex shows how these minutes were transmitted to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. The document is a covering letter with two annexes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/803.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will perhaps notice that this office transmits the minute on the same day on which  the conversation was held, when everything was absolutely fresh in the minds of the writers.

Now we move on to document No. 1145. It is a letter from Loewenherz to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration dated 4 July 1940. He writes: “Concerning the visit of the undersigned Head of the Jewish Religious Community, Dr. Josef Israel Loewenherz, to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann in the Head Office for Reich Security, Berlin, on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m.” Finally, “The attention of Mr. Brunner, of the office of the Special Plenipotentiary, has to be drawn to the need for submitting to Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann without delay the petition made in accordance with the latter’s instruction.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/804.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1146, a minute of 15 July 1940, signed by Dr. Benjamin Israel Murmelstein on behalf of the Head of the Jewish Community, about a meeting with Brunner on 13 July. Brunner requests that in future the minutes he has to receive, be submitted to him without a covering letter. This has to be understood in the light of what I have just submitted.

Presiding Judge: I do not follow that.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Until that date, it was apparently the custom to submit these minutes with covering letters. I can only assume that these annoyed Brunner, and therefore he asks for transmission of the minutes without addition.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/805.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 126, a letter from the Accused to Rademacher dated 13 May 1941.

The subject is “Letters of Recommendation for Jewish Emigrants via, or to, the Far East.” This is only submitted  in order to show the Court that Eichmann, although transferred to Berlin long ago, continues actively to control matters in Vienna as well, and not only in a general manner, as was the case with other Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/806.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us go to document No. 548. The document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(165). The Accused speaks about this document, and another one which I shall submit immediately afterwards, in his Statement, beginning on page 2038.

The subject of this correspondence is a Professor Emil Fleischmann, an academically qualified painter who lives in Vienna – his address is indicated. It is reported here that information has reached the German authorities by chance that applications have been submitted to the Minister of Culture of Afghanistan, apparently in connection with the employment of this man, or, at any rate, with his emigration from Vienna to Afghanistan.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/807.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now let us look at document No. 549, in which Eichmann, on 28 February 1941, replies to the Foreign Ministry. It was marked T/37(166). Eichmann writes:

“With reference to your letter of 18 February 1941, I  inform you that, in the meantime, I have instructed the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Vienna, that the Jews Fleischmann and Kollmann, who are mentioned in the report of the German Legation for Afghanistan of 14 December 1940, are to be deported by one of the next trains, in the framework of the deportation of Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The matter may thus be regarded as settled.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/808.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now – we made an effort to locate this Jew, Emil Fleischmann. In October 1960, we applied to the Austrian authorities, and especially to the Jewish Community in Vienna, and here, in Prosecution document No. 1240, it becomes clear what happened to Emil Fleischmann. These documents are proof of his deportation to the East. And thus he appears to this day in the Population Register in Vienna.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/809.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1147, a minute from Dr. Loewenherz about his meeting with Brunner and Ebner dated 1 February 1941. The Court will remember that Ebner was the opposite number in the Gestapo in Vienna. Brunner was Head of the Central Office, and Ebner headed the Gestapo.

The conversation deals with the deportation of 10,000 persons from Vienna to the East: “It is intended to transfer part of the Jews who are living in Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The Religious Community will be kept out of this operation, it will merely have to carry out the instructions given to it. 1,000 persons shall be dispatched with each transport.”

Paragraph 2 says: “The Central Office for Jewish Emigration is responsible for seizing the Jews who can be allotted to the individual transports, and for carrying out these transports in accordance with the orders it has received from higher authority.” There follow specific instructions for carrying out the transports.

In the second part of paragraph 6 we read: “The proceeds of the sale of these properties is earmarked for covering the costs of relocation and emigration, as well as of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.” Thus writes Loewenherz. In paragraph 9 it says: “The Jews are forbidden to leave Vienna without special permission from the Central Office for Jewish Emigration…” Meanwhile, the retraining courses are to be dispersed.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/810.

Mr. Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1634, an urgent letter dealing with the evacuation of the Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. It is of interest because it shows that the implementation of these measures remained actually concentrated in the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. This document comes from Section IVD4 and is signed by Eichmann. A copy was sent to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Potsdam, for their information.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/811.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, document No. 1148, another minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on May 14 1941. Here Brunner says again that he will have to obtain instructions from SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann with respect to payments in connection with the relocation to the Generalgouvernement.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/812.

State Attorney Bar-Or: 1149, a minute from Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 21 May 1941: Concentration of the Jews of Vienna in certain districts. This is actually the measure closest to the creation of a ghetto in Vienna that we know, the concentration of the Jews in the 2nd, 9th and 20th Districts of the city.

Presiding Judge: Which paragraph of the note is this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The last one, paragraph 6.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/813.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1150. Dr. Loewenherz and Dr. Eppstein of the Reichsvereinigung have been ordered to appear before Guenther and Suhr on 8 September 1941.

This is what they were told:

“In connection with the publication of the Police Order for the designation of the Jews…” – which I have already submitted to the Court – “the following is announced:

(1) The designation signs will be delivered to the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany on 16.9.1941 and to the Jewish Religious Community in Vienna on 17.9.1941. For the time being, one piece per person will be handed out. Until 15.10.1941 additional pieces will be delivered… At the time of distribution, the needs of individual cases have to be taken into account…”

And in paragraph 7 we read the following:

“It is pointed out expressly that exemptions from the compulsory designation are out of the question, and that therefore all applications in this matter are useless.”

And attention is drawn to the penal provisions.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/814.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This was the first joint appearance of representatives from both Vienna and Berlin before officials of the office of the Accused in Berlin.

No.1151, a meeting with Brunner: The vacating of Jewish homes, which is explained by air attacks and deportations, this time to Ghetto Lodz. The first transport is to leave on 15 October and the last one on 11 November 1941. Altogether 5,000 Jews.

“Before departure,” it goes on to say, “every Jew has to sign a power of attorney, similar to the procedure at previous transports. The property left behind by the relocated persons will be invested in their names, as was done before. The monies left behind at that time were deposited with the Laenderbank in the name of each individual by the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/815.

Are there many more documents about Austria, Mr. Bar-Or?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are more than ten. We could break off here.

Presiding Judge: It is possible to break off at any stage, is it not?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: So we shall break off here. As I said this morning, the afternoon Session is cancelled. I should also like to announce that on Friday we shall begin at 8.30 a.m. and finish earlier, at about 12.30.

The next Session is tomorrow, at 09.00 o’clock.

Previous | Index | Next

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann: Session 42, Part 7

May 31st, 2009

Presiding Judge: Where is this? In which paragraph?

State Attorney Bar-Or: On page 2. In paragraph 5 it says that in this connection, Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann declared that he had taken over the direction of the Reich Authority for Jewish Emigration, and that he was determined to let the emigration offices in Berlin, Vienna and Prague operate separately. None of these offices would be superior or subordinate to the other, Vienna would preserve its independence, and it was expected that the character of the Religious Community under public law would be assured until the end of 1940. This was, of course, a matter of special interest to Dr. Loewenherz.

In paragraph 7 he says he told Eichmann that the progress in emigration depended in large measure on the release of prisoners in protective custody in Buchenwald and Dachau. He also told him about the news arriving from there about cases of death, and that in the Community there were  unprecedented scenes of despair among the bereaved.

In reply to a question by Eichmann in this matter, Loewenherz said that since the autumn 355 deaths were reported, and that the burial of the urns was being carried out by the cemetery office of the Community, which caused feelings of shock.

Eichmann said that he did not deal directly with the concentration camps, but asked Loewenherz to inform him in writing about the matter by 27 December. Eichmann also informed Loewenherz that he would divide his time, spending two weeks every month in Berlin and the other two weeks in Vienna, Prague, and the Generalgouvernement in Poland. This is in paragraph 13.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/798.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to No. 1140. Again a memo by Dr. Loewenherz about a meeting with Eichmann on 26 January 1940. I direct your attention to paragraph V: The Jewish Community in Moravska Ostrava has informed Eichmann that they have spent 300,000 Reichsmark for setting up the camp in Nisko; Loewenherz says he was told to contact the Community in Moravska Ostrava and to demand from it, on the basis of this report, an exact summary of the expenses and the purpose for which the various sums were used.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/799.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And finally, in paragraph VII, one more question – whether the Jews who were taken to the territory of Poland would be given a chance to return to Vienna.

I go on to document No. 1411, a minute about a meeting which took place in Eichmann’s office in Berlin. Again there is mention of the release of the officials of the Community and the Palestine Office, who are still under arrest in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Eichmann asks that a request for their release be transmitted to him to Berlin (paragraph 5).

Paragraph 7 is also of interest. Loewenherz says:

“I asked for the release of Rabbi Dr. Arnold Israel Frankfurter from the Buchenwald concentration camp and stressed that he is apparently in protective custody only because of the name Frankfurter, but no doubt he has no connection with the attack on Gustloff. Eichmann gave me permission to submit a request for the release of Rabbi Dr. Frankfurter to him through the intermediary of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/800.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1142, a meeting between Loewenherz and Brunner at the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna. Brunner told him what he had heard in a telephone conversation with Eichmann about what is here called “the impending return of 152 persons from the relocation area in Poland.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/801.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1143, again a meeting of Loewenherz with Eichmann in Berlin on 3 July 1940. Loewenherz is told to submit to Eichmann, within four weeks, statistics about the Jews living in Austria, their institutions, etc. As regards the financial affairs of the Community, Dr. Loewenherz is asked to appear before Eichmann on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m. Again an urgent request is made for the release of the detainees in the concentration camp. Eichmann says that this is not possible now: “The same applies also to the further request that young detainees should be released from protective custody.”

What is said here, in paragraph 4, about migration is of some interest:

“Eichmann said that efforts in connection with emigration via the Far East, and also via Lisbon, must be continued. However, after the end of the War, a comprehensive solution of the European Jewish question would presumably have to be sought. This would be a matter of about four million Jews. Eichmann then asked whether ideas or plans with this in view had already been discussed.”

Today we know already what Loewenherz was asked to submit to Eichmann, what kind of data. During those months Eichmann was actually occupied with preparations for what was called “the Madagascar Plan.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/802.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to a minute in document No. 1144. I do not want to dwell on its contents, it is about a meeting with Untersturmfuehrer Brunner on 26 June 1940, and is of interest only because it has an annex. The annex shows how these minutes were transmitted to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. The document is a covering letter with two annexes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/803.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will perhaps notice that this office transmits the minute on the same day on which the conversation was held, when everything was absolutely fresh in the minds of the writers.

Now we move on to document No. 1145. It is a letter from Loewenherz to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration dated 4 July 1940. He writes: “Concerning the visit of the undersigned Head of the Jewish Religious Community, Dr. Josef Israel Loewenherz, to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann in the Head Office for Reich Security, Berlin, on 4 July 1940, at 11 a.m.”

Finally, “The attention of Mr. Brunner, of the office of the Special Plenipotentiary, has to be drawn to the need for submitting to Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann without delay the petition made in accordance with the latter’s instruction.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/804.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1146, a minute of 15 July 1940, signed by Dr. Benjamin Israel Murmelstein on behalf of the Head of the Jewish Community, about a meeting with Brunner on 13 July. Brunner requests that in future the minutes he has to receive, be submitted to him without a covering letter. This has to be understood in the light of what I have just submitted.

Presiding Judge: I do not follow that.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Until that date, it was apparently the custom to submit these minutes with covering letters. I can only assume that these annoyed Brunner, and therefore he asks for transmission of the minutes without addition.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/805.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 126, a letter from the Accused to Rademacher dated 13 May 1941. The subject is “Letters of Recommendation for Jewish Emigrants via, or to, the Far East.” This is only submitted in order to show the Court that Eichmann, although transferred to Berlin long ago, continues actively to control matters in Vienna as well, and not only in a general manner, as was the case with other Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/806.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Let us go to document No. 548. The document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(165). The Accused speaks about this document, and another one which I shall submit immediately afterwards, in his Statement, beginning on page 2038.

The subject of this correspondence is a Professor Emil Fleischmann, an academically qualified painter who lives in Vienna – his address is indicated. It is reported here that information has reached the German authorities by chance that applications have been submitted to the Minister of Culture of Afghanistan, apparently in connection with the employment of this man, or, at any rate, with his emigration from Vienna to Afghanistan.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/807.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now let us look at document No. 549, in which Eichmann, on 28 February 1941, replies to the Foreign Ministry. It was marked T/37(166). Eichmann writes:

“With reference to your letter of 18 February 1941, I inform you that, in the meantime, I have instructed the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, Vienna, that the Jews Fleischmann and Kollmann, who are mentioned in the report of the German Legation for Afghanistan of 14 December 1940, are to be deported by one of the next trains, in the framework of the deportation of Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The matter may thus be regarded as settled.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/808.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now – we made an effort to locate this Jew, Emil Fleischmann. In October 1960, we applied to the Austrian authorities, and especially to the Jewish Community in Vienna, and here, in Prosecution document No. 1240, it becomes clear what happened to Emil Fleischmann. These documents are proof of his deportation to the East. And thus he appears to this day in the Population Register in Vienna.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/809.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I proceed to document No. 1147, a minute from Dr. Loewenherz about his meeting with Brunner and Ebner dated 1 February 1941. The Court will remember that Ebner was the opposite number in the Gestapo in Vienna. Brunner was Head of the Central Office, and Ebner headed the Gestapo.

The conversation deals with the deportation of 10,000 persons from Vienna to the East: “It is intended to transfer part of the Jews who are living in Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. The Religious Community will be kept out of this operation, it will merely have to carry out the instructions given to it. 1,000 persons shall be dispatched with each transport.”

Paragraph 2 says: “The Central Office for Jewish Emigration is responsible for seizing the Jews who can be allotted to the individual transports, and for carrying out these transports in accordance with the orders it has received from higher authority.” There follow specific instructions for carrying out the transports.

In the second part of paragraph 6 we read: “The proceeds of the sale of these properties is earmarked for covering the costs of relocation and emigration, as well as of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.” Thus writes Loewenherz. In paragraph 9 it says: “The Jews are forbidden to leave Vienna without special permission from the Central Office for Jewish Emigration…” Meanwhile, the retraining courses are to be dispersed.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/810.

Mr. Bar-Or: I go on to document No. 1634, an urgent letter dealing with the evacuation of the Jews from Vienna to the Generalgouvernement. It is of interest because it shows that the implementation of these measures remained actually concentrated in the Central Office for Jewish Emigration. This document comes from Section IVD4 and is signed by Eichmann. A copy was sent to the Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Potsdam, for their information.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/811.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now, document No. 1148, another minute by Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on May 14 1941. Here Brunner says again that he will have to obtain instructions from SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann with respect to payments in connection with the relocation to the Generalgouvernement.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/812.

State Attorney Bar-Or: 1149, a minute from Loewenherz about a meeting with Brunner on 21 May 1941: Concentration of the Jews of Vienna in certain districts. This is actually the measure closest to the creation of a ghetto in Vienna that we know, the concentration of the Jews in the 2nd, 9th and 20th Districts of the city.

Presiding Judge: Which paragraph of the note is this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: The last one, paragraph 6.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/813.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1150. Dr. Loewenherz and Dr. Eppstein of the Reichsvereinigung have been ordered to appear before Guenther and Suhr on 8 September 1941.

This is what they were told:

“In connection with the publication of the Police Order for the designation of the Jews…” – which I have already submitted to the Court – “the following is announced:

(1) The designation signs will be delivered to the Reich Association of the Jews in Germany on 16.9.1941 and to the Jewish Religious Community in Vienna on 17.9.1941. For the time being, one piece per person will be handed out. Until 15.10.1941 additional pieces will be delivered… At the time of distribution, the needs of individual cases have to be taken into account…”

And in paragraph 7 we read the following:

“It is pointed out expressly that exemptions from the compulsory designation are out of the question, and that therefore all applications in this matter are useless.”

And attention is drawn to the penal provisions.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/814.

State Attorney Bar-Or: This was the first joint appearance of representatives from both Vienna and Berlin before officials of the office of the Accused in Berlin.

No.1151, a meeting with Brunner: The vacating of Jewish homes, which is explained by air attacks and deportations, this time to Ghetto Lodz. The first transport is to leave on 15 October and the last one on 11 November 1941. Altogether 5,000 Jews.

“Before departure,” it goes on to say, “every Jew has to sign a power of attorney, similar to the procedure at previous transports. The property left behind by the relocated persons will be invested in their names, as was done before. The monies left behind at that time were deposited with the Laenderbank in the name of each individual by the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/815.

Are there many more documents about Austria, Mr. Bar-Or?

State Attorney Bar-Or: There are more than ten. We could break off here.

Presiding Judge: It is possible to break off at any stage, is it not?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: So we shall break off here. As I said this morning, the afternoon Session is cancelled. I should also like to announce that on Friday we shall begin at 8.30 a.m. and finish earlier, at about 12.30.

The next Session is tomorrow, at 09.00 o’clock.

Previous | Index | Next