Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-054-07
Last-Modified: 1999/06/04

Attorney General: That is possible.

Presiding Judge: Perhaps Dr. Servatius will define his final
position before us on the admissibility of the part that is
ready, without waiting for that single film.

Attorney General: We shall be able to arrange a showing of
the film to Dr. Servatius at any time convenient to him.

Dr. Servatius:  As far as I am concerned the narrow size
reel will be sufficient for this viewing, and there will be
no need to enlarge it. But with regard to the time of
showing, I would request you not to deprive me of the little
time available to me for the work of the defence, for the
showing of the films. Otherwise I shall really not be able
to carry on my duties in the time allotted to me.

Presiding Judge: How much time will all the films take?

Attorney General: Not more than one hour. But we are not
going to show them all at once, but section by section,
which will also be authenticated section by section.

Presiding Judge: Would you not be able to screen this film,
which apparently has to be converted to another size, on
another projector?

Attorney General: This can be done in a cinema hall, because
the machines are built into their cabins. These are not
machines that can easily be moved around. Nevertheless we
shall make all the arrangements that are possible.

Presiding Judge: This means that screening this particular
film will not involve you in expense before it is converted?

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: So let us raise this matter again on
Tuesday morning and by then you will have been able to show
the films to Dr. Servatius, and in the meantime you will be
able to show us the references in the law reports.

Attorney General: Of course, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius:  Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume
that it would be desirable that the Accused should be
present when the films are screened for inspection, for he
would be in a better position than I to identify the
uniforms.

Attorney General: This is feasible in regard to the
screening of those films which can be shown here on the wall
of this court-room, but, would not be practicable in the
case of the film which would have to be shown in a cinema
hall.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, will you be satisfied with
that?

Dr. Servatius:  As far as I am concerned, this is likely to
be sufficient.

Attorney General: We shall see to it that these films are
shown to Defence Counsel here in this hall in the presence
of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Not during the course of a session.

Attorney General: No, not when a Session is in progress.

Presiding Judge: What do we have next?

State Attorney Bach:  First, I should like to submit now the
original affidavit of Dr. Petoe which I did not have
previously. It is document No. 7.

I now have, Your Honour, a number of reports in the
Hungarian language, together with a copy of the Hebrew
translation. These documents are contained in that same
collection which I submitted to the Court earlier. I would
suggest that perhaps the Court could return this volume to
us at a later stage and then we would be able to mark the
appropriate exhibit number on each page.

Presiding Judge: That was report T/1154.

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Later on.  Mr. Bodenheimer, please give
this to Mr. Bach so that he may mark the extracts submitted
by him.

State Attorney Bach:  The next document is No. 1314. These
are the minutes of a meeting which took place in the office
of the Mayor in the capital of the Nagybanya Province.
Actually the only significance here is in what is said at
the end of the second paragraph of the translation. The
meeting took place on 26 April 1944, and at the bottom of
the second page, it says who participated in this meeting.
Here there is the name of the Hungarian police officer, and
after that an officer of the Hungarian gendarmerie, and on
the last page appears SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit.

Dr. Servatius:  I have before me only the Hungarian report
and since we are here dealing with this important Hungarian
matter I would ask to be given a German translation.

State Attorney Bach:  We supplied the German translation of
all these reports to Mr. Wechtenbruch, Defence Counsel's
assistant. Perhaps they are not at the moment in Dr.
Servatius' file, but they were translated and given to him.

Dr. Servatius:  It is quite possible that they are in my
files, but I do not have them here. I shall check this.
Consequently I do not wish to voice my reservations for the
time being.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, if Dr. Servatius does not find
it - please give him another copy of the German translation.

State Attorney Bach:  Certainly.

[The Accused passes a document to Dr. Servatius].

Dr. Servatius:  Meanwhile I have received it from the
Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1158.

State Attorney Bach:  Prosecution document No. 1315 is a
report by the officer Ferenczy, of whom we have already
heard, a liaison officer of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie
attached to the German security police. Here he submits a
report from Kolozvar dated 3 May 1944. He speaks here of
camps for the concentration of Jews in various areas, and
amongst them Kolozva, and he says:

     "In these localities and also in the areas annexed to
     them, representatives of the local authorities and
     officers of the police were conducting the operations
     of rounding up the Jews in conjunction with a committee
     consisting of officers of the headquarters of the
     gendarmerie and in cooperation with the German
     consultative bodies who were sent to them."

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1159.

State Attorney Bach:  The following document is Prosecution
document No. 6316. Once again, it is a report of the same
Ferenczy from Kolozvar, this time dated 9 May 1944. Here he
gives details of the number of Jews in the various assembly
camps. And in paragraph 3 of the report he says that "The
joint Hungarian-German committee has drawn up the plan for
deporting the Jews. The deportations will begin on the 15th
and will end on 11th June."

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1160.

State Attorney Bach:  The next document, Your Honours, is
Prosecution document No. 1317. Once again it is a report by
the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, dated 10 May 1944. Once
again it is a report on the number of Jews in the camps, and
thereafter, on the second page of the translation, he
writes:

     "The local commander of the German Security Police -
     who relied on an agreement with the Honved Ministry -
     this morning received a telephonic instruction from the
     headquarters in Budapest, to the effect that in those
     areas in which Jews were being rounded up, they would
     not be called up for labour services. In view of the
     fact that for men of the labour services there exist
     two conflicting orders, I have given orders - pending
     final instructions - to forbid the serving of calling
     up notices in the camps."

This refers to the Hungarian labour service, to which the
Jews in the end were eager to be summoned. And here,
therefore, an order is given by the commander of the
representative of the Security Police and the SD in Kolozvar
to stop serving out those call-up orders.

Judge Halevi:  Kolozsvar - is that Cluj?

State Attorney Bach:  Yes.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1161.

State Attorney Bach:  The following document is No. 1318.
This is a meeting that, again, took place in the office of
the Mayor of the district capital, Nagybanya, and here there
is a discussion about a meeting that had been held in
Munkacs - a place we have heard about from one of the
witnesses. It says here that it was a meeting in which
Ferenczy participated, for the one side, and for the German
side a Gestapo officer, Dr. Marton Zoeldi, took part. The
subject of the discussion is stated: Deportation of the Jews
- which would begin on 14 May - and the nationality of those
Jews whom it was possible to deport. Thereafter it says that
110 trains would transport the Jews and that they would be
marked "D.A. Umsiedler" (persons resettled).

Presiding Judge: One hundred and ten trains?

State Attorney Bach:  One hundred and ten trains. The mark
"D.A. Umsiedler," "the transfer of German labourers, 40 "G"
freight-cars, 70 persons in each one together with their
effects. The commander at the place of loading, who is to be
a German officer or a Hungarian officer of the gendarmerie,
is to request the railway station-master for the freight-
cars five hours before loading and he is further to request
him to fix a place for loading at some distance from the
station itself.

Presiding Judge: This was for co-ordination with the
Hungarians, but there is no mention of Slovakians here.

State Attorney Bach:  No, here only Hungarians are
mentioned.

Presiding Judge: This was on the question of transportation,
is that not so?

State Attorney Bach:  Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi:  This was preceded by some agreement with the
Slovakian railway management by Hungary, Slovakia and
Germany. But here they have already reached the stage of
implementation, assuming that they have 110 freight-cars and
all that.

State Attorney Bach:  Yes, Your Honour. That is how I
understand this report. I would draw attention to what
appears on page 2. Here it says: "Sick people and their
relatives will travel on the last train." And at the end of
the page it says: "In case of necessity it will also be
possible to load 100 people into one car. They can be packed
in like herrings, for the Germans need strong people. Anyone
who cannot stand up to it, will fall. Ladies of fashion are
not needed there, in Germany."

Presiding Judge: By "herrings" do you refer to salted fish?
Why was this translation used?

State Attorney Bach:  This is the way it has been
translated. At the end it states that Ferenczy said:

"Only the most essential workers, doctors, should remain,
with their families. The German advisor will determine who
they are. They are doing this expertly, they have the know-
how, and consequently the selection is also their task."

Presiding Judge: Which region is referred to here? Is it the
whole of Hungary?

State Attorney Bach:  I think that this meeting - I also
conclude this from the number of trains - dealt in fact with
all the provincial towns.

Judge Halevi:  This works out exactly at the total of
330,000 Jews which the Witness Freudiger:  mentioned. 110
times 3,000 is 330,000.

State Attorney Bach:  Later on we shall submit comprehensive
reports from both the German and the Hungarian sides on the
total number of Jews deported, when they were deported and
in what stages.

Judge Halevi:  At the first stage the reference was to
330,000 - and that is it.

State Attorney Bach:  Yes, Your Honour. It corresponds
exactly.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1162.

State Attorney Bach:  The next document is our document No.
1319. Again it is a report of Ferenczy, dated 29 May 1944.
The report was written in Munkacs. Here, in paragraph 2, it
says:

     "The German Security Police suggests, and even
     expresses its wish, that the Jews being sent on the
     transports should take with them food for the duration
     of the journey - for at least five days. The German
     Security Police based this attitude on its experience
     that they would be able to speed up the deportation of
     the Jews who had thus far been assembled, if the
     concentration of the Jews did not extend over large
     areas, but that they should be carried out
     simultaneously in small areas and there with
     appropriate forces, and they should be rounded up in
     the shortest possible time and in the most determined
     manner and they should be transferred to camps and
     their deportation should start immediately; forces of
     the German Security Police led by German officers
     should take upon themselves the control over the camps
     and also the technical implementation of future
     loadings. External guarding and security of the camps
     would be carried out by Hungarian executive
     authorities, under their own command. This arrangement
     was necessary owing to the relations of command which
     we discovered in the assembly camp at Ungvar."

He describes here an incident where the deputy town clerk
allowed prominent Jews to leave the camp, and under such
circumstances a number of prominent Jews and property owners
were enabled to escape. In consequence of this action it was
decided to transfer the command to the Germans.

I also draw the Court's attention to paragraph 6. Here it
says:

     "It is the wish of the German Security Police, for
     tactical reasons, that the meetings in the Ministry of
     the Interior should take place only a few days before
     the commencement of the cleansing operation in a
     particular region, and only a very limited circle
     should participate." In paragraph 7 it says:

"The branches of the German Security Police have received
orders to the effect that, contrary to the practice that has
existed hitherto, sick people, the aged and their relatives
must be the first to be dispatched with each transport."
Thereafter it mentions the labour service and says that
there still are call-up notices for labour service sent to a
few Jews, despite the German prohibition. This is stated in
paragraph 8. At the end it says: "The German Security Police
arrested these members of the labour service at Ungvar on 27
May, confiscated the aforementioned call-up orders and
delivered them to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann." In
paragraph 10 it mentions the suicide of Jews referred to in
the report.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1163.

Judge Halevi:  In the previous document it states:
"Dated..." and the actual date on which the meeting at
Munkacs took place is not mentioned.

State Attorney Bach:  Is Your Honour referring to document
No. 1318?

Judge Halevi:  Yes.

State Attorney Bach:  I understand that it was the month of
May. As the Court can see, the date is blurred. If the Court
will look at the original document, it will see that a
rubber stamp was placed exactly on the spot, and hence it is
difficult to read the precise date. At any rate it is clear
that it was in the month of May, and that the subject was:
Deportations which are to begin on 14 May. It therefore must
have been between the 1st and the 14th of May.

Interpreter: This mark is the Roman numeral V and there is
no doubt that the word "HO" indicates the month May.

Presiding Judge: Can you not decipher more than that?

Translator  Since there is a stamp here, it is impossible to
read anything more. The numbers 94 appear here - that is to
say it was in the year 1944.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor