The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 43
(Part 4 of 7)

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 929 is signed by Suhr from the Department of the Accused, IVB4b. It is addressed to the Foreign Ministry, attention Counsellor of Legation Dr. Klingenfuss. It deals with Jews of Hungarian nationality. I direct your attention only to the last paragraph of this letter. He refers here to his own letter IVB4b of 10 July 1942, and says that efforts must be made to reach an agreement with the Hungarian Government for Jewish property to be dealt with in accordance with the territorial principle.

The Court will see later on that the meaning of this principle was to leave the Jewish property in the hands of the government from whose territory the Jew was deported in the course of the extermination campaign. The property of a Hungarian Jew in Germany belongs to the Germans; that of a Hungarian Jew in Hungary - to the Hungarians. That this was not always adhered to is another matter, but this was the principle agreed on with the governments, and it was called Territorialprinzip (territorial principle).

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 1292, a letter from the Gestapo Regional Headquarters Nuremberg- Fuerth of 26 August 1942, about the emigration of Jews to Theresienstadt on 10 and 23 September 1942. It says that these Jews have to be made to sign special forms, and a sample of this order is attached. The text of the order is now, I believe, clear to the Court. It says here exactly what was already described in earlier orders. Reference is made to laws concerning the forfeiture of Communist property, of property of enemies of the Reich, etc., and on this basis a legal cover, so to speak, is given to the forfeiture of the property of the deported - this time to Theresienstadt.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1027, an urgent letter which leaves Berlin on 4 September 1942. The letterhead is "Reich Minister of the Interior," and full markings must of course be added: Pol. S. IVB4b. The letter goes to all Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Germany, to Vienna, Metz, Prague, Strassburg, Marburg (in Untersteiermark, the part that was taken from Yugoslavia), Luxembourg. It is signed by Mueller and deals with police orders (which I already submitted) published in the Reich Official Gazette, concerning the designation of the Jews, and it says that Jews in the area of the Gestapo offices mentioned who hold Bulgarian nationality have to be included in the marking procedure.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.

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

"In reply to the above-mentioned report, I advise you that there are no objections to including about twelve suitable Jews aged 23 to 45" - i.e., far below the age limit of 65 - "in the transport to Theresienstadt, for the purpose of looking after the sick and the infirm, on condition that they otherwise meet the guidelines for the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt. Jews who, according to the guidelines, are ineligible for evacuation to the East or relocation to Theresienstadt, respectively, must, on principle, not be deported even when they volunteer for inclusion or apply for it. I request, therefore, to leave the Jew Kurt Israel Fels behind. As for the decision in the case of the Jewess Gertrud Sara Hahn, I leave this to your discretion. The parents may be taken to Theresienstadt later..."
The telegram is signed: Head Office for Reich Security IVB4a - Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.

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

Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.

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

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

Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.

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

Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour. The differences here in this draft, maybe in document T/271 we shall see the letter sent out in III. This is the letter which is at this moment in its final form before the Court. Here there are several letters. What is No. 788 here, the exhibit before the Court, this is the letter sent out, III. We see the same addresses to which it was to go, we also find the subject: "Treatment of Jews of Foreign Nationality in the Government General and the Occupied Areas of the East." This is the very subject of letter No. 788. The text is not very different. There is, in fact, mention here of the same sixteen countries, and the text as sent follows this draft.

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

Secretary: This has already been submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This document is also signed by Dr. Kaltenbrunner, also under the heading Der Reichsminister des Inneren (the Reich Minister of the Interior), Pol. S IVB4b, also on 5 March 1943. While the previous one went to the Security Police authorities mainly in the East, here the same subject is repeated, and it goes to the Centre and the West. The difference is, as the Court will see immediately, that previously sixteen countries were mentioned, whereas here only fifteen countries appear. Here Jews of Soviet nationality are accorded rights or standing similar to all those who did receive exemption. This did not accord with what was agreed or with what was proposed by the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry did not know that on the basis of this draft two circular letters would be sent out, one in this direction and one in that, therefore there is now an additional correspondence.

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

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

Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a matter connected with it. Here the finished product actually emerges. The finished product will be Bergen-Belsen. Von Thadden's letter to Eichmann is dated 2 March 1943. It refers to Eichmann's letter dealing with Jews in the areas of Nazi domination who hold Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian and Soviet-Russian nationality. The question is whether they may be included in the general measures against the Jews. The Foreign Ministry asks to retain about 30,000 Jews who might be used for the purpose of exchange. The interesting thing here is one sentence by von Thadden which says - at the end of the first page: "In view of the relations between the hostile powers among themselves, it is recommended to make up the main contingent of Jews to be retained, in the first instance, of Dutch, Belgian and Norwegian nations of the Jewish race."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.

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

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

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

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

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.