Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-028 Last-Modified: 1999/05/27 96. In connection with expulsions of Jews from the Reich, Austria and the Protectorate to the East and to Terezin, we wish to point out two more special phenomena: (a) The expulsion to Terezin was called technically "change of residence" (T/850), and the plundering of the property of the Jews expelled to Terezin sometimes took on a special form. Exhibit T/854, which was submitted to us, is a sample of "a Home Purchase Contract." Such contracts were made, nominally, between the Association of Jews and the candidate for expulsion. The candidate transferred his property to the Association (in the case of T/854 over 200,000 Reichsmark) and, in consideration, the Association undertook to grant him housing in Terezin, as well as food and medical care for life. The transfer of property to the Association of Jews amounted to confiscation, because, as has been stated, the accounts of the Association were blocked in favour of the RSHA, and when the Association was liquidated in 1943, final ownership was vested in the RSHA. This also applied to property of public institutions first transferred to the Association and to the huge "emigration funds" in Vienna and Prague which were fed, in the last analysis, from the property of the Jewish communities (vide, for instance, the original document T/154 at p. 44). To demonstrate the authority of the Accused's Section over the public property of German Jewry, we shall mention here also exhibit T/681, containing a list of Jewish communities to be merged in the Association of Jews, and an order dated 27 May 1941, signed by the Accused, ordering that one of the communities mentioned in the list be, in fact, so merged. All the communities mentioned are in the Province of Baden, from which the Jews were evacuated already in 1940, as will be remembered. Exhibits T/745, T/746 and N/27 testify to the transfer of the Jewish hospital in Nordrach to a Nazi institution by the name of Lebensborn in the autumn of 1942. In letter T/746 it is stated that: "...the property belongs to the Reich Association of Jews, which is subject to the authority of Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in Department IV of the RSHA, as being an institution of the Security Police." Therefore the application for the transfer of the property is addressed to the Accused. (b) The problem of foreign nationals amongst the Jews worried the planners of the extermination in no small measure. Two problems arose: (1) Which foreign nationals can be expelled? (2) Who will benefit from their property? There is considerable exchange of correspondence between the Accused's office and the German Foreign Ministry in connection with these questions, which we shall not relate in detail. The conclusion reached at the stage of the final evacuation can be seen in circular T/761, dated 5 March 1943, emanating from the Accused's office and signed by Kaltenbrunner. The circular gives a list of countries, nationality of which will not exclude the Jew from the application of the general decrees. In 1944, Hungary was also added to the list. In connection with property, the circular reads as follows: "Since it has not been possible to reach final agreement with the various foreign governments in connection with the handling of the property of Jews of foreign nationality, necessary steps should be taken in each case of evacuation of a Jew of foreign nationality, to safeguard such assets temporarily. To facilitate the administration of such property by our authorities, suitable trustees are to be appointed, insofar as this has not been done by the foreign diplomatic missions and consulates." Other foreign nationals, who were not mentioned in circular T/761, are divided into two categories: subjects of belligerent countries and subjects of neutral countries. The letter from the Accused's office, signed by him, and dated 5 July 1943, addressed to the Foreign Ministry (T/779), shows the situation and the measures taken until then: "Since there have been a number of extensions of the dates set at the time - with the implied or explicit consent of this office - for foreign governments in regard to the return of their Jewish nationals to their countries, no further consent is to be given for any more extensions or concessions. At the present stage of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question within the Reich, there are now on Reich territory only Jews who have entered into mixed marriages (Jewish-German) and a number of Jews of foreign nationality. To the extent that you have agreed to the evacuation of Jews of foreign nationality, the evacuation has since been completed, and it is to be presumed that in most cases action for their repatriation was taken by the countries concerned. In order that we may reach a complete solution in this respect, a final date must be set for the governments concerned to carry out the repatriation." There follows a list of the countries concerned, namely: Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Romania and Turkey. The letter concludes with a proposal to grant exit visas to nationals of these countries only up to 31 July 19 July 1943, and to equate their status with that of Jews of German nationality as from 3 August 1943. The German Foreign Ministry deals with this question according to its internal procedure and replies to the Accused's office. The result can be seen in the circular dated 23 September 1943 (T/784), bearing the mark of the Accused's Section, signed by Mueller, and sent to all offices affiliated to the RSHA in all territories under German rule. The German Foreign Ministry also sends copies of this circular on 12 October 1943 to its branches in the occupied territories and to embassies in the countries concerned (T/786). The gist of the circular is that all Jews who are subjects of the countries mentioned are to be evacuated within a few days. Men above the age of 14 are to be sent to Buchenwald, and women and children up to the age of 14 to Ravensbrueck. 97. Such is the pattern of evacuation from the Old Reich, Austria and the Protectorate, and the only difference - which is merely formal - between the implementation in these various parts of the Reich is that the executive instruments in the Old Reich were the various State Police authorities (Stapostellen, Stapoleitstellen), whilst in Austria and the Protectorate there were the Central Offices for Jewish Emigration in Vienna and Prague (see T/737, p. 1). The difference is not material, because all these authorities are affiliated to Department IV of the RSHA and received their instructions in regard to Jewish affairs from the Accused's Section. 98. Outside the Reich, the RSHA, and within it the Accused's Section, acted through the medium of "Advisers on Jewish Affairs" attached to Commanders of the Security Police (BdS) or to local diplomatic representatives, or within a similar administrative framework, as explained by the Accused on page 151 et seq. of his Statement T/37. In spite of the fact that these Advisers were subordinate to the BdS or to the local diplomatic representative, they received their substantive orders from headquarters in Berlin, and especially from the Accused's Section, to which they were directly subordinate. This is admitted by the Accused in his Statement, at p. 412, when asked about the status of these Advisers: "Q. ...They belonged to your Section IVB4? "A. They belonged to IVB4...as did all the others who handled Jewish affairs in the Secret State Police authorities, the Gestapostellen, if one can express it thus by way of comparison. "Q. Is it correct, that these representatives received directions for action in their territory from your Section, which was headed by you, and were later to report to you? "A. Yes." The accuracy of these facts was confirmed by the Accused when cross-examined by the Attorney General (Session 96, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx13-15). The administrative variations in the respective countries were insignificant, as the Accused says in his Statement, page 152: "Of course, all this cannot be brought to a common denominator; but - not in each country, but almost in each country - a small variation could be found in the administrative procedures." 99. The technical implementation of the evacuations in the various countries did not differ much from that in the Reich. The differences between one country and another were more connected with creating the preliminary conditions for evacuation, and these depended on various factors, for instance the extent of German domination over the country, collaboration or the contrary, the opposition of the government institutions, and the population of each country. For instance, the help extended by the Dutch people to the persecuted Jews was considerable, and yet the losses borne by Dutch Jewry were exceedingly heavy because of the complete domination by the Germans over that country. We do not intend to go into these matters at length. Here, too, we shall follow our usual plan and point out, in connection with each country, only those matters which in our opinion are required for the evaluation of the Accused's responsibility.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor