Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-049 Last-Modified: 1999/05/27 155. We shall now devote some comments to the activity of the Accused in regard to the prevention of the immigration of Jews into Palestine and the prevention of their emigration to other countries overseas. These matters are connected with the chapter of desperate attempts made by Jewish institutions and individuals to save Jewish lives from the Nazis, and the degree to which the various governments responded to these rescue efforts. This, too, is a complex chapter of history full of heartbreak, which deserves to be examined thoroughly by the historian, and this Court cannot take this task upon itself. We shall content ourselves with a statement of the facts, which were proved before us, relating to the Accused's activity in this matter. The first hint of the Accused's attitude to the question of aliyah (immigration) to Palestine is found in a comment in a report submitted by him, together with Hagen, on their joint journey to Palestine in 1937 (T/124). As will be remembered, in the report he says that the plan for the emigration of 50,000 Jews "...is out of the question, in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Reich to avoid the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine." Mention has previously been made that during this journey he was going to meet the Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, in Palestine, but at the time the meeting did not take place. During the period of the Final Solution, there were two contributory factors in German policy preventing immigration into Palestine: First, the pact signed between the Nazis and certain Arab leaders, headed by the Mufti; and second, the desire to complete the extermination of all the Jews within the area of German influence without leaving any remnant. With regard to emigration to other countries, the second factor operated and was sufficient in itself to stop emigration, not only from the Reich itself - in accordance with Himmler's order already mentioned above - but from the whole area of German influence. Deviations from this general line were permitted solely because of overriding considerations of high policy. The Accused was faithful to the official line, as will be shown from the documents which follow, in addition to those which we have already mentioned in the sections on Romania and Croatia: (a) On 11 May 1942, the Accused requests the German Foreign Ministry to prevent Jewish emigration from Romania via Hungary, Croatia and Italy "by taking appropriate measures," and the reason he gives is that: "Since, in general, Jews of means are under discussion, there is a danger that in the end only the mass of Jews without means will remain in Romania." (T/1016) (b) The Accused also fought the immigration of children into Palestine. On 3 March 1943, he seeks to prevent the immigration of one thousand children via Bulgaria and Turkey (T/1048). And again Guenther, of his Section, takes action against the immigration of four thousand children (T/950, dated 2.4.43). On 9 April 1943 Richter, from Budapest, informs the Accused (T/1050) that he has taken steps to prevent the transport of the children via Bulgaria, and he writes as follows: "The President of the Jewish Centre has been officially informed that he has to act against the departure of the transport of the Jewish children, since on our part we shall take steps to halt the transport on Bulgarian territory and direct it elsewhere." It is easy to imagine the meaning of the word "elsewhere." (c) In May 1943 (T/1055), the Accused notifies the Foreign Ministry of Himmler's attitude to the emigration of children: "1. Emigration of Jewish children is to be rejected on principle. "2. Approval would be given for the departure of five thousand Jewish children from the Eastern Occupied Territories, provided that, as a result, German prisoners receive permission to return to the Reich from abroad by way of exchange at a ratio of 1:4, that is to say, a total of twenty thousand. But it must be emphasized that the question here is not one of twenty thousand elderly Germans, but of Germans fit for begetting offspring, and under forty years of age. Moreover, the negotiations must be conducted with speed, because the time is approaching when it will no longer be possible technically to enable the five thousand Jewish children to leave the Eastern Occupied Territories, because of the implementation of our activities against the Jews. "3. In spite of what has been said in paragraph 1, as far as the need becomes apparent to agree to the departure of Jewish children from Romania or from other Balkan countries, importance is attached to the fact that this, too, should not be done without a quid pro quo, but in accordance with the procedure outlined in paragraph 2." In this connection, we shall mention an additional memorandum of the Foreign Ministry of May 1944, a year later. There it is stated (T/1258): "Secret information has come from the RSHA that five thousand Jewish children, who could be considered for departure, are still to be found only in the Lodz Ghetto. But this ghetto will be closed down shortly, in accordance with the instructions of the Reichsfuehrer-SS." (d) In Hungary, the diplomatic representatives of a number of neutral countries strove devotedly to rescue Jews, both by granting them letters of protection, and also by assisting their emigration. These humanitarian efforts are linked with the names of men of noble spirit - Raoul Wallenberg of Sweden and Lutz of Switzerland. The Accused takes action to thwart these efforts. On 24 April 1944, he writes to his Section in Berlin as follows (T/1216): "We have seen to it that the [German] Embassy here will also do everything to delay the emigration efforts, and finally, after the continued evacuation of the Jews, will stop the emigration efforts completely." And he requests, "the phrasing of the German Government's consent which had been given at the outset, with more clarity and sharpness on this point. It should be said that emigration to Palestine...does not meet with Germany's approval." (e) The consent of the Reich Government, mentioned in the previous paragraph, referred to the proposals for Jewish emigration which had come from the governments of Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. In reply to these proposals, Hitler agreed to the emigration of several thousand Hungarian Jews, on condition that Horthy should hand over the rest of the Jews of Hungary (especially the Jews of Budapest) to the Germans (see T/1214, para. 5; N/85). And here the Accused reaches the extreme limit in his struggle against the rescue efforts. Veesenmayer writes in a cable dated 25 July 1944 (T/1215, para. 2): "SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, head of the Jewish Operations Units of the SD here, has taken the stand that, as far as he knows, in no circumstances does the Reichsfuehrer agree to the emigration of Hungarian Jews to Palestine. The Jews in question are without exception important biological material, many of them veteran Zionists, whose emigration to Palestine is most undesirable. Having regard to the Fuehrer's decision, of which he had been informed, he is about to submit a report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and, if necessary, he will seek a new decision from the Fuehrer. Furthermore, it has been agreed with Eichmann that, to the extent that assent will be given to additional evacuations of Jews from Budapest, these are to be carried out as far as possible suddenly, and with such speed that the Jews in question will already have been deported before the completion of the formalities." It is also stated there that, in the event of permission being given for emigration to the West, the Accused is considering preventing the emigrants from continuing their journey, for example, by taking appropriate steps on French territory. And what has the Accused to say on this matter, which is more damning than a hundred witnesses could be? Apart from empty talk to the effect that Veesenmayer erred in his reporting of matters, he explains that the Fuehrer's order was not in writing before him, whereas Himmler's order was given to him in writing. The Attorney General refuted this explanation by pointing to the fact that the order for the total extermination of the Jews was also notified to the Accused only orally, yet all his actions were guided by it. This incident is characteristic of the Accused's attitude, not only from the point of view of the subject with which we are dealing at the moment. We shall return to this subject of his attitude in another context.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor