The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 37
(Part 2 of 5)

State Attorney Bar-Or: I turn to our document No. 1633. It is dated 8 September 1939, immediately after the outbreak of the War. It was signed by Heydrich and sent to all the Stapoleitstellen (Gestapo District Headquarters). Our document comes from the Stapoleitstelle in Frankfurt an der Oder. At the top of the document we can see the general marking of the Stapoleitstelle, IIB4. This was the usual marking before the establishment of the Head Office for Reich Security, and it will appear on all the documents of the Stapoleitstellen throughout the war period. There are orders here to arrest all Jews of Polish nationality, and also those who formerly held Polish citizenship.

It says: "All male Jews of Polish nationality shall be arrested. Their relatives (wives, children up to age 16) are to be registered only...any property is to be provisonally confiscated..." In paragraph 2 it says: "Jews who formerly held Polish citizenship or who came from Poland are to be arrested unobtrusively (underlined in the document) as far as possible." Finally it says: "...these Jews are to be areas of the rest of Poland which will not be occupied (in Gebieten des nicht zu besetzenden uebrigen Polen." This may be the first hint in our documents on what is going to be done to Poland, its division between a German zone and a Russian zone.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/644.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now turn to our document No. 1562. It is a letter from Lischka, the predecessor of the Accused, dated 14 October 1939. He writes to the Foreign Ministry about the emigration of Jews. I draw the attention of the Court, first of all, to the marking of the file: S-IV (II Rz). The letter belongs to the period of the establishment of the Head Office for Reich Security; we do not yet find the more permanent marking of the Accused's Section, but the marking RZ points to matters of emigration, the sense in which the Accused also used it together with IVB4 (RZ stands for Reichszentrale).

The International Red Cross has asked to deal with the emigration of Jews. Lischka says at the end of his reply: " has to be said that so far attempts by the Association of Jews in Germany to get in touch with the Red Cross have been opposed nicht durch Befassung des Roten Kreuzes mit Judenauswanderungsangelegenheiten dessen eigene Aufgaben herabzuwuerdigen" (in order not to degrade the proper tasks of the Red Cross through its engaging in matters of the emigration of Jews).

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/645.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now submit pages 2107-2109 of the Reichgesetzblatt of 30 October 1939. This is an order introducing special jurisdiction in criminal matters for members of the SS and for members of police units on special duty (Verordnung ueber eine Sondergerichtsbarkeit in Strafsachen fuer Angehoerige der SS und fuer die Angehoerigen der Polizeiverbaende bei besonderem Einsatz) dated 17 October 1939. I draw the attention of the Court in particular to paragraph 3 on the first page, which says: "For the special jurisdiction, the provisions of the Militaerstrafgesetzbuch (Military Criminal Law Book) and the Militaerstrafgerichtsordnung (Military Criminal Procedure Regulations) are to be applied.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I point to one word which the interpreter omitted, but this may cause confusion: It says here: "sinngemaess Anwendung finden" (be applied mutatis mutandis), and this is in contrast to the ordinary usage in the laws, where it says: "es ist entsprechend anzuwenden" (it is to be applied accordingly). "Entsprechend" means "exactly," according to the stipulations of the other laws. Here, however, it says only "sinngemaess," and the intention may be different in this case.

Presiding Judge: Mutatis mutandis would be a correct translation, or does mutatis mutandis mean "entsprechend"?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, this is a technical usage in German legal language. "Entsprechend" is the usual expression. "Entsprechend" is to be found both in the civil code and in the criminal code. Here, however, this expression is avoided, and it says "sinngemaess." Hence, there is wide scope for a different application.

Presiding Judge: More flexible. Have these laws been translated, Mr. Bar-Or?

State Attorney Bar-Or: No, we did not translate them. But I must say that I am grateful to the interpreter, who seems to have anticipated what I was going to say. As a matter of fact, I have not yet come to this word "sinngemaess," and I need not now read out the rest, except to say that, with respect to all other matters, the provisions of the criminal code are applicable to the members of the SS and the police units, too.

Another few words only about Section 5; this is a matter of some importance. The personnel of the SS and of the police who were under Himmler were not brought before military courts in cases of criminal offences committed in the course of duty; in accordance with Section 5 here, they were brought before SS-Justizfuehrer (SS Judicial Leaders), who belonged, in fact, to a special Hauptamt (Head Office) in the hierarchy of the SS and dealt only with matters pertaining to SS jurisdiction. Immediately hereafter, the Court will find the regulations for implementation of this law.

These are actually of no particular importance for our case, except for the fact that the SS had a special code for matters of honour (Ehrenkodex). With regard to such matters, which were actually not of a criminal character, but which could be said to contravene the "Order" of the SS and its special arrangements, the provisions of the Military Criminal Code did not apply; special pertinent regulations were made for that. This may also be one of the reasons why it says here "sinngemaess." This is a part of the Military Criminal Code which really did not apply at all to the members of the SS.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/646.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I turn to document No. 1588, which we obtained as part of the files of the Geheime Staatspolizeistelle Leipzig (Gestapo Regional Headquarters Leipzig). It is the Amtseinteilung (organization chart) of the RSHA (Head Office for Reich Security), the first one to be drawn up, apparently on 15 February 1940, at any rate the first one we could find. Under No. D4 there appears SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann with two functions: "Auswanderung und Raeumung" (Emigration and Evacuation). We knew of course about Auswanderung, which he now apparently transferred to IVD4. The innovation here is Raeumung (evacuation). In IVD4 he now controls these two matters. Auswanderung

203and Raeumung. It may be relevant to draw the attention of the Court also to IVD3 - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schroeder, in charge of "Minderheiten, Vertrauensstellen, Juden" (Minorities, Positions of Trust, Jews).

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/647.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court, I now turn to document No. 297. It is a deposition by Rabbi Dr. Serebrenik. Originally from Vienna, he became Chief Rabbi of Luxembourg. In this capacity, he was in charge of Jewish affairs until the expulsion of the Jews of Luxembourg to the East. In his deposition he describes, in concentrated form, the developments in Luxembourg, his own activities, and, most important perhaps, his meeting with the Accused, together with Eppstein, Stahl, and the other representatives of the Reichsvereinigung in Berlin. He now lives in the United States. We obtained his deposition when he was here by chance.

I should like to say at once that I am not submitting this declaration in order that it should serve as direct evidence against the Accused, i.e., what is here alleged to have been said by the Accused need not serve as evidence on the basis of this deposition. I mainly wish to show the following by submitting the deposition: Figures about the Jewish community of Luxembourg, the brief period of military rule, the entry of the Gestapo into Luxembourg, the transformation of Luxembourg into one of the regular districts of the network of Gestapoleitstellen, and the connection of the author of the deposition with the Reichsvereinigung, as shown by the very fact that he went to see Eichmann together with its representatives.

We know what was said at that meeting from another source, from Dr. Loewenherz, so for this purpose I do not need, and should not like to use, the deposition by the Chief Rabbi. But it is, of course, relevant to matters concerning the Jews of Luxembourg. I hope it will be possible to waive the presence of the witness for the purpose of proving these facts. I ask you to accept the deposition under your authority under paragraph 15.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your position?

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the proposed use of the document.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 26

We accept the deposition of Rabbi Serebrenik, with the reservations mentioned by Mr. Bar-Or.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The author of the deposition says that he is now a resident of the United States of America living in New York. He was born in Vienna in 1902 and began to serve as Chief Rabbi of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on 11 January 1929. He relates how, on 10 May 1940, the German army invaded Luxembourg and occupied the country within a few hours. Then he says that, from 17 May until 17 August 1940, the country was under German military rule. On the day of the invasion, there were a little over 5,000 Jews in the whole of Luxembourg.

On page 2 he says: "General Reichenau promised that no harm would come to the Jews and that freedom of worship was assured. On the other hand he told me that he held me responsible for the good conduct of my community. On 7 August 1940, the German military government was replaced by a civilian government under a Chief of Civilian Administration (Chef der Zivilverwaltung), Gauleiter Gustav Simon, who was hanged as a war criminal after the War. Simon was at first only Gauleiter of Luxembourg. Together with Simon there also arrived the German police authorities. The Head of the Green Police, which corresponded to the German Schupo was Polizeihauptmann Von Hengst, and the Head of the Security Police was Obersturmbannfuehrer Noelle." At the end of the page he says:

"Already on Yom Kippur, it was intended to deport all the Jews of Luxembourg, but the decree was cancelled after the intervention of the German army, especially Freiherr von Huene-Horningen...I knew about Eichmann's presence in Austria, but only in 1940, in connection with the plan to deport the community of Luxembourg to Poland, did I learn from Huene-Horningen that Eichmann was the Hauptreferent (chief expert) on the question of the Jews in the whole German Reich."
On page 4 he says:
"After the German occupation I was in Berlin several times, with the permission of the German authorities, for contact with Dr. Eppstein of the Reichsvereinigung. I want to add that I always travelled alone, without police escort. On 20 March 1941, I was called to Rauner, the head of the Jewish section, and he informed me that on 23 March, I would have to go to Berlin with two Gestapo men, in order to appear before Eichmann. One of the two Gestapo men was Schmalz. I should like to point out that this Schmalz did not take part in violent action against Jews as far as I know."
On page 5 he describes his appearance in Eichmann's office. The subject was the speeding up of the emigration of the Jews from Luxembourg. He returned to Luxembourg on 26 May 1941, and in the end he went to Portugal, after the Gestapo had organized an attack on him by the Nazis.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/648.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour. Now I come to document No. 916. This is a stenographic record of a lecture by the last president of the Jewish Community of Berlin, Moritz Henschel, on 13 September 1946, recorded by Dr. Ball-Kaduri. Moritz Henschel died very shortly afterwards, in 1947, in Tel Aviv. At the beginning of the document, there is a declaration by Dr. Ball-Kaduri in which he testifies that he recorded it stenographically word by word.

Presiding Judge: Who is the person who did the recording?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Dr. Ball-Kaduri.

Presiding Judge: And how did he come to make this record?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He is a man about whom I know only two things. According to documents before me, he was interested in recording memoirs and historical facts, mainly in connection with the Jews of Central Europe, immediately after the War. And he put himself at the disposal of Yad Vashem when it began to function, and through Yad Vashem we heard about this and received these documents. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Ball-Kaduri for these notes. On a number of important chapters they constitute today the only record and the only proof about some most important events.

As I said, Moritz Henschel has died. This record represents his memoirs about the last years of the Jewish community in Berlin, from 1940, in fact, until the summer of 1943, when he was sent, as almost the last person, to Theresienstadt by the Germans. He is one of the few Jewish leaders in Central Europe who was left untouched. Somehow he survived Theresienstadt. In the end he found his way to Palestine via an American displaced persons' camp, and here he died, to our regret, shortly afterwards. The person who took these notes also mentions the Accused in his record.

It seems to me that here it is more in the interest of the Accused than in my own that the Court should use its special authority, because I think that here Mr. Henschel is right, and not Dr. Loewenherz. In the report by Dr. Loewenherz, with which the Court is already familiar, and to which I shall still have to revert, there are certain references to a meeting in the office of the Accused which took place in 1942, I think, immediately after the sabotage - if it can be called that - in the exhibition "Das rote Paradies" (The Red Paradise).

Dr. Loewenherz testifies about some very unpleasant remarks by the Accused, whereas Mr. Henschel ascribes these remarks to Mueller. I must say, I have not much doubt that two matters were confused here. It seems to me that Henschel is right, and that what he reports was said by Mueller, and that immediately after that a meeting with Eichmann took place. In this way, the two testimonies can be reconciled. But in any case, what is said here, in our document No. 916, on this point, is especially favourable to the Accused, and I beg to draw the attention of the Court to this. I ask you to accept the document.

Presiding Judge: You say that Moritz Henschel was the last president of the Jewish Community in Berlin?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: And he died in 1947?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, Your Honour, in Tel Aviv.

Presiding Judge: And you say that this was written down in 1946?

State Attorney Bar-Or: What he said was taken down from a lecture given in Tel Aviv on 13 September 1946. It was recorded stenographically by Dr. Ball-Kaduri. So it says here.

Presiding Judge: You say, Sir, that you have a declaration about that from Dr. Ball-Kaduri?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, it is attached to the document. I can submit it to the Court.

Presiding Judge: No. I understand that there is a description of the events there which is more favourable to the Accused than the report by Dr. Loewenherz about this exhibition.

State Attorney Bar-Or: About the meeting which took place in the Head Office for Reich Security after the "Red Paradise" exhibition.

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the submission of the document. It is useful to the Accused.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 27

We accept as evidence the lecture by the late Moritz Henschel as recorded by Dr. Ball-Kaduri.

This will be marked T/649.

[ 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.