The first document is our No. 719, which was also shown to
the Accused and was marked No. T/37(194). It is a letter
from the Dresdner Bank and the subject is the seizure and
management of the Jewish property. There is mention of one
of the assistants of the Accused, Dr. Rajakowitsch, who, it
says here, will apparently not be authorized to set up an
organization according to the Prague model in Holland. This
will apparently not be done, but, they say, they have
learned that Dr. Rajakowitsch will serve on the governing
body of the firm which is to administer the Jewish property.
Dr. Rajakowitsch is one of the persons sent to the
Netherlands by the Accused, and he dealt with all Jewish
affairs in the office of the representative of the Accused
in the Netherlands.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1255.
Here a man named Stiller writes to the Reich Commissioner
for Internal Affairs at the office of Seyss-Inquart, named
Presiding Judge: Seyss-Inquart was the Protector?
State Attorney Bach: He was the Reich Commissioner for the
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/526.
State Attorney Bach: The subject here is marriage with
Jews. I shall read one very important, very typical
passage: “The keenest advocate for the intention to tighten
the regulations for protecting the blood, especially to
equate half-Jews in general with the Jews, is said to be
Oberregierungsrat (Senior Government Councillor) Reischauer
of the Party Secretariat in Munich…” (The Accused also
mentioned this man in his statement, as we shall see at a
later stage.) This is the man who made this proposal. The
idea that half-Jews should also be regarded as Jews met with
opposition from the German army and even from Hitler,
because the result was that quarter-Jews, too, had to be
excluded from the army, and Keitel was afraid that thousands
of soldiers were likely to find themselves in this
unpleasant situation, so that they would be regarded as
Jews. Hence the objection.
There is an addendum to the report:
“Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann at the Head Office for
Reich Security is said to work in close cooperation
with Oberregierungsrat Reischauer. Eichmann has set up
the central emigration offices in Vienna and Prague and
directed the deportation of Jews from Stettin, etc., to
the Generalgouvernement. Eichmann is said to be very
keen on the new regulations, although his manner is
Incidentally, this is not the only document we shall submit
from which it appears that on certain points the Accused
took a more extreme position than the Fuehrer himself.
Judge Halevi: Who writes this and to whom?
State Attorney Bach: One of the assistants of Wimmer writes
it, a man by the name of Stiller. He writes this to Wimmer.
(‘Wimmer’ is written by hand in the margin on the first
page.) Wimmer was the Commissioner General for Internal
Affairs with Seyss-Inquart. Wimmer was a German official
under Seyss-Inquart and was called Commissioner General for
Internal Affairs, i.e., he was responsible for internal
affairs in Holland, and he received this report from
Stiller, one of his assistants.
Judge Halevi: Stiller writes this from Holland?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, they were both in The Hague.
Your Honours, our No. 617, T/37(195). Again one of those
things, as somebody once remarked, which say little but say
it all. In the NSB there were – the NSB was the Dutch
fascist party before the German entry, its name was
Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging (National Socialist
Movement of the Netherlands). There were some five or six
Jews who were Fascists and members of that party. When the
Germans invaded Holland – that was in December 1941 –
Harster writes the following – Harster was the Commander of
the Security Police in Holland, i.e., he held the same
position in Holland that Knochen in France. Harster writes
the following note: There were several Jews in this party,
he says, they were of course now expelled from the National
Socialist organization, but he adds nevertheless that the
Reich Commissioner and the ranking officers of the SS do not
think it desirable to treat these in the same way as the
other Jews. He therefore proposed that they might perhaps
be allowed to leave for abroad. He adds that it may perhaps
be possible to use these Jews for some intelligence purpose
Judge Halevi: It says “V-Mann.”
State Attorney Bach: Yes, V-Mann, that is to say that these
Jews may perhaps still serve some purpose.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/527.
State Attorney Bach: And now the reply, which is typical,
our No. 618. Rajakowitsch, the representative of the
“I discussed the note from the BdS with SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. SS O’Stubaf Eichmann is
of the opinion, in principle, that in the present cases
exceptional emigration cannot be approved. However,
NSB Jews may be delayed far enough in the evacuation to
let their turn come last. By that time the evacuation
process should have become so well established that
difficulties are no longer to be expected.”
I should like to stress that in Harster’s letter he said
that the deportation of these Jews would not make a good
impression also on the members of the Dutch Nazi party. He
(Rajakowitsch) says that one should wait for the last train,
by then people would have got used to it, the matter would
make no impression then, and these Jews could then be
deported. And, indeed, at the end there is a note that
these Jews were in fact deported to Theresienstadt.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/528.
State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 1359, a
telegram from Zoepf. Zoepf was Eichmann’s chief
Presiding Judge: That is the Dannecker of the Netherlands?
State Attorney Bach: The Dannecker of the Netherlands,
exactly, Your Honour. He writes to the Head Office for
Reich Security, Department IV in Berlin. He reports on the
difficulties connected with the designating of the Jews and
relates that, in the beginning, the Dutch citizens felt that
this was an insult to the whole Dutch nation. During the
first days, he says, the Dutch people expressed their
sympathy for the Jews by themselves putting on a real or
imitation Star of David. Following energetic measures
against such persons, and against all the Jews who did not
wear the Star of David, matters have recently quietened down
somewhat. Then he speaks about the night curfew imposed on
the Jews, about the marking of food cards which had been
introduced, and about the prohibition to exercise certain
Presiding Judge: This will be T/529.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1243. In
reply to a telegram from IVB4 which we have already
submitted, and with reference to a telephone conversation
with Brussels, Rajakowitsch writes:
“According to the present situation it cannot be
expected that the expatriation order for Jews of Dutch
nationality will come into force in the foreseeable
future. The evacuation here has also included Jews of
Dutch nationality and will be continued, unless other
obstacles arise, even though the order is not yet in
force. On our part there are therefore no objections
to evacuating Jews of Dutch nationality, too, from your
area of command.”
This instruction came from Eichmann, who wanted to
coordinate with Holland and France the revocation of the
citizenship of Dutch and French Jews residing in Belgium,
so that his people in Belgium might be able to deport these
Jews, and in order to make a good impression on the French.
And Rajakowitsch says here that there is no problem, even
without such an order they are expelling the Dutch Jews.
For the time being there are no problems.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/530.
State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 1496. It is
a letter from Rauter, who was the Higher SS and Police
Leader (Hoeherer-SS-und Polizeifuehrer).
Judge Halevi: What is the difference between Hoehere SS and
State Attorney Bach: There were actually three bodies here:
The Higher SS and Police Leader who represented the
Reichsfueehrer in the countries concerned. He was, for
instance, the judge in SS matters, having competence over SS
personnel; he was in charge of all SS personnel from the
administrative point of view; as a rule, he had no real
executive functions; he was, as it were, Himmler’s personal
representative on the spot. The BdS was the local
representative of the Chief of the Security Police
(Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei), i.e. just as Rauter
represented Himmler, Harster represented Heydrich, and later
Kaltenbrunner. Finally, the Referent (Specialist) Zoepf, or
Dannecker – they were the representatives of Eichmann in
matters concerning the Jews.
Judge Halevi: And what was the title of Zoepf and people
like him, and their function?
State Attorney Bach: The title was always Referent
(Specialist) for Jewish Questions attached to the BdS. In
France the position corresponding to that of Rauter was held
by a man called Oberg. He was the Senior SS and Police
Commander in Paris and is mentioned in some of the documents
we submitted yesterday. Rauter reports, of course, to
Himmler; that was the address for him.
Rauter describes first of all the deportation to Mauthausen,
about which we have already heard, and says: “So far we have
deported altogether 20,000 Jews to Auschwitz, including
those sent to Mauthausen as punishment,” but the figure may
And then he describes a special feature, a special trick
used in Holland. The Jews were put into work camps where
they were not maltreated, so that they would have no reason
to escape from these; on the contrary, they would escape
into these camps (Werkveruimingslager). In this way, he
thinks, when the full number of Jews will be reached in
those camps, it will be possible to seize them, and
afterwards their families also. As he puts it, the camps
will be occupied “schlagartig” (at one stroke) and the Jews
And here follows a sentence which is shocking to this day,
not only for the Jews of Holland: “Am 15. Oktober wird das
Judentum in Holland fuer vogelfrei erklaert (on 15 October
the Jews of Holland will be declared outlawed).” Every Jew
found in any place in Holland will be put into the camps for
Jews. Thus no Jew who is not especially privileged will be
able to show his face in Holland any more.” Then he speaks
And let me call attention to this: The letter reached
Himmler, and on the first page Himmler wrote in his own
hand: “Sehr gut” (very good) – over his well-known
signature, at the top of the first page.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/531.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 355. Here we
present a number of official confirmations issued by the
Zentralstelle fuer Juedische Auswanderung (Central Office
for Jewish Emigration) in Amsterdam about which the witness
Dr. Melkman testified this morning. We see here that, over
the signature of Aus der Fuenten, various permits are
issued. It goes without saying that Aus der Fuenten was,
concurrently with his other activities, of course indirectly
also subordinated to the Accused. He received his
instructions through Zoepf. Incidentally, on the fifth of
these documents there is a confirmation, on which the
signature of Aus der Fuenten appears, dated 22 January 1943,
and it is confirmed here that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Aus der
Fuenten received certain articles, including money, unpaid
wages, “Stammkarten des Pflegeper-sonals, Rechenmaschine und
zwei Schreibmaschinen (Registration cards of the nursing
staff, a calculating machine and two typewriters),” etc.
The date was that of the Apeldoorn Bos incident about which
the witness testified, and this proves that Aus der Fuenten
carried out this operation, and that he got in touch with
the Accused afterwards, and the Accused put the train at his
disposal which transported those mental patients to
Auschwitz. It is obvious from the date and also from the
contents of the document that Aus der Fuenten’s confirmation
refers to that incident.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/532.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 339. The
subject here is a Jew named Kuttner, who was sent to
Mauthausen and was shot there “while escaping,” as it says
here. And it goes on: “In accordance with instructions from
the BdS and in coordination with Section IVB4, the members
of the family of the deceased, insofar as they are full
Jews, have now to be sent to Westerbork Camp, in order to be
utilized for work in the East.”
Not only is the Jew deported and killed, now they want
immediately to arrest his whole family and to send it to the
East right away. Incidentally, this document was also given
our No. T/37(135).
Presiding Judge: What is the reason for this individual
treatment, if it can be put this way, in October 1942, which
was already quite late?
State Attorney Bach: Here we see again, as in France where
we submitted a similar document, that, in order to prevent
Greuelhetze (atrocity propaganda), when a man had been
taken, his family was also taken. In this case, a Jew had
been killed in Mauthausen, and it was not thought desirable
that the family should remain behind and tell all kinds of
stories, so they have to be arrested and deported quickly.
Or perhaps something simply happened with the man and they
want to punish the family. Or maybe, as one of the
witnesses testified, I think Dr. Wells testified on such
cases, maybe there really was an attempted escape. He said
that whenever someone tried to escape, his family was seized
Judge Halevi: In that earlier document also, from the
Senior SS and Police Commander – “schlagartig” (by one
stroke) to send 8,000 Jews to a work camp and on the same
day all their relatives from outside the camp – why is there
always the close time sequence, simultaneously with their
relatives? This seems to have been the method.
State Attorney Bach: This was apparently the method which
we find, as a matter of fact, in all these places.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/533.
State Attorney Bach: And now another case of individual
treatment by the Accused himself. Our number is 1484. It
is about a professor from the University of Leyden. There
was apparently a request from the Foreign Ministry
concerning him. In a first letter from Guenter in this
matter it says: “In view of the fact that the Jew Meyers is
a former professor at the University of Leyden, hence an
intellectual, I cannot agree to his emigration to
Switzerland, in spite of the amount of foreign currency that
may be provided.” Signed – Guenther.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/534.
State Attorney Bach: By the way, Professor Meyers was one
of the great jurists of Europe.
And now, another letter on the same subject. Our No. 223,
which was also numbered T/37(75). Here it says that, as is
well known, the Reichsfuehrer-SS has forbidden emigration
from the Reich and from the occupied areas and that “only in
very special cases, where there exists a positive interest
of the Reich, the emigration of individual Jews may be
permitted by this office after proper examination.”
In the course of time, applications from Jews have been
received in various offices, especially by the Reich
Ministry for the Economy and the Reichsbank, as well as by
lawyers, especially Swiss lawyers, in which permission to
emigrate is requested against offers of large sums of
foreign currency. In spite of very serious political
objections, which were and are constantly voiced by this
office, and in spite of express warnings concerning the
dangerous results abroad of granting such permission, the
Reich Ministry for the Economy and the Reichsbank were most
interested to approve applications for emigration from time
to time in cases where large amounts of foreign currency are
“Temporarily deferring political objections, which
exist today in all cases of Jewish emigration, it was
agreed, in view of the compelling reasons voiced, to
grant, by way of exception, some emigration permits in
cases where certain conditions are met. Such
applications will be considered only when the Jewish
applicant and his relatives are of an advanced age,
when there are no special objections to the emigration
from the Security Police point of view, and when a sum
in foreign currency of no less than 100,000 Swiss
Francs per person is made available, with a waiver of
“The emigration of the Jewish intellectual Meyers
(formerly Professor in The Hague), for which the
Swedish Legation is offering to pay SF 150,000, was
refused, as already indicated in my letter of 1.12.42,
regardless of the amount of foreign currency offered,
considering his professional standing.”