State Attorney Bach: He also says that Prince Eugen, the
King’s brother, was present at that party. Following this
we have Prosecution document No. 888. Now von Thadden
refers to this information when he writes to the German
legation in Stockholm, passes on the news which he received
from the Head Office for Reich Security, and infers
therefrom that the Swedish court is very much under Jewish
influence. “An opinion is requested also about the Swedish
plans to send Jewish children to Palestine.”
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/602.
State Attorney Bach: Next is Prosecution document No. 302.
Guenther again signs a letter to the Foreign Ministry about
the treatment of Jews of foreign nationality, and the
important thing here is that he says: “Following the letter
mentioned, I have instructed the Commander of the Security
Police and the SD in Oslo…” In this context, I should
like to mention again that in one of the previous documents
(T/593) Eichmann defines the office of the BdS in Oslo as
“meine Dienststelle” (my office).
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/603.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 198 –
T/37(272). Here we have a letter from von Thadden which
again concerns the anti-Jewish laws in Norway. But this is
not what is important here. The important thing is an
addition after von Thadden’s signature which reads:
“Copy. For the Head Office for Reich Security, attention
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, transmitted with a request
that note be taken. The Foreign Ministry would be grateful
if the Head Office for Reich Security could instruct its
Oslo office to lend its support to the requests of the
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/604.
State Attorney Bach: The reaction of the Accused appears on
page 3312 in his statement. The next document is No. 492.
The Swedish consul in Oslo has requested that 59 Jews and
five Jewesses, all cohabiting in mixed marriages, be allowed
to cross over into Sweden. Guenther decides that, for
security and police reasons, the emigration of these Jews
from Norway who are, as already indicated, without exception
all partners in mixed marriages, must not be dealt with.
This is a reply from Guenther to von Thadden.
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/605.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 493, a note
by von Thadden in which he suggests to act as requested by
IVB4 – in the letter I have just submitted – and he proposes
to tell the Swedes that they have no authority to grant
Swedish citizenship to those persons.
The next document is No. 494. Here we have the definitive
diplomatic manner in which the Foreign Ministry intends to
react to the request from IVB4: In view of the fact that the
Swedes have not officially approached the Foreign Ministry
and that, therefore, no reply is necessary, he suggests that
the Security Police, on its part, should not react to the
letter of the Swedes at all, and if asked, should say that
it has no authority to discuss the matter with foreign
representatives. In this way the request will be allowed to
die a natural death.
Presiding Judge: Is this from the Foreign Ministry?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, this is from the Foreign
Ministry. When we come to the Italian chapter, in a moment,
the Court will see what was meant by “Sonderzug Westfalen”
(Special Train Westphalia): It was Ribbentrop’s personal
train. Brenner used to work on this train and others, too.
The preceding letter was forwarded in draft form, and here
now is the decision how to achieve, in a diplomatic way, the
result desired by both offices.
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/607.
State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, I have in my possession
a sworn statement by Kai Feinberg who was mentioned in Mrs.
Samuel’s evidence. He made this sworn statement before the
Consul of Israel in Oslo. As a matter of fact, he only
supplements the evidence which is not in dispute. He
describes how the people who had been arrested in Oslo were
transferred from Birkenau to Auschwitz, who were the ones
who returned, and that he was one of them, that he was one
of the few who returned. I ask you to accept this
statement in evidence. I understand that there is no
objection to this on the part of the Defence.
Dr. Servatius: I have not seen the document itself, but
judging by the contents which the Prosecutor outlined just
now, I have no reservations.
State Attorney Bach: The document is our No. 34, which was
handed to Counsel for the Defence some time ago, and it is
also included in the list of documents which I submitted to
the Defence, and which I am about to submit in connection
with the chapter on Norway…maybe it was left out by
mistake…yes, the document is included in the list, but I
am ready to give Counsel for the Defence an additional copy
Dr. Servatius: I remember that I read the document, and I
have no reservations.
Decision No. 23.
We admit the statement by Kai Feinberg, in conformity with
what was said in a similar case in our Decision No. 18.
State Attorney Bach: There is a description of the arrest
here and of the transfer of the prisoners to Auschwitz. He
was one of those sent to Stettin on the Donau, the ship
mentioned by the witness and also in the telegram from
Guenther in which he gives the order to transfer these
persons to Auschwitz.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/608.
State Attorney Bach: The last document in connection with
Norway is our No. 1419, the report of the Royal Norwegian
Government concerning the maltreatment of the Jews by the
Germans at the time of the Second World War. This report
was submitted in Nuremberg and was published in I.M.G. Vol.
39, pages 205-212. I repeat my request in accordance with
the Court’s Decision No. 12.
Presiding Judge: We actually accepted a similar Danish
report today without an explicit decision. You did not ask
State Attorney Bach: I did make a request, maybe I did not
explicitly mention Decision No. 12, but I said then, too: In
accordance with the decision of the Court.
Judge Halevi: This is self-evident now.
State Attorney Bach: I remember now that I said that this
is only evidence concerning…
Presiding Judge: Yes, but no ruling was given there.
State Attorney Bach: No number was given, therefore…
Presiding Judge: No explicit decision was given on Denmark.
Decision No. 24.
We decide to accept the Norwegian report as evidence, in
accordance with Decision No. 12. This will be marked T/609.
State Attorney Bach: I have thus completed the evidence
concerning the Norwegian chapter. I now pass on to the fate
of the Jews of Italy. I shall begin with a number of
The first document is our No. 723. Here the Court will see
that from his Sonderzug Westfalen Ribbentrop requests the
Reichsfuehrung (Reich Leadership) SS to inform him
immediately of all the problems and wishes it has concerning
the question of the Jews in Italy, so that these may be
discussed with the Duce in principle. And Sonnleithner, one
of Ribbentrop’s officials in the Sonderzug Westfalen, tells
the Foreign Ministry that he requests an immediate reply
from the Reichsfuehrung-SS. This is dated 24 February 1943.
Presiding Judge: T/610.
State Attorney Bach: Document No. 724: The Foreign Ministry
replies immediately to von Sonnleithner, the official who
wrote the preceding letter, and promises a reply within a
day, i.e., within one day they will obtain a reply from the
Reichsfuehrung-SS. But in the meantime, they already
explain that the Head Office for Reich Security is
complaining about the Italians, that the negative Italian
influence is also noticeable on the governments in Croatia,
Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia, that everywhere they refuse
to expel their Jews, pointing to the bad example of Italy.
He says further that just now he has asked the Head Office
for Reich Security to formulate its concrete requests, and
that this was promised for the 25th, i.e., for the next
morning. On their part, they can only confirm the
complaints of the Head Office for Reich Security that the
Italians have dissuaded the French Government from carrying
out its anti-Jewish measures, and that they intervene on
behalf of the Jews everywhere, and that it is now clear that
the German and Italian views on the Jewish Question are
Presiding Judge: T/611.
State Attorney Bach: Now, Your Honours, in the next two
documents it says that the comments of the Reichsfuehrung-
SS have to be obtained and that they have been promised.
What does Reichsfuehrung-SS mean here? This becomes clear
in Document 961, which is the request mentioned in the
preceding communication. It comes from the Foreign Ministry
and begins with the words “Sehr verehrter Parteigenosse
Eichmann” (Dear Party Comrade Eichmann), and it says, on 25
February, that that morning Foreign Minister Ribbentrop had
asked the Reichsfuehrung-SS for concrete requests, and that
the reply had been promised by that evening. It asks now
for the comments “promised by you.” A copy of the
communication is attached, and Eichmann is now asked for the
comments of the Reichsfuehrung-SS which he promised. This
document was shown to the Accused and was marked T/37(287),
and the comment relating to it begins on page 3373.
Presiding Judge: T/612.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 962,
T/37(288). Here we have the answer. True, it is signed by
Mueller because it is addressed to Minister Dr. Bergmann,
and only Mueller may sign a letter to a minister, but we see
on top that it was drafted by IVB4. Subject: “Laufende
Besprechungen mit SS-0bersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann” (Current
Discussions with Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann). And here
we have a description on how Laval and others invoke the
Italian attitude, how the Italian attitude complicates the
implementation of the Final Solution, since the other
European governments use this excuse, the attitude of this
Axis partner, and this endangers the very implementation of
the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe. The
Accused commented on this document on page 3376 of his
statement, and he admits that, although the document bears
the signature of Mueller, he (Eichmann) dictated this
letter. He admits this on page 3378: “A report dictated by
Presiding Judge: T/613.
State Attorney Bach: The next document, our No. 963, was
also put before the Accused and was marked T/37(289). This
is the letter from the Foreign Ministry to Sonnleithner.
Presiding Judge: It is very difficult to read the first page
State Attorney Bach: The printed copy is also not very
clear, but the contents are not so important here. It is
simply a transmission of the contents of the preceding
letter to Sonnleithner, i.e. Ribbentrop. The important
thing is that a copy of this letter to the Sonderzug
Westfalen is again sent to Eichmann at the Head Office for
Presiding Judge: Where does it say so?
State Attorney Bach: In the margin, on the first page. The
first page is easier to read on the printed copy. On the
left side of the first page something is written by hand.
In the original one can clearly see that it is: “Copy to
Eichmann.” I do not have the original; it was submitted
together with the statement of the Accused. It was one of
the documents shown to him.
Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/614.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1604. A
Mr. Moellhausen announces from Rome that
Obersturmbannfuehrer Kappler received instructions from
Berlin to arrest 8,000 Jews in Rome and to take them to
Northern Italy, where they are to be liquidated. He says
that the City Commander of Rome, General Stahel, has
informed him that he will permit this operation only if it
is approved by the Foreign Minister. Moellhausen is of the
opinion that it will be better business to employ these Jews
for fortification labour, as was done in Tunis, and says
that he will, together with Kappler, propose this to
Generalfeldmarschall Kesselring. As for
Obersturmbannfuehrer Kappler, he appears in another
document, which we have already submitted to the Court,
T/105, a list of the police attaches in the various
countries. We shall also later prove to the Court the
direct connection between the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and
these police attaches in the various countries, in order to
show now that if it says here “instructions from Berlin,”
these can only be instructions from the Head Office for
Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/615.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1600. It
is the answer to Moellhausen’s letter. Sonnleithner of the
Foreign Minister’s office writes: “The Foreign Minister asks
to inform Minister Rahn and Consul Moellhausen that, in
accordance with the Fuehrer, the 8,000 Jews living in Rome
are to be taken to Mauthausen as hostages. The Foreign
Minister asks to instruct Rahn and Moellhausen not to
interfere in this matter under any circumstances and to
leave it in the hands of the SS.
Judge Raveh: Do you perhaps know the date on which the
Germans took over power in Italy?
State Attorney Bach: That was in September 1943, and the
action in Rome started on 16.10.43. The document I
mentioned, T/105, bears that date, 16.10.43. The Germans
took control over Italy at the beginning of September 1943,
on 9 September.
Judge Halevi: There was a certain change here: First there
was talk of liquidation and then of hostages.
State Attorney Bach: If I said that sometimes the Accused
was more radical than the Fuehrer – this is one of the
examples. The Head Office for Reich Security gave the
instruction to liquidate, the local representatives did not
agree and appealed to Ribbentrop, and then an order came
from the Fuehrer to hold these people as hostages in
Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/616.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 299. It
is a note on a visit by von Thadden to Mueller about the
solution of the Jewish Question in the occupied areas. Von
Thadden refers to the events in Denmark and says: After our
experience in Denmark, the anti-Jewish measures have to be
carried out with adequate forces and in a more efficient
manner. Gruppenfuehrer Mueller says that the Head Office
for Reich Security has learned a lot from the Danish
experience and that the anti-Jewish operations have to be
carried out “schlagartig” (in one swoop). In connection
with Italy, he says that the forces present there at the
moment do not allow for such an operation in the whole
country. They would, therefore, have to begin behind the
front line and proceed northward step by step in an effort
to clean Italy of the Jews.
Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/617.
State Attorney Bach: I should now like to place before the
Court two documents which I received only yesterday. It has,
therefore, not yet been possible to make copies and have
them translated. I showed these documents to Counsel for
the Defence before the Session today.
One of these documents is our No. 1641, a batch of papers
relating to a Jewish woman called Hasson de Toledo, who had
been an Italian national by birth and had submitted a
request for renewal of her Italian citizenship. She was
living in Paris, and the Italian legation approached the
German authorities in Paris with a request not to deport
this Jewish woman to the East. The letter was written on 20
April 1943, i.e., before the coup d’etat in Italy. It was
sent to Roethke in Paris, and there is a remark here by the
recipient: “Das fehlt uns gerade noch!” (This is just what
we needed). Attached to this letter is the Italian request,
in French. And then there is Roethke’s reply that, for
reasons of principle, it is not possible at all to accede to
the Italian request: Although the matter may be considered
where an Italian citizen is concerned. The fact that she
once held Italian citizenship – is not a sufficient
reason. This was communicated to the Italians – and the
next document: Again Roethke is informed that the Italian
consul has submitted an additional note asking the German
embassy to again look into the request from the Italian
government and not to deport this woman. This letter is
dated 24 June. But here is a note saying that on 23 June
this woman was deported to the East, and that Brunner and
Roethke have been informed. That is our No. 1641. I should
like to have this exhibit returned to me after this session,
if possible, so that we can have it duplicated and hand one
copy to Counsel for the Defence.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/618.
State Attorney Bach: An additional Prosecution document –
No. 1640. The Italian consulate in Paris writes to Roethke
on 3 June 1943, and asks most urgently for the release of
the young French Jewess Micheline Levy who was arrested
because, just once, she did not wear the Star of David. The
Italians say they have information that only by accident did
she not wear the star on the day in question.