Session 037-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 37
25 Iyar 5721 (11 May 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the thirty-seventh Session of the
trial open.

State Attorney Bach: I should like to submit a collection
of documents bearing Prosecution No. 1555. The well-known
Italian singer Toti dal Monte writes to the Fuehrer himself,
asking him to spare a man who has been arrested as a Jew and
who is a relative of hers; his name is Sacerdoti. She says
that he is not even a Jew, being the son of her grandmother
who was Aryan but married a Jew, and this is the son, and he
has been arrested. She writes to the Fuehrer and pays him a
great many compliments about the benefits he has bestowed on
Europe, but she asks for this one favour – that her relative
Sacerdoti be set free, as he was arrested solely because of
the Nuremberg racial laws. We do not know the Fuehrer’s
reaction, but we know what was the reply from IVB4. This
time it is signed by Kryschak, one of the aides of the
Accused. He says that Sacerdoti married a Jewess, a real
Jewess, that he is to be regarded as a person who may be
included in the anti-Jewish measures, and that he has been
sent to the East for work assignment, and his present
whereabouts are unknown.

Presiding Judge: Here it says IVA4.

State Attorney Bach: At that stage the Section was already
called IVA4. We also indicated this in the indictment.

Presiding Judge: What does “Geltungsjude” mean?

State Attorney Bach: That he was considered a Jew. This
was a concept, a special term that appeared in these
documents from time to time.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/626.

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, as regards an earlier
question by Dr. Raveh: Here we have a letter by von Thadden
sent to Eichmann in Berlin in July 1944, in spite of the
fact that von Thadden had visited Eichmann in Budapest
already in May, so that he knew that Eichmann was in
Budapest; nevertheless the letter was sent to Eichmann in

Judge Halevi: Or to his deputy. Did he have a deputy?

State Attorney Bach: He had a deputy, but not someone who
was appointed in his place. He remained responsible for the

Judge Halevi: Was not Guenther his permanent deputy?

State Attorney Bach: He was in general the permanent
deputy, even before Eichmann went to Hungary. My point was
that when he went to Hungary this did not change his
position as the person responsible for the office.

The next document is our No. 1556. Guenther writes about a
Jewess named Clara Sereno who was deported to the East from
Rome on 16 October 1943. She had not indicated at the time
that she was cohabiting in a mixed marriage. And Guenther
says that a return cannot be considered for Security Police
reasons. This document is important because in it he refers
to the operation against the Jews of Rome of 16 October
1943. And here we see that, in spite of Hitler’s
instruction that these Jews need only go to Mauthausen, they
arrived in the East.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/627.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 959.
Here we have a report about an anti-Semitic lecture in Italy
and an anti-Semitic movement active in certain circles.
This report goes to the German Foreign Ministry, and von
Thadden passes this also on to the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/628.

State Attorney Bach: I should now like to submit to the
Court a number of original forms seized in police and
Gestapo offices in Italy. The first one is No. 1456. It
contains card index entries for a Jewess named Anticoli. It
says that she is a housewife and that she was “brought in by
SD, IVB (Einlieferung durch SD IVB)” by reason of her being
a Jewess.

Presiding Judge: There are two cards here, one in the name
of Anticoli and one in the name of Sass.

State Attorney Bach: I submit both of them; both of them
appear under the same number. This is one exhibit; Your
Honour will see that both forms appear there. It says here:
One Jewess and four children. “Reason: Jewess.” And under
“Entlassung”(discharge): “Deported by the SD.”

Presiding Judge: Whose card index is this?

State Attorney Bach: This is a card index found in Italy,
in Rome, in the local prison. We submitted a declaration
about this in the beginning. These are original documents,
and the Court will note the capital letter “J” at the top of
both cards.

Presiding Judge: Whose prison?

State Attorney Bach: This was an Italian prison.

Presiding Judge: And the card index is in German?

State Attorney Bach: Where Jews are concerned – yes,
because in this matter the control was in German hands. One
can see by the entries that it was SD people who made them.
And we can see – not on this form but on others which we
shall submit – that the signature is that of one
Sturmbannfuehrer or another.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/629.

State Attorney Bach: The second card here is that of a
driver. “Reason – Jew,” and “Discharge by the SD.”

The next document is Prosecution document No. 1454. It also
contains two papers. Here it already says at the top:
“Commander of the Security Police and the SD, Italy, Rome.”
Here is confirmation of receipt of the Italian Di Segni, a
Jew, who was arrested “because of Judenaktion” (operation
against the Jews), and here one can also see the name of the
prison “Regina Coeli, Rome”; the second paper contains the
same wording.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/630.

State Attorney Bach: the next document is No. 1457. Again:
“Commander of the Security Police and the SD, Commando
Rome.” The stateless Jewess Ilse Bielschowski was arrested
“because of: Belonging to the Jewish race.”

Presiding Judge: Here, too, there is more than one document.

State Attorney Bach: There are two here. The first:
“Belonging to the Jewish race,” and therefore this Jewess
was imprisoned, and the signature is that of an SS-
Hauptscharfuehrer. And the second is because of
“Judenaktion,” and the prison is the same.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/631.

State Attorney Bach: One more document, No. 1455. Here I
draw the attention of the Court to what it says at the
bottom of the document. After details about a “Volljude”
(full Jew), a tailor who was arrested and brought to the
prison, it says at the end “is being taken into temporary
custody for Section IV4B.”

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/632.

State Attorney Bach: And finally, Your Honours, I should
like to submit a declaration by a man called Massimo Adolfo
Vitale, who worked in the Union of Jewish Communities of
Italy after the War and collected documents for the purpose
of ascertaining the number of missing Jews. After examining
the documents, he concluded that 7,496 Jews were seized,
that 610 of these returned, and that therefore 6,886 were
killed. That is the result of his survey. I request the
Court to accept this declaration in evidence. The document
is numbered 1594.

Presiding Judge: Is this an official investigation or a
private one?

State Attorney Bach: It is official only from the point of
view of the Jewish institutions. Vitale was working in the
framework of the Union of Communities in Italy, not on
behalf of the Italian government. He submitted this sworn
declaration at the Israeli embassy in Rome. Since this was
in fact only a statistical survey, we saw no need to ask him
to come specially from Italy, where he lives, in particular
as I understood from the Defence that it will not object to
the submission of this declaration.

Presiding Judge: Is this correct, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the submission of the

State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, there is a translation
into Hebrew from the Italian here which, I am told, is not
quite exact. I therefore request permission to attach a
more suitable translation at a later stage. But I think
that the contents will be clear from the present translation
also. I should only like to add that the witness indicates
that the documents from which the figures are taken are to
be found in the archives of the Committee for the Search for
Jewish Deportees. It is there that he found these figures,
and on the strength of them he made his statistical

Presiding Judge: Decision No. 25

Mr. Bach wishes to submit the results of a statistical
investigation made on behalf of the Union of Jewish
Communities in Italy. Dr. Servatius does not object. We
permit the submission of the document in evidence.

The exhibit will be T/633.

State Attorney Bach: This brings to an end the chapter on
Western Europe, Your Honours.

Presiding Judge: Thank you Mr. Bach.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the permission of the Court, we
shall move eastwards. First we shall return to Germany,
which we left at the outbreak of the War. With the
permission of the Court, I shall first submit a number of
laws and regulations issued between 1939 and 1945 and which
are relevant to our case. I begin with the “Second
Executory Order on the Expiatory Payment by the Jews,” of 19
October 1939 (Zweite Durchsfuehrungsverordnung ueber die
Suehneleistung der Juden vom 19. Oktober 1939). It is
signed by the Minister of Finance, Graf Schwerin von

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/634.

State Attorney Bar-Or: The purport of this regulation lies
in raising or increasing the instalments by which this
expiation payment had to be made immediately after the
outbreak of the War.

And now we come to the police order about the designation of
the Jews dated 1 September 1941, signed by Heydrich in the
name of the Reich Minister for the Interior. It entered
into force in September 1941 in the Greater Reich, which
included, in fact, also Austria and the Protectorate of
Bohemia and Moravia.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/635.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now I come to an order which was not
published in the way in which laws were promulgated in
Germany, but which was contained in the Juedisches
Nachrichtenblatt (Jewish News Bulletin), a bulletin which
was issued from time to time by the Reichsvereinigung der
Juden in Deutschland, which had succeeded the
Reichsvertretung in 1939. There were certain orders which
appeared only in the Juedisches Nachrichtenblatt and there
were, of course, also others which were only reproduced.
The order which I am submitting here is called
“Polizeiverordnung zur Kennzeichnung der Juden,” i.e. Police
Order Concerning the designation of the Jews. These are
actually orders for implementation (Richtlinien fuer die
Durchfuehrung). The Accused admitted in his statement that
this Nachrichtenblatt was issued on behalf of the
Reichsvereinigung, that his orders concerning the
Reichsvereinigung, to the extent that he was connected with
it, were published there, and he was in fact the
Dienststelle (office) in control of the Reichsvereinigung.

Presiding Judge: Where does this appear in the statement?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall find it immediately, Your
Honour – the Accused says what I have quoted just now, on
page 1729 and the following pages, and on page 1732 in
particular he refers to the question whether the
“Mitteilungsblatt” (this is what he calls it according to
his recollection) whether this was published on the basis of
orders given by him. His answer: “Yes, of course.” To the
question whether it was also censored by him, he answered:
“I do not know, I cannot remember.” In fact, I have already
submitted to the Court a document concerning the Austrian
chapter, in which the Accused testifies that he used to
censor these internal Jewish publications.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/636.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to the “Elfte Verordnung
zum Reichsbuergergesetz” (Regulation 11 under the Reich Law
of Citizenship) of 25 November 1941, the famous Regulation
11, which runs like an unbroken thread through all the
documents I am going to submit to the Court. This was the
regulation according to which a Jew lost his citizenship the
moment he left the territory of the Reich. As we shall see,
the Gestapo used Regulation 11 mainly in order to confiscate
Jewish property immediately after the Jews had left the
Reich area for the East, not exactly by their own free will.
I shall also submit implementation orders which deal in
detail with the property of persons who lose their

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/637.

State Attorney Bar-Or: One of these implementation orders
is, for instance, the order of 12 December 1941, which deals
mainly with social insurance payments. It concerns children
in the main, and it distinguishes between Jewish and non-
Jewish children.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/638.

State Attorney Bar-Or: From among the internal ministerial
regulations of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, I should
like to submit an order of May 1942 under the title
“Polizeiverwaltung” (Police Administration) concerning
police penalties and their imposition on Poles and on Jews.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/639.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now again an announcement by the
Reichsvereinigung, dated 3 April 1942, about the designation
of Jewish homes, according to which not only the Jew himself
had to be designated but also the houses and the flats in
which Jews were living. This was, of course, also a
“Bekanntmachung” (Announcement) which was only published
through this internal channel.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/640.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And again from the same collection
of ministerial regulations of the Interior Ministry – an
order concerning the confiscation of the property of enemies
of the Reich. This concerns, of course, mainly the property
of Jews, who, as so-called enemies of the Reich, received
almost routine treatment under such orders throughout the
entire period.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/641.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Juedisches Nachrichtenblatt of 15
May 1942 contains a prohibition to keep what is called
“Haustiere” (domestic animals), meaning, of course, mainly
dogs, birds, etc., it being assumed that a Jewish house is
not a good home for an animal.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/642.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Finally, I submit the “Dreizehnte
Verordnung zum Reichsbuergergesetz” (Regulation 13 under the
Reich Law of Citizenship) dated 1 July 1943, according to
which criminal jurisdiction over Jews was delegated to the
police. It was signed by Minister of the Interior Frick,
Head of the Party Chancellery Bormann, Minister of Finance
Schwerin von Krosigk, and Minister of Justice Dr. Thierack.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/643.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/01