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
deported…to 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
The International Red Cross has asked to deal with the
emigration of Jews. Lischka says at the end of his reply:
“…it 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 …um 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
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
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.
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
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what is your position?
Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the proposed use of
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
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
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
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
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
State Attorney Bar-Or: About the meeting which took place
in the Head Office for Reich Security after the “Red
Dr. Servatius: I have no objection to the submission of the
document. It is useful to the Accused.
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.