Session 038-09, Eichmann Adolf

State Attorney Bar-Or: The explanation is apparently as
follows: The Americans, whether they were Quakers or others,
were able at that time to act as a neutral Power and also
reached those parts, no doubt, after what happened in
Stettin; they apparently obtained permission after all.
Whether the Jewish component was official, or whether in
fact these were only people who had been chosen for the
purpose, I do not know. But that the matter came as a
surprise in Poland, to the Generalgouvernement, this we do
know. Actually it was the Generalgouvernement which was
responsible for the fact that this matter ultimately reached
Lammers, and from Lammers came to Himmler.

Now I want to return for a moment, although this is only
theoretical, but the dates are of interest – to T/383 which
has already been submitted. This is Goering’s letter to all
police authorities, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the
Ministry of Transport, and to the Governor General of
Poland. This letter was right after the dates of the
letters which I have just submitted. As you will remember,
it is dated 21 March 1940, and its contents: The Governor
General complains about the fact that the deportations of
Jews from the Reich to the Generalgouvernement are still
being carried out, despite the fact that there are no
conditions for absorbing them there. “I hereby order this
to stop” and so on. It is quite possible that the document
came as a result of the matter being brought before Goering.
Therefore, it was only in this connection that I permitted
myself to refer to it.

I now come to document No. 1235. This, too, originated in
the German Foreign Ministry. It is signed by Schomburg. He
says on 21 March 1940: “After receiving an explanation from
the Head Office for Reich Security (SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Eichmann), at the root of the matter is the following state
of affairs (he refers to the deportation from Stettin and
Schneidemuehl). Owing to lack of accommodation at
Schneidemuehl, which was caused by the army’s occupation of
the city, the local Gestapo finds itself compelled to remove
the Jews from Schneidemuehl. 158 people were taken to
Posen. The Jews should return again to Schneidemuehl in
about 8-10 days.” In conclusion he says: “There is
therefore no question of continuing the deportation of the
Jews to the Generalgouvernement, for they have been
transferred, only temporarily, to Posen, in other words
within the area of the Reich.”

Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/670.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now for our document No. 123,
dated 4 September 1940, signed by the Accused. I draw your
attention to the marking on the file IVD4 – 2 (RZ). We came
across the mark 2 (RZ) yesterday with the signature of his
predecessor, Lischka. Here correspondence is already being
carried on in the new Section – IVD4, but the mark of the
Reichszentrale or the Reichsvereinigung also appears here.
At issue here are German transit permits for Hungarian-
Jewish migrants. The Foreign Ministry is asked to see to it
that such facilities should not be given, as far as
possible, so as “not to reduce the chances for continuing
pressure for the emigration of Jews from the Reich itself.”
This was still the period when emigration was not only
possible, but apparently also received backing from the
Accused’s office.

Presiding Judge: This was in 1940?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. The date was 4September 1940.
At the end, the Accused says that what he is asking for here
is “in accordance with the continuing efforts for the
emigration of Jews from the Reich, as requested by the
Reichsmarschall. The Accused saw this document – its number
is T/37(117). He talks about it on pages 1645-1648 of his

Presiding Judge: This will be T/671.

State Attorney Bar-Or: And now – our document No. 1059.
This is an aide-memoire of 3 November 1940, concerning a
discussion at an interministerial meeting on the question of
Jews seeking to return to Germany from the area occupied by
Russia. The Accused takes an active part here. It says
that on 30 October 1940 a meeting took place of the
authorities concerned – the SD, the Foreign Ministry, the
Ministry of Justice, and others – at the office of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS – presided over by Obersturmfuehrer Dr.
Faehndrich, in connection with the handling of applications
by German Jews to return to the Reich, on the occasion of
population transfers. The situation that was created here
was somewhat strange. As a result of the partition of the
area of Poland between the Reich and the Soviet Union,
certain concomitant problems had also been created. One of
the problems that especially exercised the minds of the
Nazis was the acceptance of the Volksdeutsche from the
Russian zone into the German zone. As against this, there
was, of course, a movement in the opposite direction. For
the Russians, there was at that time no difference between
German Volksdeutsche and Jewish Volksdeutsche, so to speak,
and on the lists the Russians submitted to Berlin, of people
who, in accordance with the agreement, were supposed to
return, there were also Jews. Here the question arises:
What should be done regarding those Jews who, perhaps, might
apply to leave the Russian zone and return, because of their
German citizenship, to the zone of the Reich. Here it says:

“The question is asked whether, through the exchange of
populations, Jewish property, which is of some
substance and which could be exploited for Reich
purposes, should be seized.”

This was, perhaps, an interesting point, for then it would
be possible to admit them, but it turned out that nothing
could be done in this matter. At the end it says:

“The representative of the SD, who was present,
Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, declared that he had the
most serious misgivings about the mass denial of
citizenship to the Jews.” By so doing, obviously, it
would be possible to get rid of them, but “action such
as this could influence those countries which had, so
far, still accepted Jewish immigrants and had given
them entry visas.”

We see here that the Accused was still attending to his
business – the deportation of the Jews to the maximum degree
from the zone of the Reich, and the avoidance of anything
that might possibly restrict steps in this direction.

Presiding Judge: This I do not understand. “Dass er die
groessten Bedenken gegen eine Massenausbuergerung habe, weil
eine solche Massnahme geeignet sei, diejenigen Staaten zu
beeinflussen die bisher u.s.w.” (that he has the greatest
misgivings about a measure that was liable to influence
those countries which up till now, etc.)

State Attorney Bar-Or: It seemed to the Accused, at that
time, that when it would become apparent that the Reich was
depriving its Jews of their citizenship, any state that
would accept Jews from the Reich would, in fact, be
receiving stateless persons. Thus it was clear to the
Accused that under such conditions it was obvious that they
would not be able to obtain visas. One had to export
persons possessing a certain nationality. He gives
expression here to his misgivings on this subject, and
precisely in this connection he speaks, for example, thus:
“In October 9, 500 Jews were deported from Germany, and in
September more than 3,000, and it is undesirable to close
this avenue.” He feared that by the denial of citizenship
it might be closed.

Presiding Judge: Is this a memorandum of the Foreign

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a memorandum of the Foreign
Ministry, Your Honour, by Referent Grosskopf of the Foreign

Presiding Judge: This will be T/672.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now, our No. 892 – actually this is
a collection of three documents. The Accused, incidentally,
speaks in a very general way about what is described here on
pages 141-146 of his statement, in that first portion in
which he gives a general account of events. The topic
discussed here is another deportation, this time in the
opposite direction. This is the one and only deportation
going in the opposite direction – towards the West. We
heard about it yesterday, when we referred to the camp at
Gurs. It discusses two large transports of Jews from the
Pfalz (the Palatinate) and Baden in the summer of 1940,
immediately after the final surrender of France. The letter
is from Heydrich, signed by Heydrich, but bears an
additional reference: From the Headquarters of IVD4. The
letter seems to be dated 29 October, but it could also be 19
October 1940. Heydrich writes – actually the Accused writes
and Heydrich signs – a communication to Standartenfuehrer
Luther in the Foreign Ministry, whom we shall refer to many
times, that “the Fuehrer has ordered the deportation of the
Jews from Baden westwards to Alsace, and the Jews from the
Pfalz westwards to Lothringen (Lorraine). After
implementing the operation, I am able to inform you that
6,504 Jews were deported from Baden on 22 and 23 October
1940 in seven freight trains, and on 22 October 1940 in two
freight trains.” Thereafter he adds: “The progress of the
operation was hardly noticed by the population.”

At a later stage, in the same document, we find a report on
the deportation of Jews possessing German citizenship to the
South of France.

Presiding Judge: It is not attached here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am very sorry, here it is.

This document is our No. 893. I attached it because really
one episode is discussed here. Perhaps I should also submit
right away the next document, No. 894 – all of these…

Presiding Judge: Do not submit it – it will only confuse

State Attorney Bar-Or: In No. 893, there is a report on the
process of deporting Jews possessing German nationality to
the South of France. Again it is the same number of 6,300
German Jews who were transferred to the south of France,
from Saarpfalz (Saar-Palatinate) and Baden.

This report says, in its third section:

“The deportation of the Jews from Baden and Saarpflaz
was implemented in such a way as to conform to the
order of the Gauleiter that”All persons of the Jewish
race, as long as they are fit to be transported’ had to
be deported without consideration of age and sex. Only
couples of mixed marriages were excluded from this.
Also men who had served on the German side in the World
War of 1914-1918 in the old army as front line
fighters, including officers, had to be sent. Old age
homes in Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Ludwigshafen, and so
forth, were evacuated. According to the order, women
and men who were incapable of walking were borne on
stretchers to the trains. The oldest deportee was a
man of 97 from Karlsruhe. The time of grace given to
the deportees for purposes of preparation ranged,
according to the place, from a quarter of an hour to
two hours.”

Presiding Judge: Who wrote this?

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is an internal report. It
appears that many such reports were brought to the attention
of the Foreign Ministry from various sources, sometimes even

Presiding Judge: All right. This will be T/674.

Dr. Servatius: May I be permitted, in the case of document
873, to ask that the first sentence be read aloud – perhaps
I may be permitted to quote?

Presiding Judge: You mean 893, not 873.

Dr. Servatius: Yes, 893.

Presiding Judge: Please go ahead.

Dr. Servatius: “In accordance with the proposal by
Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter Josef Buerckel, now at Metz,
and of Gauleiter Wagner, now at Strassburg, all the Jews of
Baden and Saarpfalz were arrested in their apartments by
auxiliary police and were, on the night of Tuesday
22.10.1940, and on the following days, deported by the
Gestapo in trains that had been standing by.” I stress the
fact that the idea and the pressure came from the Gauleiter
(District Leader).

Judge Halevi: According to the previous document, it was
said that this was by order of the Fuehrer.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, we shall come across this again
forthwith “by order of the Fuehrer,” in the next document,
and that also belongs to this episode. With your
permission, I will read two more sentences:

“The period of grace given to the deportees for
purposes of preparation ranged, according to the place,
from a quarter of an hour to two hours. A number of
women and men took advantage of this waiting time to
commit suicide, so as to avoid being deported. In
Mannheim alone, there were, by Tuesday morning, eight
suicides, in Karlsruhe three.” “They were obliged to
leave all their possessions, all their capital, and all
their property. Since the emigration was in many cases
not carried out in an orderly manner, that is to say
without prior compliance with the requirements of the
law – for example, payment of the tax for fleeing the
Reich, there is meanwhile a loss of existing assets.”

We now come to document No. 894. This is a minute of the
German Foreign Ministry, dated 31.10.40, on the same
subject. And here, it again says: “By order of the Fuehrer,
all the Jews of the Gaus (districts) of Baden and the Pfalz
were deported on 22 and 23 October 1940 in nine special
trains to the unoccupied zone of France.

“As was explained to me by Hauptsturmfuehrer Guenther
of the Head Office for Reich Security, they considered
whether the French government should be notified. They
refrained from doing so – for reasons unknown to me.”

The Accused, in those pages of his statement which I brought
to the Court’s attention, speaks precisely of this

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/675.

State Attorney Bar-Or: We shall see from other documents,
some of which have already been submitted, that this is, in
fact, the one and only indication of an attempt by the Nazis
to put into effect the Madagascar Plan – we heard the same
thing in connection with Belgium. There was a plan here to
bring this solution before the Armistice Commission, which
was actually in Session during those days at Wiesbaden – a
plan which eventually was not carried out.

Judge Raveh: At the end of document No. 893 it says that
this was a plan of the French Government. It is stated thus
in the last sentence of the document. Is there something
else which supports it or is this stated only here?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, as I have said, the matter in
fact came up for discussion at the Armistice Commission
Conference in Wiesbaden.

Judge Raveh: That the initiative came from the French
Government? This is what emerges from this sentence, and
the question is whether this is an only case…

State Attorney Bar-Or: Possibly according to this document,
too, the initiative was German, and they agreed to discuss
this question. I do not believe that there actually has to
be evidence here, that they even allege that the initiative
was French. From the Accused’s statement we know that the
initiative was definitely not French, since the Accused
talks about the many difficulties he had, how hard it was to
mislead the railway authorities in France, so that they
might allow these trains to pass through unoccupied France.

Judge Raveh: Precisely because of this the wording is
surprising, and hence I ask: Is there any further hint in
this direction?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Of course here, too, the problem
again arises – what, in fact, did the Foreign Ministry know
about the actual situation? The Foreign Ministry here has
to rely only on information received. The Accused himself
was there.

I now come to document No. 728.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be
allowed to make a short remark to explain the document? In
my opinion, this was an operation of the Gauleiters who, by
their imagination, already anticipated matters by sending
these people on their own initiative. They established
direct contact with the authorities of the Wehrmacht in
occupied France and attempted, on their own initiative, to
transport those people there. Afterwards this was reported
to the higher authority. Himmler confirmed it, and thus one
accepted the situation as it was. I believe that later
these people returned again.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Many documents exist concerning the
fate of these Jews, since there remained relatives of
theirs, not direct dependents; these relatives later applied
to the Accused, with a request to join them, and we shall
see what their fate was when we come to these documents.

Presiding Judge: The Prosecution document No. 728 is marked

State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a very important minute of a
meeting which took place on 15.1.1941, and which was an
interministerial meeting on a very broad basis. I shall
presently draw the Court’s attention to those who took part.
The Accused would certainly have defined the participation
as that of the “Hohe Garnitur” (the high ranks). A
discussion took place on the problems of citizenship and of
property, or the dispossession of property arising out of
the deprivation of citizenship. Who was present on 15.1.41?
The chairman was Hering of the Ministry of Interior.
Together with him were Dr. Globke, Duckart, Dr. Essen, Dr.
Siedler, Dr. Habermann, Dr. Kraeuter, and also two men from
the Head Office for Reich Security, Obersturmfuehrer
Rajakowitsch from the office of IVB4, and Neifeind (a
Regierungrat). He belonged to Office 2 which dealt, in
particular, with legal questions. Neifeind was, in fact,
the legal adviser of the R.H.S.A., like the legal advisers
of the period before the Nazis, who used to function in the
Department of Police; we find him wherever there was legal
work. Next we find, amongst those present, Reischauer,
Rademacher, Todenhoefer, Dr. Schwandt, Ruppert, Ebersberg,
Feldscher, von Coelin, and Driest. I should like to bring
some sentences from this minute to the Court’s attention.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/01