Session 038-10, Eichmann Adolf

Judge Halevi: Globke was in the Ministry of the Interior?

State Attorney Bar-Or: He was in the Ministry of the
Interior. He worked in the office of Stuckart.
Judge Halevi: Who was Stuckart?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Stuckart was the director of Jewish
affairs in the police, and such a position of Referent also
existed, in fact, in the Ministry of the Interior, despite
the fact that the police formally belonged to the Ministry
of the Interior. In Stuckart’s office, they handled Jewish
affairs in Germany. They obviously gave legal advice, in
the main.

Judge Halevi: Here the name Duckart is mentioned. Is this,
perhaps, an error?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I do not think that this is an
error, since Stuckart was Dr. Globke’s superior. If it was
Stuckart and not Duckart, they would have mentioned his name
before. I should like to quote those sentences, and I shall
read them in the original, for they are rather complicated
for me.

Presiding Judge: Is there no translation?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I am very sorry – I have not been
furnished with a translation. I shall not read much, only
the most important passages.

The survey on the first page is about the effects of the
Nuremberg laws concerning citizenship within the domain of
the Reich. Afterwards, at the end of the page, it says: “In
principle only those who belong to the German people will be
permitted in future to be nationals (Staatsangehoerige).”

In the middle of page four we read:

“Nevertheless, if we convert those belonging to foreign
nationalities, however close to us from the point of
race, but who cannot be included in the body of the
nation, to be protected subjects only, in other words,
if we remove them by such action from the compass of
German citizenship – then it is inadmissible that
German nationality should be preserved for the Jews who
are of a foreign race. As a result of this, as was
conveyed in a letter dated 9.12.1940 with the mark Ie
5637/40-4016, a draft regulation was sent for the Law
of Reich Citizenship, which laid down that the Jews
would also be converted into protected subjects.”

Here we see the first signs of Regulation 11.

I now continue at the end of the page:

“Therefore, the Reich Ministry of Justice* {*Reich
Ministry of the Interior} in keeping with these
remarks, after cancelling the previous draft, proposes
the denial of German nationality to all Jews holding
German nationality, both at home and abroad, so as to
convert them into stateless persons.”

Afterwards it goes on to say that they were seeking to
exempt from this general principle only those Jews who were
cohabiting in mixed marriages, having special rights,
“privilegierte Mischehe.”

At the bottom of the page, it says:

“The representative of the Head Office for Reich
Security sought that the deprivation of German
citizenship should embrace Jews cohabiting in mixed
marriages and enjoying privileged status.”
On page six, at the end, it says:

“After that a discussion took place about the handling
of the property of Jews living abroad…. On this
issue the chairman explained that the draft
contemplated the expropriation of the property in a
single act (uno actu), and that the regulations
regarding the implementation of the expropriation or
the forfeiture, and the limitation of responsibility,
were worked out mainly along the lines of the procedure
laid down in the Law for the Deprivation of
Citizenship, 1933.”

One more sentence:

“The representatives of the Fuehrer’s deputy and the
Head Office for Reich Security agreed to the basic
principle, to the fundamental idea of the draft.”

The Court will find the draft annexed to the document. We
are submitting this document, not only because
representatives of the Accused participated, but because we
especially stress the manner of discussion and the
discretionary power which is evident here, and which
apparently was, at all events, exercised by each of the

I pass to document No. 1061, the Accused’s letter to Luther
of the Foreign Ministry, dated 17.2.41, concerning a certain
Jew named Gustav Israel Fulder. He applied to send to his
mother, who was in the unoccupied zone of France, some
articles which were very much needed by her, mainly
clothing. Here we have one of those cases of a son who was
left behind, and his mother who was sent to unoccupied
France. It says here that “for reasons of principle” –
states Eichmann – “I am not able to comply with this
request, and especially in view of the fact that, if I were
to respond, I would encourage a multiplication of
applications of this sort.”

Presiding Judge: T/677.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I come now to Prosecution document
No. 910. It was shown to the Accused, and so it is marked,
with the evidence of Mr. Less in T/37(285), and the Accused
expresses his views on this document on pages 3367 to 3370
of his statement. This is the Accused’s letter dated 12
March 1941 to Rademacher, about the treatment of Jews
possessing foreign nationality.

Presiding Judge: T/678.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It says here, at the end: “The
treatment of Jews having foreign nationality, other than
Soviet or United States nationality, should be equivalent to
the treatment of Jews holding German nationality or who are
stateless, according to a notification from there.” There
are some marginal notes here, initialled by Rademacher. He
writes on page one: “It was discussed with Eichmann that no
reply should be given yet, but rather that it should first
be checked with the Foreign Ministry whether not all (the
special arrangements?) for foreign Jews can be cancelled.”
Apparently, there was a discussion here of the special
procedures for foreign Jews, which were still applicable to
those who were living in the area of the Reich, as to
whether the time had not come for these to be cancelled as

Prosecution document 66 – was shown to the Accused and was
marked T/37(20). The Accused discusses this subject
particularly on pages 1650-1656. This is the Accused’s
letter, again to Rademacher, dated 12 March 1941 regarding
Italian entry visas for German Jews who are in Yugoslavia.
And here it says that, in referring to the Foreign
Ministry’s letter dated 6 March 1941:

“I (the Accused) advise that, bearing in mind the Final
Solution of the Jewish Question which will come about
in the future (he writes this in March 1941), there is
no point from now on in continuing the emigration of
Jews who possess German nationality and are present in

Finally, he quotes Goering: “The Reichsmarschall of the
Greater German Reich requests that there be increased
emigration of Jews, even in wartime, within the framework of
the existing possibilities.” Again, as if this were a
policy to encourage emigration from the Reich, so that such
possibilities should not be exploited by those Jews who have
already succeeded in leaving the Reich.

Presiding Judge: There seems to be a contradiction here.

State Attorney Bar-Or: It seems, as it were, a
contradiction. The truth is that Eichmann is not interested
in providing the possibility of emigration to Jews who are
already abroad, for example in Yugoslavia, for they use up
visas to America on account of the German quota. Where a
Jew with German nationality residing in Belgrade received an
entry visa into the United States, this came off the
American quota for this region. Eichmann could have
exploited this quota for people who had not managed to get
out of the Reich itself. That man, whose case is being
considered here, is no longer inside the Reich – he is
already in Yugoslavia. This is the interpretation of the
last part.

Judge Halevi: But what was the Final Solution to come about
in the future?

State Attorney Bar-Or: We already heard of this in 1938 in
the Accused’s letters. The Final Solution in this context
is the expulsion of the Jews not only from the area under
the control of the Reich.

Judge Halevi: But expulsion, not extermination.

State Attorney Bar-Or: According to this letter, I do not
see any possibility of contending that there is talk here of
anything more than the expulsion of the Jews from Europe.
This was in March 1941.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/679.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour.

I now pass to our document 1062, the Accused’s letter to
Rademacher of 21 March 1941. Incidentally, in this context
I would like to draw the Court’s attention to the file mark.
We have already come across this – IVB4b (neu). The word
neu (new) comes in consequence of the change-over from IVD4
to IVB4 which was quite recent – it came about in January of
that year. For some time, we shall find the word neu on the
Accused’s files. Here the reference is to a dispatch of
foodstuffs to the Jews who had been deported from Baden and
Saarpfalz to unoccupied France. Again this is, in fact, a
document containing a reply to a question which Defence
Counsel raised a little while ago. Here it says, at the
end: “In view of the fact that, giving due consideration to
the economic war needs, I am unable to agree to any case of
dispatching foodstuffs, textiles or money to Jews deported
to unoccupied France, for whose maintenance, incidentally,
Jewish welfare organizations ought to provide. I ask you, in
future, to reject such requests directly, that is to say,
without finding it necessary to refer to me.” The matter
discussed here were four applications which reached the
Accused through the Foreign Ministry.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/680.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass to document No. 1444. This
document is important, seeing that it provides this
Honourable Court with an explanation of the method of
signing in regard to various matters with which the Accused
was connected. The question as to what, in fact, was the
position of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt within the set-up
of the Ministry of the Interior, and when was anyone at all
entitled to sign on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior –
this question is solved also by this document. The Accused
writes here under the heading “Minister of the Interior”
(Der Reichsminister des Innern). This matter, in fact, does
not concern the Reichssicherheitshauptamt at all. I have
already submitted to the Court the law on which he relies,
which authorizes only two persons – it authorizes the
Minister of the Interior and the Minister for Church
Affairs, not the police and not the
Reichssicherheitshauptamt. And there, indeed, according to
the directives of 1936, which have already been submitted to
the Court, we find Pol.S. as it should be, if it was issued
on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior IVB4, and again
with neu in brackets; we also find here the marking RV –
Reichsvereinigung. These matters relate to the
Reichsvereinigung, since in this document Eichmann gives
orders for the transfer of the property of all the Jewish
communities in the district of Karlsruhe, Mannheim, etc. in
the region of Baden, to the Reichsvereinigung, under the
directives which I have already submitted to the Court. He

“By virtue of section 5 of Regulation 10 of the Law of
German Citizenship of 4 July 1939, I hereby order, with
the approval of the Honourable Minister for Church
Affairs, the inclusion of all the communities specified
in the annexure in the Reich Association of the Jews in

Incidentally, this document, from a historical point of
view, also has some relevance for another reason. We
obtained it, together with a notarial certificate from
Berlin of 1942. This, in fact, is not the original. But
those in Karlsruhe, who were obliged to deal with the
transfer of property, mainly immovable, in the records of
the Jewish communities at Karlsruhe to the Reich Association
of the Jews in Germany, according to the instructions of the
Gestapo, had to have an official copy in order to implement
it. They obtained it from Berlin through a notary on 5
March 1942.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/681.

State Attorney Bar-Or: I now come to Prosecution document
No. 197. This is a memorandum signed by Rademacher of the
Foreign Ministry, dated 21 August 1941, about the question
of what was to happen now with the requirement of wearing
the badge of shame by Jews possessing German nationality. He
says here:

“Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, of the Head Office for
Reich Security, telephoned me and told me
confidentially that SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich had
received a telegram from the Fuehrer’s main
headquarters, according to which the Fuehrer had agreed
that the Jews of Germany should wear a mark of

“Eichmann wanted to know if it was possible to include
foreign Jews. I answered that, in principle, foreign
Jews had to be excluded, for there was a risk that in
North America, for example, retaliatory measures would
be taken, and German nationals would also be compelled
to wear a mark of identification.”

It seems to me that Rademacher deluded himself.

Presiding Judge: This was before the United States entered
the War? Was it in August 1941?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/682.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour.

Next, document No. 1178. A letter from the Accused to the
German Foreign Ministry, dated 28 August 1941, regarding
transit visas through Reich territory for Jewish emigrants.
And he says: “In reply to your letter of 19 August 1941, I
hereby notify you that, from our point of view, Jewish
emigration from areas which are occupied by us must be
avoided, in view of the Final Solution of the question of
European Jewry, which is now being formulated and is in its
preparatory stage.” Later on, at the end, he says: “For
this reason we ask that, because of the considerations that
have been mentioned, you, for your part, should also adopt a
negative attitude towards the transit of Jewish emigrants
who are presently in Denmark.”

Here, Your Honour, he speaks of the solution of the Jewish
Question in its real significance.

Presiding Judge: This was in August 1941, and this was
actually to prevent emigration?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. Here there is no longer the
question of a quota – there is deportation from Germany,
there is here the actual Final Solution of the question of
European Jewry.

The Court will, naturally, take note of the date of this
letter, August 1941, and of Goering’s instructions which
were given, precisely at that time, to prepare what was
afterwards carried out at Wannsee.

Presiding Judge: This will be T/683.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Thank you, Your Honour. Now to
document No. 948.

Presiding Judge: What was the previous document that
mentioned the “Final Solution”?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 666, which had been
marked here T/679. Before the Court is our document No.
948, passed on to Luther, Unterstaatssekretaer
(Undersecretary of State) in the Foreign Ministry. Here it
says: “Ribbentrop, Foreign Minister of the Reich, asks you
to inform Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich on the question of the
marking of Jews possessing a non-German nationality, but
residing in Germany, that Ribbentrop wants, for the time
being, to reserve for himself the right to express an
opinion on this issue for important reasons of foreign
policy. He requests that nothing should be done, for the
present, to impose the obligation of wearing the badge also
on Jews of foreign nationality residing in Germany.”

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/684.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Now we have document No. 949. This
is Heydrich’s letter, dated 24 September 1941, which was
sent out from the Accused’s office. The Accused could not
sign it, for it was addressed to the Foreign Minister
himself. It nevertheless bears the marking Pol.S. IVB4b.
Here Heydrich explains to the Foreign Minister: “In view of
the fact that the Fuehrer has approved the designation of
Jews, I have promulgated a suitable police regulation. Even
though the question of the treatment of Jews having a
foreign nationality has not been mentioned in the police
regulation, these Jews are exempt, for the time being, from
wearing the Jewish badge, by virtue of an internal
instruction.” In fact the explanation means: This is a
general instruction, it applies to every Jew. By means of
an internal instruction which was given to Gestapo
Leitstellen (regional head offices), Jews possessing foreign
nationality were not bound, for the time being, to wear the
badge. It appears that, as things developed, the obligation
to wear the badge was imposed on them as well, without the
necessity of having to enact a special provision.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/685.

We shall now adjourn. The next Session will be next Monday,
at 9 a.m.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/01