State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 929 is signed by Suhr
from the Department of the Accused, IVB4b. It is addressed
to the Foreign Ministry, attention Counsellor of Legation
Dr. Klingenfuss. It deals with Jews of Hungarian
nationality. I direct your attention only to the last
paragraph of this letter. He refers here to his own letter
IVB4b of 10 July 1942, and says that efforts must be made to
reach an agreement with the Hungarian Government for Jewish
property to be dealt with in accordance with the territorial
principle. The Court will see later on that the meaning of
this principle was to leave the Jewish property in the hands
of the government from whose territory the Jew was deported
in the course of the extermination campaign. The property
of a Hungarian Jew in Germany belongs to the Germans; that
of a Hungarian Jew in Hungary – to the Hungarians. That
this was not always adhered to is another matter, but this
was the principle agreed on with the governments, and it was
called Territorialprinzip (territorial principle).
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/748.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 930, a letter from
Klingenfuss to Dr. Suhr, dated 27 August 1942. He asks that
the Department of the Accused refrain, for the time being,
from implementing measures which should have been taken in
accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/749.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Now to our document No. 1292, a
letter from the Gestapo Regional Headquarters Nuremberg-
Fuerth of 26 August 1942, about the emigration of Jews to
Theresienstadt on 10 and 23 September 1942. It says that
these Jews have to be made to sign special forms, and a
sample of this order is attached. The text of the order is
now, I believe, clear to the Court. It says here exactly
what was already described in earlier orders. Reference is
made to laws concerning the forfeiture of Communist
property, of property of enemies of the Reich, etc., and on
this basis a legal cover, so to speak, is given to the
forfeiture of the property of the deported – this time to
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/750.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1027, an urgent letter
which leaves Berlin on 4 September 1942. The letterhead is
“Reich Minister of the Interior,” and full markings must of
course be added: Pol. S. IVB4b. The letter goes to all
Regional Headquarters of the Gestapo in Germany, to Vienna,
Metz, Prague, Strassburg, Marburg (in Untersteiermark, the
part that was taken from Yugoslavia), Luxembourg. It is
signed by Mueller and deals with police orders (which I
already submitted) published in the Reich Official Gazette,
concerning the designation of the Jews, and it says that
Jews in the area of the Gestapo offices mentioned who hold
Bulgarian nationality have to be included in the marking
procedure. The Court will remember that Heydrich announced
that, although the order was general, internal instructions
were given to refrain from applying it to Jews of foreign
nationality. Here there is a different method: Instructions
are given by letter to include this or that category of Jews
within these general orders.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/751.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Our document No. 1294 is a telegram
which we obtained from the Gestapo file in Wuerzburg, a
telegram from the Accused to Nuremberg dated 19 September
1942, which shows meticulous attention even to one family in
this district which was to be evacuated to Theresienstadt.
“In reply to the above-mentioned report, I advise you
that there are no objections to including about twelve
suitable Jews aged 23 to 45” – i.e., far below the age
limit of 65 – “in the transport to Theresienstadt, for
the purpose of looking after the sick and the infirm,
on condition that they otherwise meet the guidelines
for the relocation of Jews to Theresienstadt. Jews
who, according to the guidelines, are ineligible for
evacuation to the East or relocation to Theresienstadt,
respectively, must, on principle, not be deported even
when they volunteer for inclusion or apply for it. I
request, therefore, to leave the Jew Kurt Israel Fels
behind. As for the decision in the case of the Jewess
Gertrud Sara Hahn, I leave this to your discretion.
The parents may be taken to Theresienstadt later…”
The telegram is signed: Head Office for Reich Security IVB4a
Presiding Judge: This will be T/752.
State Attorney Bar-Or: No. 1284 is a telegram from
Regensburg to the Wuerzburg branch of the Regional
Headquarters of the Gestapo about the relocation of Jews to
Theresienstadt. Inter alia, it says in this telegram that
the transport costs amount to 2,066 Reichsmark and 50
Pfennigs. “I request that this amount be transferred
immediately from Special Account W to Account No. 142 of the
Police Treasury Regensburg with the Reichsbank Regensburg.”
Here we have a withdrawal from Account W for the purpose of
covering the transport costs of deported Jews.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/753.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Now for document No. 1107. It is a
note in the file of the Regional Headquarters of the
Gestapo, Duesseldorf, of October 1942 and deals with a Jew
who was apparently active in what was left of the Community
Council. He is here accused of having willfully omitted the
names of the members of one family from the list which had
to be prepared for the use of the Gestapo. Attached to the
document is a “Schutzhaftbefehl” (order for protective
arrest) signed by Mueller; this is actually a standard form,
to which specific reasons had only to be added. Here those
reasons which result from the note received by Duesseldorf
are given in brief.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/754.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 922. It
is a memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of
Argentina, dated 4 November 1942, and deals with the
problems of a Jew named Mayerhoff who wishes to go to
Argentina, in order to acquire Argentinian nationality.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/755.
State Attorney Bar-Or: In document No. 923, Rademacher
transmits the request of the Argentinian embassy to Eichmann
for his attention. What the Court will find here is typical
in connection with Rademacher’s files. We have already seen
“Durchdruck als Konzept” (copy in lieu of draft).
Rademacher does not use a “copy in lieu of draft,” he takes
his draft and puts it into his file instead of his copy.
Most of his documents are to be found in this form in his
files; luckily he did us a favour and wrote in a fairly
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/756.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I hope the Court will forgive me. I
am not submitting this series of documents because they are
of special interest, but in order that we may understand the
method of proving how these offices operated. I have chosen
a typical case, by means of which we can follow the whole
inter-office negotiating process between the Department of
the Accused on the one hand, and the Foreign Ministry on the
other. I shall submit two more documents on this matter.
Presiding Judge: On the matter of Mayerhoff?
State Attorney Bar-Or: Hans Peter Israel Mayerhoff, who
lived in Berlin. In our document No. 924 Guenther informs
Klingenfuss: “For reasons of principle, the intended journey
abroad of the above-mentioned Jew cannot be approved, as you
were told in the telephone conversation on 16 November 1942.
It is intended to deport Mayerhoff to Theresienstadt.”
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/757.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Now, in document No. 925, the
Foreign Ministry passes on to the Argentine embassy in
Berlin what was communicated by Eichmann – with the
exception of what was stated to be in store for the future.
It is not said here what will be done with him. It simply
says that the German authorities cannot agree to the
emigration of the above-mentioned Jew for reasons of
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/758.
State Attorney Bar-Or: We now turn to our document No. 199.
That is a letter from Luther to Eichmann, i.e., from a
person of higher rank directly to Eichmann. In this letter,
of December 1942, Luther announces that the governments of
Romania, Croatia and Slovakia have agreed that those of
their Jews who are at present within the jurisdiction of the
Reich shall be deported and evacuated to the ghettos in the
East together with the German Jews.
Presiding Judge: This will be T/759.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Our next document is No. 968, a
letter from Hunsche of the Section of the Accused to the
Foreign Ministry, written in January 1943. I should first
like to draw the attention of the Court to two points: The
subject is a Jew named Eduard Loewenthal. The marking (on
the document) is actually divided into two parts: IVB4b-4 –
here we find again a subdivision. Then it says: L 16165.
This is one of the few indications we have about the
existence of an exact card index containing the names of the
Jews of all the Regional Gestapo Headquarters in the various
regions of the Reich. There is mention here of a personal
file containing material about a certain Jew. The subject
is the forfeiture of the property of this Jew in accordance
with Regulation 11, and the Foreign Ministry is asked to
find out if he had Italian nationality, when he acquired it
and when he lost the German nationality which he apparently
held before becoming Italian. The intention is obvious –
this has to be clarified before the fate of his property can
Presiding Judge: This will be T/760.
State Attorney Bar-Or: The Court will forgive me if I
revert to document No. 9, which was already submitted and
marked T/271, a draft which aroused some interest, on which
it says: “Obersturmbannfehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat
Hunsche.” Now I should like to demonstrate to the Court how
these matters developed, what was the nature of this draft.
I do not submit it, the document is already an exhibit, I
only want to refer to it for the purpose of clarification.
Presiding Judge: Because of this heading?
State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes. The Court will certainly
remember that on T/271 there was a discussion between the
Defence and ourselves concerning the nature of the document,
which is not signed at all. At the top it says: Chief of
the Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b; under
this: Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann Regierungsrat Hunsche.
First of all, here it says what I just mentioned: That the
document was brought to the attention of certain offices for
their comments, among others to that of the Foreign
Ministry. It was received at the Foreign Ministry on 8
Presiding Judge: Are you now referring to that actual
State Attorney Bar-Or: I am referring to the actual
document, No. 9, which was already submitted.
Presiding Judge: I understand that you are doing this only
in order to refresh our memory.
State Attorney Bar-Or: There is perhaps another matter
worth considering, as my colleague has just pointed out to
me. On the very last page of document No. 9, we find the
Verteiler (distribution) to whom the document was sent for
comments. The first column: Foreign Ministry; this is the
copy that is before us, and then the departments of the Head
Office for Reich Security. They all received document
T/271, in order that they might give their opinion on what
was to be sent out. At the end of the Verteiler we find
Presiding Judge: This is also not very clear. If the
document comes from this Department, why does the same
Department receive it once more?
State Attorney Bar-Or: I think it is for the purpose of
Now let us look at our document No. 788, which is connected
with that (earlier) document. It was shown to the Accused
and marked T/37(96). This letter did go out, it is actually
signed, by Dr. Kaltenbrunner on 5 March 1943 (and was sent)
shortly thereafter. It now has the final marking “Der Chef
der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD” (The Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service IVB4b). Where does
this document go?
Presiding Judge: Is this the final letter of which T/271 was
State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour. The
differences here in this draft, maybe in document T/271 we
shall see the letter sent out in III. This is the letter
which is at this moment in its final form before the Court.
Here there are several letters. What is No. 788 here, the
exhibit before the Court, this is the letter sent out, III.
We see the same addresses to which it was to go, we also
find the subject: “Treatment of Jews of Foreign Nationality
in the Government General and the Occupied Areas of the
East.” This is the very subject of letter No. 788. The
text is not very different. There is, in fact, mention here
of the same sixteen countries, and the text as sent follows
Presiding Judge: Document No. 788 is marked T/761.
Secretary This has already been submitted.
State Attorney Bar-Or: [To Clerk of the Court] Has No. 535
also been submitted?
Presiding Judge: I see that this document was submitted and
marked T/310. [The Clerk of the Court hands document T/310
to the Presiding Judge] Why are we dealing with these two
documents a second time? Document No. 535 has not yet been
submitted to us.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I only wanted to elucidate the
development of these matters. One cannot submit the
additional documents without referring to what we have
Presiding Judge: All this in order to explain the heading?
State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, all this is intended to explain
the heading. I have to agree with you, Your Honour, that it
would have been much easier and much more logical to submit
all these documents together.
This document is also signed by Dr. Kaltenbrunner, also
under the heading Der Reichsminister des Inneren (the Reich
Minister of the Interior), Pol. S IVB4b, also on 5 March
1943. While the previous one went to the Security Police
authorities mainly in the East, here the same subject is
repeated, and it goes to the Centre and the West. The
difference is, as the Court will see immediately, that
previously sixteen countries were mentioned, whereas here
only fifteen countries appear. Here Jews of Soviet
nationality are accorded rights or standing similar to all
those who did receive exemption. This did not accord with
what was agreed or with what was proposed by the Foreign
Ministry. The Foreign Ministry did not know that on the
basis of this draft two circular letters would be sent out,
one in this direction and one in that, therefore there is
now an additional correspondence.
Presiding Judge: Your document No. 535 will be marked T/761.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I go on to our document No. 15, a
letter by von Thadden.
Presiding Judge: Is this still on the same matter?
State Attorney Bar-Or: This is a matter connected with it.
Here the finished product actually emerges. The finished
product will be Bergen-Belsen. Von Thadden’s letter to
Eichmann is dated 2 March 1943. It refers to Eichmann’s
letter dealing with Jews in the areas of Nazi domination who
hold Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian and Soviet-Russian
nationality. The question is whether they may be included
in the general measures against the Jews. The Foreign
Ministry asks to retain about 30,000 Jews who might be used
for the purpose of exchange. The interesting thing here is
one sentence by von Thadden which says – at the end of the
first page: “In view of the relations between the hostile
powers among themselves, it is recommended to make up the
main contingent of Jews to be retained, in the first
instance, of Dutch, Belgian and Norwegian nations of the
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/762.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to our document No. 931, a
letter by von Hahn from the Foreign Ministry to the Accused
of 5 March 1943.
Judge Halevi: The previous letter also looks as if it is
signed by von Hahn, does it not?
State Attorney Bar-Or: There is a Vermerk (remark) at the
end of the letter: “Because of the great urgency, I signed
this letter.” I think I have to agree with you, Your
Honour, that the signature is von Hahn’s.
Judge Halevi: Yes, this is not important, it is only
because you mention von Hahn.