State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1084 – the problem of
repatriation to Croatia of Jews at present in Hungary.
Information is given here, on 10 July 1944, that the
Government of Hungary intends to repatriate Jews holding
foreign nationality and it states that the Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in Hungary (this is
in July 1944, about three months after the German invasion)
have not been informed of this.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/923.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1085 – an SS
Obersturmfuehrer, whose signature cannot be deciphered,
writes to the Accused on 22 August 1944 on the same subject
and informs him that so far no agreements of the kind
referred to in the decree mentioned have been made between
Croatia and Hungary. Nothing is known about the repatriation
of Croatian Jews from Hungary.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/924.
There are too many quotations. You must recall the remark I
made quite some time ago. You are again in fact quoting
entire letters. This is impossible.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I will end this chapter with
document No. 166, a letter from Guenther to von Thadden
dated 6 April 1944 in connection with the employment of a
certain Jew in the “Petrolej” Company.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/925.
State Attorney Bar-Or: I ask that you now hear the Attorney
Presiding Judge: Very well. This concerns Kappel?
Attorney General: Yes. It concerns the interrogation in
Italy. I can inform the Court that we shall be able to
conduct the interrogation in Italy under the Convention
existing between ourselves and Italy. However, we are asked
to submit the questionnaire in French, not in Italian.
Presiding Judge: Can we do this?
Attorney General: The Italian authorities are ready to
accept the questionnaire from us in French on the assumption
that we use one of the official languages. It seems that we
cannot be represented there, that the State cannot be
represented, but will have to ask for the assistance of the
Italian Prosecution with this matter, so we have been told.
Presiding Judge: A Convention does exist at any rate?
Attorney General: A Convention exists, it contains a
paragraph about taking evidence, and we can invoke it.
Presiding Judge: Has it been published?
Attorney General: Yes, it has been published in the official
Collection of Conventions. I shall let the Court have the
details. Our problem was only the procedure, and this is
what we found out through our embassy in Rome: The Defence
can only be represented by an advocate who is licensed to
appear before the Italian Courts.
Judge Raveh: Can the man be located?
Attorney General: He is in prison. There is no difficulty at
I have a further announcement after this, about quite a
Presiding Judge: But we had better conclude this subject.
You will have to submit your questionnaire in the matter of
Kappel. So far we have only the questionnaire from Dr.
Attorney General: If the Court will give us time until
tomorrow at this hour we shall submit our questionnaire.
Presiding Judge: Let us do it in Italian. You can prepare
the Italian translation, and if you have difficulties I
think that Mr. Rosen, the interpreter, will be able to help
Attorney General: Until tomorrow we may be able to make
arrangements for the Hebrew only.
Presiding Judge: Never mind, submit it in Hebrew and we
shall see to it. In order to conclude this subject, Dr.
Servatius, do you have any comments? Will you be
represented by a lawyer there?
Dr. Servatius: I shall have to engage an attorney there,
but the difficulty will be to find a lawyer who is ready to
appear in this case. I have myself some experience in this
in Germany, so that this may cause a delay. Things might
perhaps be arranged in such a way that the Italian attorney
appears officially and that then my assistant puts the
actual questions. For it will not be possible, will it, to
familiarize the Italian colleague so quickly with the
essence of this interrogation. At any rate, I shall do my
best in order to expedite the matter.
Presiding Judge: And now the second subject.
Attorney General: The second subject concerns the article in
Life magazine. I was asked by the Court to contact the
editors of the magazine and ask for the manuscript which it
received from Sassen, the journalist, and which contains the
memoirs of the Accused, or things which he said. I did as
instructed by the Court and approached the magazine. Their
reply was that, since under the terms of the acquisition of
the manuscript they are not allowed to transfer it, they
cannot, to their regret – so they say – comply with my
At the same time I can inform the Court that efforts have
been made to obtain the manuscript and that it is now in our
hands – not from Life magazine.
Presiding Judge: What is is? Is it a copy?
Attorney General: It is a transcript, there also the taped
conversations and we shall hear a dialogue with the Accused
apparently. We do not have the tape, but the Accused replies
to questions and gives explanations about points he was
asked to explain. The material is not short, over sixty
tapes, not much less than we have here, covering several
hundred pages. I have at this moment almost all the tapes
Presiding Judge: is it the tapes?
Attorney General: The transcripts of the tapes. Because they
are typewritten, the question of verification may arise, how
to verify that they are in fact connected with the Accused,
since I have no other way of authenticating the document I
wish to submit. We hope to overcome this difficulty within a
few days and then I shall be in a position to submit to the
Court the authenticated document.
Presiding Judge: Very well. When you have something to
submit we shall revert to this, and of course hear Dr.
Servatius on the subject.
I do not remember that a decision was taken in advance on
this matter, whether to accept or not to accept anything.
Attorney General: No ruling was given in advance. I shall of
course be ready to put a copy of the material at the
disposal of Dr. Servatius, as soon as I can. He said at the
time that he is also interested in having this material
submitted to the Court.
Dr. Servatius: I would be interested, if I am given a copy.
Presiding Judge: Very well, when you are ready, we shall
revert to the matter.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Bar-Or, please continue.
State Attorney Bar-Or: We pass on to the chapter of
Bulgaria. Document No. 1023, a letter, or rather a telegram,
from Luther to Beckerle, the German Minister in Sofia. This
is the beginning of the negotiations with the Government of
Bulgaria about the expulsion of the Jews. I draw the
attention of the Court to the remark in the margin.
Presiding Judge: This is marked T/926.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Beckerle’s reply to the German
Foreign Ministry. He reports contents of his conversation
with the Bulgarian Prime Minister on 16 November 1942.
Presiding Judge: This is marked T/927.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 127, a document which
was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(52). The Accused
was asked to give his opinion on this document on page 1153
ff. It is a letter from the Accused to Gesandtschaftsrat
(Legation Councillor) Dr. KLingenfuss at the Foreign
Ministry dated 17 November 1942, in which he uses, inter
alia the phrase: “…im Zuge einer umfassenden Loesung der
europaeischen Judenfrage…” (in the framework of a
comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question).
Presiding Judge: Where is this, Mr. Bar-Or, at the end?
State Attorney Bar-Or: In the passage before the last
sentence. The meaning is that in the course of a
comprehensive solution of the Jewish Question in Europe he
wishes to persuade the Government of Bulgaria to stop giving
Presiding Judge: This is marked T/928.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1925, a letter from
Klingenfuss of the Foreign Ministry dated 23 November 1942
enclosing copy of a report from the German legation in Sofia
and a memorandum from the Government of Bulgaria. Wisliceny
is mentioned as Advisor to the legation in Sofia, to the
Presiding Judge: This is marked T/929.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 233 which was shown to
the Accused and marked T/37(53). Again Klingenfuss to
Beckerle at the German legation in Sofia. A change of plan:
Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker is mentioned in place of
Wisliceny. There is also mention of what should be demanded
from the Government of Bulgaria as compensation for each Jew
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/930.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1026. There are two
papers here: first a letter dated 10 December 1942 from
IVB4, signed by Mueller, about the expulsion of the Jews
from Bulgaria; and then there is a letter from the Foreign
Ministry to Mueller. Here the subject is a request from the
Government of Bulgaria concerning the dispatch of a
counsellor for the Jewish Question. Wisliceny cannot be
spared. In his place Mueller has designated
Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who had served until then as
specialist for Jewish affairs with the Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service in the area of the
military government in France. A paragraph on page 2 deals
with the official status of Dannecker, who is to serve in
practice as specialist for Jewish affairs under the Police
Attache, who was there before Dannecker’s assumption of his
I should perhaps direct the attention of the Court to the
question why Mueller signed this and not the Accused. The
reason is that this paper goes directly to
Unterstaatssekretaer (Undersecretary of State) Luther.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/931.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1028. On 8 February
1943, Beckerle transmits Dannecker’s first report, dated the
same day, about the commencement of his activities. He says
that before Dannecker took up his duties he (Beckerle) had
already discussed the problem with the Minister of the
Interior, whose intention is clear – to expel all the Jews.
Dannecker, on his part, speaks of 10,000 to 12,000 Jews who
are available for immediate expulsion since they do not hold
I draw the Court’s attention to the first paragraph. Here
the expulsion of the Jews from Thrace and Macedonia is
mentioned for the first time, not the Jews of Bulgaria
proper, but the Jews of those parts of Bulgaria which the
Germans annexed to Bulgaria. And there are more details
about the negotiations between Dannecker and Belev, the
Commissioner for the Jews in the Bulgarian Government, who
operates from the Ministry of the Interior.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/932.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1029, a telegram from
Beckerle to the German Foreign Ministry dated 16 February
1943. Beckerle says that the Bulgarian Prime Minister has
informed him that the Bulgarian Parliament has so far only
approved the expulsion of 20,000 Jews from the liberated
areas, i.e. Thrace and Macedonia. He also says that
Dannecker has already fully taken up his duties.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/933.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1030, a letter from
Dannecker to the Attaches Group. On top of the letter it
says: Seen and signed: Beckerle. He had actually no right to
transmit these reports at all; they ought to have gone
through Beckerle. But sometimes he writes directly and then
Beckerle signs confirming that he has seen it. So this goes
on to Head Office for Reich Security – Attaches Group for
IVB4. The Attaches Group acted of course in the name of all
the Sections of Head Office for Reich Security, not only of
IVB4. If you wanted it to pass the matter on to the Accused,
you had to write “for IVB4.” This is Dannecker’s second
report and he writes about the implementation of the first
stage of the expulsion. The document is dated 12 February
1943. He also mentions that, without waiting for the
decision by the Council of Ministers regarding all the Jews
of Bulgaria, the expulsion of the Jews of Thrace and
Macedonia is being undertaken immediately. Belev will first
seize what he calls “undesirable Jews.”
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/934.
State Attorney Bar-Or: A letter dated February 1943 from
von Thadden to the Accused. Von Thadden transmits a summary
of what we have just seen in document No. 1030 to the
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/935.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1032 – Guenther’s
letter of 9 March 1943, to von Hahn at the Foreign Ministry
about the first transport of 20,000 Jews from Bulgaria. The
technical preparations have been completed and it is
expected that the expulsion will take place on 15 March. The
Jews will be expelled to the Generalgouvernement in two
special trains of 2,000-3,000 persons each week.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/936.
State Attorney Bar-Or: Document No. 1033. There are
actually three letters here which are grouped together. In
the last one Rademacher, in handwriting, passes on the gist
of the matter to the Accused: A report from Beckerle about
further developments in connection with the expulsion, and
about negotiations in the Bulgarian Parliament concerning
the inclusion of the Jews of Bulgaria itself in the
deportations. Here we find Peshev, who is especially active
in the Parliament, before which the above-mentioned Belev
who worked directly with Dannecker was of course
responsible. In the margin the Foreign Ministry is asked to
inform Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann about the contents of
the letter. Finally there is a telegram about the Session of
the Parliament where the majority passed a vote of non-
confidence without stating reasons, in the Vice President of
the Parliament, Peshev, because of his intervention on
behalf of the Bulgarian Jews. It seems that, in the end,
this and similar steps succeeded in preventing the expulsion
of the Jews from the border of Bulgaria, in spite of
Presiding Judge: Where is the name of the Accused mentioned?
State Attorney Bar-Or: The name of the Accused appears on
the document entitled Arbeitsexemplar (working copy) which
contains the marginal comments I have quoted.
Presiding Judge: I cannot see the name of the Accused here.
This begins: “Sofia, den 26. Maerz, 1943.”
State Attorney Bar-Or: That is correct, Your Honour.
Presiding Judge: Were you reading a translation?
State Attorney Bar-Or: In the translation we wrote it out
in full. There are two handwritten notes here. The typed
distribution list was not copied. The handwritten notes have
been fully translated and typed.
Presiding Judge: So this is a marginal note.