Decision No. 54
We admit the extracts from the diary of Jochen Klepper,
together with the authentication of his handwriting, by
virtue of our authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and
Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950. This will be
State Attorney Bach: With regard to the chapter of
Slovakia, I should like, in conclusion, to draw your
attention to three excerpts from the interrogation of
Wisliceny, which has already been submitted to you. This
was our No. 856 and was given the number T/56.
Here, in the interrogation on 14 November 1945, on pages 4-
5, Wisliceny describes how he was sent by the Accused to
Slovakia. He says:
“I received the following instructions: To advise the
Slovak Government on all questions relating to the
Jewish problem. To strive, insofar as possible, to see
to it that the Slovak Jewish legislation should be
assimilated, insofar as possible, to the German. This
was the central point or nucleus of the instructions.
Everything else was left to me personally.”
Presiding Judge: From whom did he receive these
State Attorney Bach: He says that he received directives
from the Accused and from Guenther to attempt to adapt, as
far as possible, the Slovak anti-Jewish legislation to the
Thereafter, in the interrogation of 15 November 1945, on
page 13, he talks of the negotiations that he conducted with
Jewish institutions, and of the fact that Eichmann told him
to break off all these negotiations, “and that, if anything
would go wrong, he would not hesitate to drop me entirely,
that he would not protect me against any actions by
On page 14, when he talks about the desire of the Slovaks to
visit the camps, and when he ultimately reveals to him where
the Jews were going to, he says: “He said to me at that time
verbally the Slovaks won’t be able to see their Jews any
more because they are not alive.”
And the last extract from that interrogation – on page 21.
He speaks several times about Alois Brunner and refers to
him all the time as “Schweinehund” (swine), and the
interrogator asks him: “You used the expression Schweinehund
in connection with Brunner’s name. Why did you do that?”
He answered: “He was an extremely unscrupulous individual,
one of the best tools of Eichmann. He never had an opinion
of his own, and as Eichmann himself described him, he was
‘one of my best men’.”
And now, Your Honours, in the course of our comprehensive
description of Europe from west to east, the seizure of Jews
and their transfer to extermination camps, we come now to
the last territory, the last country – and that is Hungary.
[Transcription note: Volume II of the printed volumes ends here.
Volume III begins with the continuation of Session 51, which begins
the chapter on Hungary. knm, 99/06/10]
Here, Your Honours, we have to distinguish between two
periods – the first period, up to 19 March 1944, and the
second from that date onwards, when the German army entered
Hungary and the Accused operated within Hungary itself. At
the outset I should like to submit a small number of
documents relating to the first period, that is to say,
until 19 March 1944.
The first document is our No. 163 – it was submitted to the
Accused and was given the No. T/37(88). The question arose
whether there was any point in deporting Jews who had fled
to Hungary, from the region east of the Dniester river. And
the Accused, as he had already done in the case of Romania,
was opposed to a partial operation regarding Hungary, and he
says: “It would not be appropriate to set the whole
evacuation apparatus in motion in order to remove those Jews
alone who escaped at the time to Hungary” – and subsequently
this apparatus would have to be stopped again. He thinks it
desirable to delay this operation until Hungary would be
ready to include in these measures the Jews of Hungary as
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1136.
State Attorney Bach: That was a letter to the Foreign
Office, dated 26 September 1942.
Our next document is No. 1242. Here Luther writes a
detailed note to the German legation in Budapest and asks
that influence be exercised on the Hungarian Government to
show understanding for the German plan for the Final
Solution of the Jewish Question and to agree to the
designation of the Jews and to their deportation to the
Presiding Judge: There is something missing here. This is a
document of two pages, is it not?
State Attorney Bach: A document of three pages, actually
Presiding Judge: There are two incomplete copies here – one
with the first page missing, and one with the second page
missing. The Hebrew translation is complete.
State Attorney Bach: Perhaps I can submit at least one
German copy intact.
Presiding Judge: We now have two and two-thirds copies.
This document will be marked T/1137.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be
permitted to make a comment on this document? There is an
important passage here. We have to treat this matter in the
light of this passage.
Presiding Judge: From what page are you quoting?
Dr. Servatius: I was not quoting it – it is on the first
page – it is merely in keeping with the meaning of the
words. On page two it says:
“The handling of the Jews of Hungary itself appears to
be more complicated, but even more urgent. Therefore,
I would ask you to explain to the Hungarian Government
the reasons that have motivated us to strive, in
compliance with the wishes of the Fuehrer, towards an
early and complete solution of the problem of the Jews
in Europe, and to request the Hungarian Government, for
its part, also to promote the operations necessary to
State Attorney Bach: I am thankful to Defence Counsel for
drawing your attention to this passage, which is also of
importance in our view.
The next document is our No. 510. It was submitted to the
Accused and was marked T/37(164). This document is signed
by Mueller, but was drawn up in IVB4. Mueller here seeks
authority to permit individual Jews to depart from Slovakia
and Holland, in exchange for a payment of 100,000 Swiss
francs. This money would enable the recruitment of
volunteers for the Waffen-SS in Hungary.
Presiding Judge: One copy of the translation is missing
here. Instead of the translation, we have an extra copy of
the German original, but let us leave that. I have said
this because I was unable to read the marking IVB4 on the
original. Where did you get it from?
State Attorney Bach: I will tell Your Honour. The original
is actually attached to the statement, and there, evidently,
the mark IVB4 is very clear. It is only on this copy that
it is somewhat blurred. But the number is evidently
absolutely clear on the original.
Presiding Judge: How does it appear here in the translation?
State Attorney Bach: The translation was prepared according
to the original – according to the photostatic copy which is
to be found in T/37(164).
Presiding Judge: Yes, we can see it there.
State Attorney Bach: There we are able to see it clearly.
Incidentally, Your Honour, it is also found in the
supporting reference, where it says: “The order…IVB4a on
the same subject.”
Presiding Judge: Yes, that is clear. Will we receive a
further copy of the translation at a later stage?
State Attorney Bach: We shall gladly let you have it, Your
Honour. He also mentions that in Holland there were eight
cases of this kind affecting 28 Jews who indeed made use of
– let us express it this way – this right.
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1138.
State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 972.
Here Klingenfuss of the Foreign Office reports to Eichmann
on 7 December 1942 on a debate in the Hungarian parliament
on the question of labour camps for Jews and the work of
Christian women in Jewish homes. He indicates that this
legislation was not proceeding satisfactorily.
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1139.
State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is
No. 1341. It is a letter signed by Guenther of IVB4a on 5
April 1943. This document illustrates the blind hatred of
these people. It mentions the fact that 150 Jews, who
included lawyers, factory owners, merchants, and other
intellectuals – and this is what Guenther stresses – were
working in a labour camp near the railway line, in a place
not far from the border, and once a day they were allowed to
purchase a hot meal in a restaurant, the same restaurant
where German railway officials were also entitled to eat –
they were obliged to have their meals there, at the same
place. He asks them to take steps to put an end to this
practice, both for security reasons and also – as he puts it
– “since it is impossible to demand of these officials that
they should be obliged to come into constant contact with
Jews.” The emphasis is on “Jewish intellectuals.”
Presiding Judge: “Intellektuelle”?
State Attorney Bach: Intellektuelle, yes. He specially
stresses “lawyers, factory owners, merchants and other
intellectuals.” I should like to emphasize that this was in
the period when Hungary had not been occupied, and the
German army was not yet there.
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1140.
State Attorney Bach: Our following document is No. 519. It
is a letter signed by the Accused, to the German Foreign
Office, in connection with a Jew named Oskar Trenk,
evidently of Hungarian nationality, so it says here. He
says that there were no documents proving his Hungarian
nationality. Consequently, such people were considered to
be stateless and were sent to the east for “forced labour.”
Their whereabouts are not known at the moment.
Presiding Judge: Was this in the time of Horthy? Did it
belong to the Horthy period?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1141.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 523, which
was submitted to the Accused and given No. T/37(160). Here
there is reference to methods of evacuating Jews possessing
Presiding Judge: Evacuation from the German Reich?
State Attorney Bach: Here it talks of evacuation from the
Reich. But evidently there was some intervention on the
part of the Hungarian Government which, via the German
Foreign Office, took an interest in these Jews. And it
says: “The present whereabouts of the Jews who were sent to
the east cannot be determined at present. It is not
possible, for reasons of principle, to grant the demand of
the Hungarian Consulate-General or the Hungarian embassy to
repatriate those concerned to Hungary.” Obviously the
reference is to Hungarian nationals who were in the Reich at
that time and who had been deported to the east.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1142.
State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No. 546,
which shows the control of the Accused over the camps of
Terezin and Bergen-Belsen. The issue here was whether Jews
possessing Hungarian nationality ought to be in a detention
camp in Bergen-Belsen, or whether they should be transferred
to Theresienstadt. For various considerations of
convenience and location, the Accused decided that there
were more suitable conditions in Theresienstadt. And I
especially underline the last sentence: “Accordingly I have
instructed the Commander of the Security Police and the SD
in Prague to leave the Jews in question in Theresienstadt
for the time being.”
Clerk of the Court This document has already been submitted
and was given No. T/851.
State Attorney Bach: If that is the case, I draw the
Court’s attention to T/851. Possibly it was submitted in
connection with Theresienstadt.
The next document is No. 521 – it was submitted to the
Accused and given No. T/37(157). Here the reference is to a
Jew named Goldberger who, together with his family,
emigrated to Belgium as Czechoslovakian citizens, and they
were taken to the labour effort in the east. It is not
possible to ascertain their present whereabouts. He, too,
possesses Hungarian citizenship. This is a letter that
Eichmann writes to von Thadden on 25 January 1944.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1143.
State Attorney Bach: The following document is our No.
1644. This is a rather lengthy report by Veesenmayer, dated
December 1943. Its importance is actually in the very last
page of this document, to which I draw your attention, in
paragraph 7. In fact, throughout the document Veesenmayer
hints that it is desirable that the German army – the German
forces – should take control over the whole of Hungary. But
the seventh paragraph indicates that one of the principal
reasons for that proposed action is, as he calls it, the
Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Hungary.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1144.
State Attorney Bach: And now, Your Honours, we come to 19
March 1944, the day the Germans entered Hungary. Our
document No. 1021 constitutes Veesenmayer’s report to the
Foreign Office, to the effect that he had safely reached
Budapest and had taken over control of matters. He
describes his entry into Budapest and adds: “After this I
spent three quarters of an hour alone with the Regent; I
introduced myself to him and informed him that I had been
entrusted, together with him, with the task of setting up
the new government. The spirit of the conversation with the
Regent was a positive one – and we began making changes in
the structure of the government.”
Presiding Judge: Was there also an exchange of ambassadors
here? Is it not it a fact that Veesenmayer was the
ambassador later on?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. Actually he had
then arrived for the first time. He came together with the
army. Prior to that the name of the ambassador was Jagow.
Presiding Judge: I see that here it says “through Minister
State Attorney Bach: Yes, but I do not know if he was then
in Budapest or whether this was simply a means of delivering
the letter to Ribbentrop. For Your Honour will notice that
in paragraph two it is stated that Ambassador von Jagow
informed the Regent today of such-and-such. This means that
the German ambassador was then von Jagow, but the
notification to Ribbentrop was passed on by Ritter.
Judge Halevi: Did the meeting between Horthy and Hitler not
State Attorney Bach: Yes. Such a meeting had taken place.
This episode is mentioned in the Kasztner report. This was
on 19 March. I believe that the meeting took place on 17
March. Immediately afterwards there was this operation, the
entry of the German army.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1145.
State Attorney Bach: At this stage, with your permission, I
should like to lead the evidence of Mr. Pinchas Freudiger.
[The witness makes an affirmation.]
Presiding Judge: What is your name?
Witness: Pinchas Freudiger, previously Philip von Freudiger.
Presiding Judge: Please answer Mr. Bach’s questions.
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Freudiger, you are a native of
Witness Freudiger: Yes.
Q. You first studied in Budapest and then went to work at a
factory which had been founded by your grandfather, of