Presiding Judge: But the letter starts with the words “On my
visit to Vienna,” This indicates that this must have been
Mr. Stahl, does it not? That he had visited Vienna and made
negative remarks about the arrangements in Vienna, and
someone put pressure on him to apologize. This is how I
Accused: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I do not know
this in detail any longer. But I do know one thing, that at
that time Vienna was not subordinate to the Reich Union,
that is to say to the Jewish offices in Berlin, and there
prevailed, shall we say, a gentle rivalry, because each one
now arranged immigration opportunities for himself, and Dr.
Loewenherz was at that time very active. Dr. Loewenherz did
not have to worry about these local administrative
difficulties, such as they had to contend with in Berlin. In
addition, I obtained from my superiors a very considerable
measure of liberality regarding the grant of permission to
Presiding Judge: All right, this is not relevant. I
understand the question in connection with this document to
be: Who pressed for this apology? Dr. Servatius, is there
not another document from which it transpires that this
letter of apology was delivered to Dr. Loewenherz by the
Dr. Servatius: At present I do not remember.
Attorney General: That is a paragraph in exhibit T/143.
Presiding Judge: Yes, there is such a thing.
Dr. Servatius: T/143 has been submitted here.
Presiding Judge: The numbers became confused here. You have
it as T/142 or T/143. That was also No. 1329. That is a memo
Dr. Servatius: Yes, there is a similar remark here. The
first section of this document actually consists of two
parts and it says:
“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann handed over to the
undersigned a letter of 1 September 1939 from the
Chairman of the Jewish community in Berlin, Mr.
Heinrich Stahl, in which he informs the Jewish
community in Vienna, and the Vienna Palestine Office,
that he had not been justified in criticizing these
offices for the implementation of their emigration…”
This was probably preceded by a conversation.
Dr. Servatius: I refer to number 4 of this same memo, where
it says: “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann declared that he was
prepared to release the remains of Herzl, for transfer to
Witness, would you explain how that happened, what were the
conditions attached to it, what was asked for in return,
what had to be paid.
Accused: Yes Sir. Dr. Loewenherz used to come to me with
all kinds of requests, and because I listened to him on all
matters, the same applied in the present case, the
exhumation of the remains of Theodor Herzl. This was in
March 1939, a time when it would have been impossible for
Dr. Loewenherz to find an office anywhere in Vienna where an
official would have even listened to him on this matter. But
Loewenherz knew my attitude to the basic problem of Jewish
distress, which I derived from Boehm’s book, as I have
Now, it was clear to me that such an intervention, which I
had to arrange with the offices competent in this matter –
because I was not authorized to release the remains of
Theodor Herzl on my own – I now had to start running around
in Vienna, to all kinds of offices, and had, as the greatest
obstacle, to overcome the reservations in principle on the
part of the Foreign Ministry. But that did not seem to me a
difficulty that could not be bridged over, so I said to
Loewenherz if I now take upon myself the running-about and
trouble for a matter in which I am not authorized, then you
have to take upon yourself the running around and the
trouble, and secure an additional 8,000 immigration
opportunities for Jews from Vienna. Because, thereby the
matter would somehow fall into my sphere of competence, and
this achievement of 8,000 additional immigration
opportunities was the basis upon which I could now speak to
all those offices which had been opposed to the matter.
Dr. Servatius: Some payment or contribution must also have
Accused: No, only the additional 8,000 opportunities for
Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/798, document No.
1139. This is a report from Dr. Loewenherz, a memo of 19
December 1939. I refer now to point 1, the last two
paragraphs – permission for foreign currency for December
and January 1940. It says here that agreement was given to
an arrangement with the Joint, and it was confirmed that the
community was entitled to act accordingly.
Witness, could you explain to which payments reference is
made here? These seem to be periodical payments.
Accused: I cannot understand from the document which
payment is meant, but I think I am right in stating that
these payments which Dr. Loewenherz used to ask for all the
time, which the Central Office for Emigration of Jews paid
to him, as the emigrants paid special emigration levies, and
out of that Dr. Loewenherz was paid sums of – I have taken
this from the documents – of 200,000 Marks, and sometimes
500,000 Marks, sums for which I had to ask for authorization
from my superior, on the basis of the requests received from
Dr. Loewenherz. I think this is the matter referred to here.
Dr. Servatius: I refer now to item 6 on the second page.
There, Dr. Loewenherz refers to state pensioners, and the
recipients of official annuities who were to be expelled,
and he applied to Eichmann about this matter.
Witness, were you competent in this matter, and is that why
he applied to you?
Accused: This memo is from 19 December 1939. At that time
I happened to be in Berlin, as one can see from the same
memo, and Dr. Loewenherz, who used to present to me all his
requests, seems to have heard that such measures were being
planned. I had no knowledge of this and could not have made
the statement quoted here to Loewenherz
Dr. Servatius: I refer now to page 3, item 11. Dr.
Loewenherz applies to the Accused in matters of housing.
Witness, were you able to arrange anything in matters of
Accused: In this matter, I was not able to arrange
anything, and I told Dr. Loewenherz as much, and I also told
him the reason why I was unable to arrange anything, as is
shown in the last paragraph of item 11. Yet, although I was
not competent in this matter, Dr. Loewenherz applied to me.
He informed me that Jews were being dealt with very harshly
in the Housing Office of the Vienna Municipality, and this
is proof, I think, that the Jews were not being treated
harshly in my office, nor in the Vienna Bureau of the
Central Office for Emigration of Jews, since otherwise Dr.
Loewenherz would not have come to me to complain, in a way.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to the next document, exhibit
T/799, document No. 1140. It is once again a report by Dr.
Loewenherz, of 26 January 1940. This concerns censorship of
letters. It states:
“Should it be determined, in individual cases, that the
officials concerned did not conduct this correspondence
within the framework of their official duties, then
Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann will cause me to call these
officials to order, as required. No other consequences
will ensue from the monitoring of the correspondence.”
Is there a particular story behind this last paragraph?
Accused: This was the year 1940. We were at war. The
control of all correspondence to foreign countries was
naturally intensified. The Jewish community of Vienna had,
by virtue of its efforts to secure opportunities for
emigration, carried on a voluminous correspondence with
foreign countries. There may have been indications, and in
order to follow these indications – as I surely was obliged
to do, according to directives – I then had the
correspondence of the Jewish community monitored. Naturally,
Loewenherz and his officials were concerned that some kind
of police measures could now be taken against them, and here
I was able reassure Dr. Loewenherz.
Dr. Servatius: I refer to page 6 of this document. There,
Dr. Rothenberg is mentioned. It says:
“Hauptsturmfuehrer Eichmann stated that in view of the
fact that Dr. Rothenberg had done his work with
dedication and had fulfilled his duties, he would not
place any obstacles in his way. Dr. Rothenberg should
present a precise liquidation report and then report to
Eichmann concerning his emigration.”
Did he emigrate, or did you make difficulties after that?
Accused: As far as I know, Dr. Rothenberg, who was
Director of the Palestine Office in Vienna, emigrated to
Palestine after the conclusion of his activities. Therefore,
I made no difficulties.
Dr. Servatius: Then, a further report from Dr. Loewenherz
of 7 March 1940. I refer here only to number 3.
Presiding Judge: Which number is this, please?
Dr. Servatius: T/800, document No. 1141. There is reference
to an existing curfew, and Dr. Loewenherz applies to him in
order to get some relief. It says here:
“Eichmann declared that our intervention, in co-
ordination with the Secret State Police will result in
a favourable conclusion.”
Point 3 once again discusses those monies of the Joint.
Then, at the conclusion of point 3, on that page, it says:
“At the same time I asked that on account of the proceeds an
amount of 500,000 Reichsmarks or one million Zloty may be
transferred to the Polski Bank Comerciclny for the American
Joint Distribution Committee.” This is in connection with
the Nisko affair. I shall come back to this matter later.
Finally, on page 3 under point 5: Release from detention of
the employees of the Jewish Community and the Palestine
Office in Vienna.
Witness, you were approached concerning the release: what
authority did you have in this matter? Or what could you
Accused: According to an order from Himmler issued at
that time, Jews held in concentration camps where released
whenever an opportunity for immigration for them could be
shown. In this connection, a special section was created in
the Central Office for Emigration of Jews in Vienna, which
was in constant touch with a special section of the Jewish
community of Vienna, where these matters were discussed and
settled. In another part of this report – I can’t find it
just now – I told Dr. Loewenherz explicitly that I was not
competent in matters of the concentration camps, but in case
of an application for emigration he may submit this
application to me; I can’t find it at the moment – it must
be in the files – yes, I have found the place meanwhile – it
is in document No. 1139, page 2, last paragraph.
Dr. Servatius: That is T/798. Then a further report signed
by Edelstein-Loewenherz, Eppstein and Weidmann. T/802 –
document No. 1143. The report is dated 3 July 1940. On the
first page, in the last paragraph, the report concerns the
sale of plots of land.
Witness, how did these transactions proceed? What happened
to the money, the proceeds?
Accused: I can no longer comment on this in detail from
memory. All I know is this: there was a time when all
property arrangements in Austria were within the competence
of the Office of the Commissioner for Foreign Assets, and
there was a time, subsequent to that, when with respect to
the liquidation of Jewish property of the Jewish Community
of Vienna, the Main Office of the State Police of Vienna, or
its long arm at that time – the Central Office for
Emigration of Jews – was competent, on behalf of the
Inspector of the Security Police and the Security Service,
who had been empowered in this respect by the Reich
Commissioner. What this last paragraph, which I can hardly
read because the letters are all blurred, means precisely, I
do not know; in any case it is connected with one of these
two points I have just mentioned.
Dr. Servatius: I refer to page 2, point 4: The Question of
immigration. In paragraph 1, it says that the efforts for
emigration, by way of the Far East as well as through
Lisbon, are to be continued. How long was this still
Accused: I cannot now tell you the exact date from
memory, but it was after the beginning of the German-Russian
Dr. Servatius: The text continues, stating that you spoke
with the functionaries about a general solution of the
European Jewish Question. Then reference is made to a
concrete territory for settlement. What was meant by that?
Accused: At that time I was working on all the data I
could obtain with regard to the preparation of the
Madagascar Plan, which has been discussed here earlier. I
see here from the minutes that I informed the Jewish
functionaries at the time of this matter, without mentioning
the country of destination, and I see further that the
content conforms more or less to what I have now read in the
Madagascar Plan. Certainly, I could not have mentioned the
word to them, because the Madagascar Plan remained
classified as “secret,” or even “secret Reich matter” I
don’t know which. In any event, I demanded of the Jewish
functionaries at the time that they, too, submit a
memorandum, stating what aspects would appear to them
important for such a subject.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to exhibit T/154, document No.
783. This is a report submitted by Dr. Loewenherz after the
War, dated 10 October 1960.
Witness, have you read this entire report?
Accused: No, I have not read all of it.
Dr. Servatius: Would you, then, comment on that part which
you have read, on those passages which you have read?
Accused: In glancing at this report, I was surprised at
what I read, because it is in contrast to Loewenherz’
minutes. When I came to page 54, the first paragraph, where
I was said to be the person who had to inform the Jewish
functionaries who were ordered to Berlin at that time, that
on the order of Himmler, 250 Jews were to be shot, because
of the sabotage in “Das rote Paradies” (The Red [Soviet]
exhibition), I thought to myself – this is a crass untruth.
Thereupon, I no longer read and worked on the report at all,
and when I then discovered that another report described the
true course of events I was reinforced in this position of
Judge Halevi: The other report mentioned Mueller and not
you? Is that the difference?
Accused: Yes, Your Honour, which is how it actually
occurred, in reality.
Presiding Judge: Which document is that, please?
Dr. Servatius: T/649, document No. 916. It is a lecture by
Moritz Henschel given on 13 September 1946. It says here on
page 4, at the bottom: “We were all of us placed against the
wall of a large hall, we had to stand there from 9 o’clock
onwards, only Loewenherz and Baeck were permitted to sit for
a quarter of an hour.”
And then, on page 5 on top it says: “At 1:30 Gruppenfuehrer
Mueller came in, the man who worked immediately under
Heydrich, and said: ‘Now comes the result’.”
Dr. Servatius: I come now to another document, I leave
Austria and move to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
First, exhibit T/174, document No. 172. This is once again
the Madagascar Plan. Would you look at page 7, b and c. This
contains data about competence, It says:
“As regards the Ostmark, the central direction is in the
hands of the Central Office for Emigration of Jews as
regards Bohemia and Moravia; the direction is in the hands
of the Central Office for Emigration of Jews in Prague,
which is directly subordinate to the Commander of the
Security Police and the Security Service.”
I come now to document No. 1067, which has not yet been
submitted, and request that it be admitted in evidence. This
is a letter from Eichmann to the Foreign Ministry, dated 15
November 1943. It concerns a planned transport of persons
from Theresienstadt to Bergen-Belsen.
Presiding Judge: I mark this document N/35.
Dr. Servatius: I refer to the last sentence of this letter.
Attorney General: I would like to point out that this
document is identical with No. 546, T/851, and thus has
already been submitted to the Court.
Presiding Judge: Why did it receive two numbers at Bureau
Attorney General: That was simply a clerical mistake.
Presiding Judge: All right, there is no point, then, in
submitting this document again. We shall cancel the marking
N/35. It is a duplicate of a document which has already been
submitted, bearing the number 546, T/851.