The next exhibit is T/934, document No. 1030. This is a
report by Dannecker to the Head Office for Reich Security
IVB4, dated 16 February 1943. On page 1 it says: “Without
waiting for the decision of the Council of Ministers, Belev
on his own initiative had already dispatched delegates to
Thrace and Macedonia, in order to investigate the
possibilities.” At the end it reads: “In order to reach the
figure of twenty thousand, Belev will also, in accordance
with my proposal, have recourse to what are known as
`undesirable’ Jews.” In the top left-hand corner of page 1
it says “seen – Beckerle.”
Next exhibit – T/935, document No. 1031. The Foreign
Ministry to Eichmann. It says that “the legation in Sofia
reports that the Bulgarian Diet has given initial approval
to the evacuation of twenty thousand Jews from the liberated
zones.” The last sentence reads: “I would be grateful if
everything could be done at the other end to ensure that the
end of March as the date for evacuation can be observed.”
Signature: van Hahn, Foreign Ministry.
Next exhibit – T/939, document No. 204. Another report from
Dannecker, to the Head Office for Reich Security IVB4,
Attache Group. The text reads: “Following the telephone
conversation with Eichmann I enclose: (1) Photocopy of the
agreement between the Bulgarian Commissioner for Jewish
Affairs and the undersigned as authorized representative,
with regard to the resettlement of initially twenty thousand
Jews from Bulgaria to the German Eastern Territories.”
Witness, what was the content of this telephone conversation
to which reference is made here in connection with the
Accused: Today, I can only think that, after the
agreement was concluded, Dannecker went to the telephone and
reported back. And then, once he had reported to me, I
asked him, as was the required bureaucratic practice, to
send the documents to me, because I, in turn, had to submit
the documents to my chief, and my chief then doubtless said:
“Now begin negotiations with the Reich Transport Ministry in
order to draw up the timetable.” That was the normal
Judge Raveh: Dr. Servatius, I have a question about the
form of correspondence in the case of Bulgaria. We see that
here Dannecker is writing directly to the RSHA, Attache
Group, for the attention of IVB4, and at the side the envoy
adds something to the effect that he has seen the letter.
It appears to me that this is a rather different form from
that which we have seen in other countries. Perhaps this
could be explained?
Dr. Servatius: I can explain, but perhaps it might be
better for me to ask the Accused to do so?
Judge Raveh: By all means.
Dr. Servatius: You have heard the question from His Honour.
Dr. Servatius: Can you make a statement on that?
Accused: This communication – that is to say, this
conveyance of documents – was made to the Attache Group –
through the Attache Group, and the envoy – the superior of
the Police Attache – passed this matter on. It is possible
– but I can no longer remember – that the form is somewhat
different from that of Romania, for example, but I believe
that it was a question of local arrangements made by the
legations. In any case, what was important was that
Beckerle – as the envoy responsible, the head of the mission
responsible – had seen this matter and thus taken upon
himself approval and responsibility.
Dr. Servatius: Perhaps I might draw the Court’s attention
to the Instructions to Attaches submitted recently. I am
not able to give the reference number.
Presiding Judge: Thank you.
Dr. Servatius: I now turn to Romania. I would also, at the
outset, like to submit a diagram.
Witness, is this diagram drawn according to your
information, and is it correct?
Accused: It is drawn according to my information, and it
is also correct. However, the same applies here. The
diagram is designed to go with the text, and the text is not
submitted. That is the only…-
Dr. Servatius: On the right hand side in the explanations,
where it says “Diagram of chain of command,” (19), five
thousand children – what does that refer to?
Accused: This was the reason why I referred to the text.
Because in the text there are explanations about emigration
matters – I think there were five thousand children who were
to go to Palestine, as part of the Feldscher Operation, or
the operation before the Feldscher Operation.
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/57.
Dr. Servatius: I shall start with exhibit T/1001, document
No. 472. This is a communication from the ambassador in
Bucharest, von Killinger, to the Foreign Ministry. An
urgent request is made for the Adviser on Jewish Affairs
Richter to be dispatched. It says:
“Since the question of Aryanization and Romanization
has now entered a decisive phase in Romania, and the
major Aryanization and Romanization laws are being
prepared, it is vital for Hauptsturmfuehrer Richter to
be immediately detached from the SS and reassigned to
Bucharest. A request to this effect from Deputy Prime
Minister Mihai Antonescu to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler is
on its way to Berlin in a letter. If there is no
likelihood at all of Richter returning, it is crucial
that a specialist in Jewish and Romanization questions
be immediately dispatched.” Signed: von Killinger.
The next exhibit is T/1002, document No. 840. This is an
agreement dated 30 August 1941, marked Tighina. It concerns
the security, administration and economic exploitation of
the areas between the Dniester and the Bug (Transnistria),
as well as the Bug and the Dnieper (Bug-Dneiper area). The
agreement is between the Romanian Supreme General Staff and
the High Command of the German Army. On the last page,
point 7, it says:
“Deportation of Jews from Transnistria. For the time
being, it is not possible to deport the Jews to the
other bank of the Bug. They must therefore be
assembled in concentration camps and used for labour
purposes, until after the operations are concluded, and
it is possible to deport them to the East.”
I submit in evidence document No. 473, not previously
presented. This is a communication from Ambassador von
Killinger to the Foreign Ministry dated 1 September 1941.
It refers again to the urgent need to dispatch
Presiding Judge: I mark this N/58.
Dr. Servatius: Under point 2, page 1, it says:
“Repeated attempts on the part of the Deputy Prime
Minister to have SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Richter return as
soon as possible to Romania, since he attaches major
importance to Richter’s activities.”
And at the end the last sentence reads:
“Crucial to dispatch a competent Adviser on Jewish and
Aryanization Matters as soon as possible to replace
Richter. I would ask you not to request this adviser
from the Reich Leadership of the SS, in order to avoid
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, how do you understand this
Dr. Servatius: I was about to ask the Accused the same
Are you able to explain what this last comment means?
Accused: I shall try: Whether this is correct I obviously
have no way of judging today, but I can draw inferences from
the content of the document. The first paragraph indicates
that there were differences between Heydrich and von
Killinger, who was easily irritated, and various reproaches
were made against the Romanians, whom Killinger, as the head
of the German mission, is now trying to defend to some
extent – and here point 1 explains the reasons. Repeated
attempts to obtain an SS Leader – in this case, Richter –
have so far been fruitless, so that Killinger is now
prepared to give up this approach, and is prepared to accept
any Adviser on Jewish Affairs from the Foreign Ministry.
That would be my interpretation today of this matter.
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1004, document No.
573. This is a memorandum from Richter, dated 15 December
1941. The document shows the very special position occupied
by Richter at the mission. At the top it says: “Interview
with Deputy Prime Minister Antonescu at the Premier’s
offices.” Under point 2 it says – first of all one would
think it must be decided who is having this conversation
with the Premier – it is Richter, because under (2) it says,
“I informed the Deputy Prime Minister.” He says that lately
the Reichsfuehrer-SS has been trying to prevent all mass and
individual emigration of Jews from Europe to overseas
countries. He goes on to say: “I would therefore be happy
to be able to inform Berlin in some suitable fashion that
the Romanian Government will also in the future prevent any
further emigration of Jews from Romania.” At the end, there
is a note that the memorandum is to be submitted to
Ambassador von Killinger for his information.
Next exhibit – T/1008, document No. 1225. This is another
discussion Richter had with the Deputy Prime Minister. I
would refer the Court to the top of page 2, where it says:
“The emigration of Jews from Reich territory, including the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, as well as from the
occupied territories, has in principle been discontinued, in
view of the approaching Final Solution of the European
Jewish Question. The Chief of the Security Police and the
Security Service now requests that Jewish emigration be
prevented by all means, also from Romania. Antonescu agreed
immediately with the proposal by the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service.”
Next exhibit – T/1013, document No. 83. I only added this
to the list afterwards, and I am not sure whether it is
available to the Court.
Presiding Judge: Yes, it is before us.
Dr. Servatius: This is a communication from Eichmann to the
Foreign Ministry, re: Deportation of Romanian Jews to the
Ukraine Reich Commissariat. As an introduction to the
letter it says:
“As has been indicated by the Reich Minister for the
Eastern Occupied Territories, local Romanian offices
have recently deported some ten thousand Jews across
the Bug to the Nikolayev Commissariat General of the
Ukraine Reich Commissariat. It is feared that under
the circumstances, something like another sixty
thousand Romanian Jews will probably be deported.”
At the bottom of page 2 it says that this is to be
“But if the Romanian Government does not agree to the
request to cease such deportations and continues to
deport Jews, I shall be prepared to apply Security
Witness, what is meant by these Security Police measures?
Accused: This can be understood from the penultimate
paragraph on page 2 of the communication, where it says:
“Since I assume that the Romanian Government will
unconditionally comply with the request made to them,
in order to avoid increasing the tension which has
already arisen as a result of the illegal deportation
of Jews between the local offices, I have for the time
being decided not to apply any Security Police
These Security Police measures did not apply to the Jews;
Security Police measures applied to the relationship between
the Romanian authorities and the German authorities. These
Security Police measures included closing the border, which
my chief, as Inspector General of Borders, could perfectly
well decree at any time. And I would also draw the Court’s
attention to point 8 of the Treaty of Tighina, pursuant to
which border matters were also subject to regulations, and
which says that the closing of the eastern and northern
borders of Transnistria is under the charge of the Southern
Army Group, and the agreed Romanian border runs along the
Dniester. I am not able today to outline all the
geographical arrangements, but from this item it emerges
Dr. Servatius: Next exhibit – T/1014, document No. 99.
This is a communication from Rademacher of the Foreign
Ministry to Eichmann, about the position of the German
legation in Bucharest as to how to prevent the deportation
of the sixty thousand Jews, and it says that the Romanian
point of view still has to be examined. This simply shows
that the legation intervened in this matter.
Next exhibit – T/1028, document No. 1348. This is an
invitation from Rademacher to a meeting in Berlin, a work
meeting. At the bottom there is a handwritten note which,
as far as I can make it out, says:
“The work meeting, which will be attended mainly by the
Jewish Specialist Officers posted in Germany, will deal
with technical matters related to the administration of
camps, and will consist almost entirely of inspections
of German installations.”
Witness, would you care to tell the Court what this meeting
dealt with and what sort of inspections took place, as well
as what these inspections had to do with your Section?
Accused: It is very easy for me to give an exhaustive
answer to this question. In the files on France, I came
across an exhibit, Prosecution document No. 142, dated 1
September, headed, “Meeting at the Head Office for Reich
Security on 28 August 1942 on Jewish Questions.” Drawn up
by the Deputy of Section Head (Dezernent) Roethke with the
Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security
The document contains an extremely detailed report on the
discussions which took place on that day. There is no
reference at all to any visit to one camp, let alone two.
There is a description of what was discussed in the morning,
and there is a description of what was discussed after the
official part of the proceedings was over, that is to say,
matters discussed with the individual officials in charge.
However, on the second page of this document there is a
Point E, which reads:
“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann requested immediate
implementation of the purchase of the barracks ordered
by the Senior Commander of the Security Police in The
Hague. The camp is to be set up in Russia. The
barracks can be sent off by each transport train
transporting three to five barracks.”
I have nothing further to add – this document replies to the