Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1027, document No.
403. This is a memorandum by Under-Secretary of State
Luther of the Foreign Ministry, dated 17 August 1942. By
way of an explanation of the situation of the Jews in
Romania, he summarizes the position and, at the bottom of
the first page, says:
“The picture which results from recent reports is as
follows: 1. Secretary General Davidescu in the Romanian
Foreign Affairs Ministry has promised `that he will
inform Romanian authorities, not only in the
Protectorate, but once again generally, that the
Romanian Government is allowing the Reich Government to
subject Jews of Romanian nationality to German anti-
Jewish measures.’ I thereupon took steps to ensure
that the Head Office for Reich Security will continue
to apply the measures against Romanian Jews which had
been partially interrupted.”
He continues, under 2:
“Confirmation has been provided by Deputy Prime
Minister Mihai Antonescu to the effect that he is
willing – in accordance with a wish expressed by
Marshal Antonescu – to accept that the German
authorities will implement the evacuation of Jews from
Romania, starting immediately with deportations from
the areas of Arad, Timisoara and Turda.”
Next exhibit – T/1058, document No. 222. This is a
communication from the Foreign Ministry, von Thadden, to
Eichmann. It refers to Mr. Filderman who, at that time, had
taken over the leadership of the Jewish community. It is
stated here that on a request from Government Representative
Lecca, Marshal Antonescu has issued orders to arrest
Filderman and deport him to Transnistria.
Next exhibit – T/1069, document No. 1231. This is dated 26
January 1944 – the Foreign Ministry indicates its interest
in the Filderman case. In the middle of page 2 it reads:
“Moreover I have obtained a promise from
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann that we will be involved
in Filderman’s interrogation, which will take place in
At the end there is a diplomatic instruction:
“If the Romanians find out about the arrest, the
explanation to be given is that investigations are
still under way on suspicion of espionage.”
Accused: Might I provide some supplementary information
here? In this instance, the person in question is the son
of the aged functionary Filderman, and not Filderman
Dr. Servatius: Now we have exhibit T/1043, document No.
988. This is an application dated 11 January 1943 from
Killinger. “With regard to your instructions of 14 December
1942, I request your urgent reaction on the change reported
on 12 December 42 in the treatment of the Jewish Question.
Agree to return visit by Eichmann. Killinger.”
With this we must also take the next exhibit, T/1044,
document No. 224. Here Eichmann indicates that, due to
pressure of work, he is unable to come, and the matter must
Witness, what is this change in the treatment of the Jewish
Question to which reference is made here?
Accused: I really cannot say exactly what this was, but I
could well imagine that it refers to the change in Marshal
Antonescu’s attitude to arrangements in connection with the
Jewish Question – no more deportations, but instead,
disposing of the matter on a domestic Romanian level.
Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, perhaps I can be of assistance
here. There is mention here of a telegram, No. 6533, and
this refers to exhibit T/1041. This exhibit T/1041 mentions
Antonescu’s agreement about the emigration of 75,000 Jews to
Dr. Servatius: Witness, now that you have heard about this
letter, can you perhaps state your position on it?
Accused: No, it is not this one – the exhibit quoted,
T/1014. May I know the Prosecution document number?
Judge Halevi: 401.
Accused: Your Honour, I do not have the document in front
Judge Halevi: Yes, you do – it is the same number as has
Accused: I consider that there is here a causal
relationship with the arrangement mentioned. This also
coincides with what I said about the change in Marshal
Antonescu’s policy, so as to deal with the matter on a
domestic Romanian level.
Judge Halevi: I believe that this refers to emigration to
Accused: Your Honour, this is only part of the Marshal’s
overall plan, because on page 2 Killinger writes, “in my
opinion, Marshal Antonescu wants to kill two birds with one
stone.” And there are other documents I have come across
among those available here, dealing with several other
Dr. Servatius: Next exhibit – T/1038, document No. 480.
This is a communication from the Adviser on Jewish Affairs,
Richter, in Bucharest, to Eichmann, dated 17 December 1942.
The brief note reads: “I enclose anti-Jewish propaganda
material which, in collaboration with the Cultural
Department of the German Legation and the Romanian
Propaganda Ministry, will be distributed primarily in
country districts.” Witness, was this material sent to you
for use in your Section?
Accused: No, this was sent to me in the normal course of
reporting, without any prior request and without any prior
information having been made available, as can be seen from
the reference “Previous correspondence: None.”
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1059, also listed as
T/37(51). This is a communication from von Thadden, Foreign
Ministry, dated 17 February 1944, again to Eichmann.
Contents: Report from the ambassador in Bucharest. In
paragraph 2 it says:
“The Marshal is said to wish to get rid of as many Jews
as possible from Romania, but would prefer to eschew
radical measures because of their unfavourable
propaganda effect on enemy states in the light of his
own attitude, and because of influential Romanian
circles who are in part closely related to Jews by
marriage. The Marshal’s final position has not yet
been decided on. Further information may follow.”
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, the number was incorrect:
You said T/1059 and T/37(51). I gather that T/37(51) has
not yet been submitted.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, there must be a typing error,
because in my list it appears several times as submitted
under number T/1059.
Presiding Judge: No, that is not right. T/1059 is
Prosecution document No. 148. Perhaps you would wish, in
order to be sure, to submit this exhibit again. I believe
this would be the right thing to do. In that case, this
exhibit N/59 will be marked.
Dr. Servatius: The last exhibit in this series is document
No. 195. I do not have with me copies for the Court. For
the time being, I shall submit my own copy.
Perhaps I can summarize the content. This is a
communication from Ambassador Rintelen, dated 19 August
1942, to the Foreign Ministry, and it says that the report
of the Chief of the Security Police and the Security
Service, dated 26 July, to the Reichsfuehrer-SS about the
evacuation of Jews from Romania reads as follows: “The
preparations on a political and technical level to solve the
Jewish Question in Romania have been concluded to such an
extent that evacuation transports can commence very soon.”
It then says: “The remainder should receive special
treatment.” At the bottom it says: “On instructions from
the Head Office for Reich Security, the Adviser on Jewish
Affairs in Bucharest, Richter, obtained a personal
communication (photocopy enclosed) from the Romanian Deputy
Prime Minister. I request approval for implementation of
deportations as proposed.”
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/60.
Dr. Servatius: I now turn to the chapter on Italy. I would
first like to submit a diagram.
Witness, is this diagram drawn up according to your
information, and is it correct?
Accused: It has been drawn according to my information,
and it is also correct.
Presiding Judge: I mark this diagram N/61.
Dr. Servatius: The first exhibit is T/615, document No.
1604. This is a telegram from Consul Moellhausen at the
Rome legation, dated 6 October 1943, to Ribbentrop himself.
The text reads:
“Obersturmbannfuehrer Kappler has been assigned the
task by Berlin of arresting the eight thousand Jews
resident in Rome, and transferring them to Northern
Italy, where they are to be liquidated. The City
Commander of Rome, General Stahel, indicates that he
will only authorize this action if it accords with the
intentions of the Reich Foreign Minister. Personally
speaking, I consider that it would be more advantageous
to use Jews, as in Tunis, for building fortifications,
and I, together with Kappler, will propose this to
Field Marshal Kesselring. Please advise.”
This must be taken in conjunction with the next exhibit,
T/616, document No. 1600. This is a telegram from
Ambassador Sonnleithner from Ribbentrop’s train to the
Foreign Ministry, dated 9 October 1943, and it reads as
“For the Minister’s office only. The Reich Foreign
Minister requests that Ambassador Rahn and Consul
Moellhausen be informed that, pursuant to instructions
from the Fuehrer, the eight thousand Jews resident in
Rome are to be transferred as hostages to Mauthausen
(Upper Danube). The Reich Foreign Minister requests to
instruct Rahn and Moellhausen on no account to
interfere in this matter, but to leave it to the SS.”
Witness, was the office in Berlin which passed on this order
Accused: No, that was not my office; I was in no way
involved in this matter, and the testimony to be presented
shortly from Kappler will certainly show this beyond any
shadow of a doubt.
Dr. Servatius: Who from the Security Service was in Rome,
Accused: I believe that in 1944 Dannecker and Bosshammer
were in Rome, but I am not sure – the files should show who
it was. But they would not have been able to give any such
Dr. Servatius: Could this instruction have been sent
directly to this local office from the Reichsfuehrer?
Accused: Personally, I would guess either Himmler or
Kaltenbrunner. That is only a guess, however – Kappler will
definitely know exactly what the situation was.
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/620, document No. 954.
This is a letter from the Foreign Ministry, von Thadden, to
Eichmann, dated 23 October 1943, and refers to information
about a protest from the head of the German Catholic Church
in Rome, Bishop Hudal. At the bottom it says: “In this
respect, the German Embassy to the Holy See has reported
that the reaction of the Vatican to the deportation of Jews
from Rome can only be confirmed. Apparently attempts were
being made to force the Vatican to change its opinion.” At
the end it says that “the reaction of the Curia might
perhaps be modified, if the Jews were used for labour within
Witness, the exhibit shows that efforts were being made in
Rome to call an immediate halt to these arrests, and you are
now being informed accordingly. Did you give any orders
subsequent to this communication?
Accused: Since the Italian file also shows that those in
positions of highest authority meddled personally in these
matters, I myself could issue no orders whatsoever on my own
initiative. When I received this document, without doubt I
passed it through official channels to the Chief of
Department IV, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, as usual, with the
request for instructions as to what was to be done.
Dr. Servatius: Next exhibit – T/622, document No. 1274.
This is a memorandum from Counsellor Wagner for submission
to the Under-Secretary of State. In the memorandum, the
point is made that there has been no noticeable success to
the action, as most Jews were able to go into hiding. It
“Since, in the meanwhile, the Italian Government has
promulgated a law according to which all Jews in Italy are
to be placed in concentration camps, Inland Group II
proposes, in agreement with the Head Office for Reich
Security, that Ambassador Rahn be instructed to express to
the Fascist government the satisfaction” – the original
wording was joy – “of the Reich Government at this law,
which is so crucial for counter-intelligence reasons, to
point out that, in order to protect the area of operations
immediately from unreliable elements, it would seem crucial
to implement this law speedily and set up the concentration
camps in Northern Italy, and that the Reich Government would
be happy to make available experienced advisers, in order to
implement the measures. This would create the possibility
of incorporating the present Einsatzkommando as advisers in
the governmental authority, monitoring actual implementation
of this law, and using the full executive apparatus of the
Fascist government to apply the anti-Jewish measures.”
There are two notes in the margin saying “ja” – yes.
Presiding Judge: Who wrote the “yes”? Is the ja
Dr. Servatius: Witness, do you have the document before
Dr. Servatius: You see there it says ja twice, as notes in
the margin, and at the bottom you can see to whom the
communication is addressed.
Accused: Yes, indeed.
Dr. Servatius: It reads: “Via the Under-Secretary of State
or the State Secretary, submitted to the Reich Foreign
Accused: That is correct.
Dr. Servatius: There is an indication as to whom it was
sent – it says: “Submitted to the Under-Secretary of State.”
Then there is an initial. Can you state who wrote this? Do
you recognize the handwriting?
Accused: This office stamp about action taken in my
opinion does not read Unterstaatssekretaer vorgelegen, but
Hat St.S. vorgelegen – has been submitted to State
Secretary. I am sure that this refers to Steengracht. In
any case, it must be one of the two who made the notes in
the margin, and I believe that it was the Under-Secretary of
State, because there is more similarity between his
initialling and these remarks in the margin than between
Steengracht’s signature and the remarks. I am not, however,
familiar from past experience with the signature – that is
to say, the handwriting.