Presiding Judge: Perhaps Dr. Servatius will define his final position before us on the admissibility of the part that is ready, without waiting for that single film.

Attorney General: We shall be able to arrange a showing of the film to Dr. Servatius at any time convenient to him.

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned the narrow size reel will be sufficient for this viewing, and there will be no need to enlarge it. But with regard to the time of showing, I would request you not to deprive me of the little time available to me for the work of the defence, for the showing of the films. Otherwise I shall really not be able to carry on my duties in the time allotted to me.

Presiding Judge: How much time will all the films take?

Attorney General: Not more than one hour. But we are not going to show them all at once, but section by section, which will also be authenticated section by section.

Presiding Judge: Would you not be able to screen this film, which apparently has to be converted to another size, on another projector?

Attorney General: This can be done in a cinema hall, because the machines are built into their cabins. These are not machines that can easily be moved around. Nevertheless we shall make all the arrangements that are possible.

Presiding Judge: This means that screening this particular film will not involve you in expense before it is converted?

Attorney General: No.

Presiding Judge: So let us raise this matter again on Tuesday morning and by then you will have been able to show the films to Dr. Servatius, and in the meantime you will be able to show us the references in the law reports.

Attorney General: Of course, Your Honour.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume that it would be desirable that the Accused should be present when the films are screened for inspection, for he would be in a better position than I to identify the uniforms.

Attorney General: This is feasible in regard to the screening of those films which can be shown here on the wall of this court-room, but, would not be practicable in the case of the film which would have to be shown in a cinema hall.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, will you be satisfied with that?

Dr. Servatius: As far as I am concerned, this is likely to be sufficient.

Attorney General: We shall see to it that these films are shown to Defence Counsel here in this hall in the presence of the Accused.

Presiding Judge: Not during the course of a session.

Attorney General: No, not when a Session is in progress.

Presiding Judge: What do we have next?

State Attorney Bach: First, I should like to submit now the original affidavit of Dr. Petoe which I did not have previously. It is document No. 7.

I now have, Your Honour, a number of reports in the Hungarian language, together with a copy of the Hebrew translation. These documents are contained in that same collection which I submitted to the Court earlier. I would suggest that perhaps the Court could return this volume to us at a later stage and then we would be able to mark the appropriate exhibit number on each page.

Presiding Judge: That was report T/1154.

Attorney General: Yes.

Presiding Judge: Later on. Mr. Bodenheimer, please give this to Mr. Bach so that he may mark the extracts submitted by him.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 1314. These are the minutes of a meeting which took place in the office of the Mayor in the capital of the Nagybanya Province. Actually the only significance here is in what is said at the end of the second paragraph of the translation. The meeting took place on 26 April 1944, and at the bottom of the second page, it says who participated in this meeting. Here there is the name of the Hungarian police officer, and after that an officer of the Hungarian gendarmerie, and on the last page appears SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Abromeit.

Dr. Servatius: I have before me only the Hungarian report and since we are here dealing with this important Hungarian matter I would ask to be given a German translation.

State Attorney Bach: We supplied the German translation of all these reports to Mr. Wechtenbruch, Defence Counsel's assistant. Perhaps they are not at the moment in Dr. Servatius' file, but they were translated and given to him.

Dr. Servatius: It is quite possible that they are in my files, but I do not have them here. I shall check this. Consequently I do not wish to voice my reservations for the time being.

Presiding Judge: At any rate, if Dr. Servatius does not find it - please give him another copy of the German translation.

State Attorney Bach: Certainly.

[The Accused passes a document to Dr. Servatius].

Dr. Servatius: Meanwhile I have received it from the Accused.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1158.

State Attorney Bach: Prosecution document No. 1315 is a report by the officer Ferenczy, of whom we have already heard, a liaison officer of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie attached to the German security police. Here he submits a report from Kolozvar dated 3 May 1944. He speaks here of camps for the concentration of Jews in various areas, and amongst them Kolozva, and he says:

"In these localities and also in the areas annexed to them, representatives of the local authorities and officers of the police were conducting the operations of rounding up the Jews in conjunction with a committee consisting of officers of the headquarters of the gendarmerie and in cooperation with the German consultative bodies who were sent to them."

State Attorney Bach: The following document is Prosecution document No. 6316. Once again, it is a report of the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, this time dated 9 May 1944. Here he gives details of the number of Jews in the various assembly camps. And in paragraph 3 of the report he says that "The joint Hungarian-German committee has drawn up the plan for deporting the Jews. The deportations will begin on the 15th and will end on 11th June."

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1160.

State Attorney Bach: The next document, Your Honours, is Prosecution document No. 1317. Once again it is a report by the same Ferenczy from Kolozvar, dated 10 May 1944. Once again it is a report on the number of Jews in the camps, and thereafter, on the second page of the translation, he writes:

"The local commander of the German Security Police - who relied on an agreement with the Honved Ministry - this morning received a telephonic instruction from the headquarters in Budapest, to the effect that in those areas in which Jews were being rounded up, they would not be called up for labour services. In view of the fact that for men of the labour services there exist two conflicting orders, I have given orders - pending final instructions - to forbid the serving of calling up notices in the camps."

Judge Halevi: Kolozsvar - is that Cluj?

State Attorney Bach: Yes.

Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/1161.

State Attorney Bach: The following document is No. 1318. This is a meeting that, again, took place in the office of the Mayor of the district capital, Nagybanya, and here there is a discussion about a meeting that had been held in Munkacs - a place we have heard about from one of the witnesses. It says here that it was a meeting in which Ferenczy participated, for the one side, and for the German side a Gestapo officer, Dr. Marton Zoeldi, took part. The subject of the discussion is stated: Deportation of the Jews - which would begin on 14 May - and the nationality of those Jews whom it was possible to deport. Thereafter it says that 110 trains would transport the Jews and that they would be marked "D.A. Umsiedler" (persons resettled).

Presiding Judge: One hundred and ten trains?

State Attorney Bach: One hundred and ten trains. The mark "D.A. Umsiedler," "the transfer of German labourers, 40 "G" freight-cars, 70 persons in each one together with their effects. The commander at the place of loading, who is to be a German officer or a Hungarian officer of the gendarmerie, is to request the railway station-master for the freight- cars five hours before loading and he is further to request him to fix a place for loading at some distance from the station itself.

Presiding Judge: This was for co-ordination with the Hungarians, but there is no mention of Slovakians here.

State Attorney Bach: No, here only Hungarians are mentioned.

Presiding Judge: This was on the question of transportation, is that not so?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge Halevi: This was preceded by some agreement with the Slovakian railway management by Hungary, Slovakia and Germany. But here they have already reached the stage of implementation, assuming that they have 110 freight-cars and all that.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. That is how I understand this report. I would draw attention to what appears on page 2. Here it says: "Sick people and their relatives will travel on the last train." And at the end of the page it says: "In case of necessity it will also be possible to load 100 people into one car. They can be packed in like herrings, for the Germans need strong people. Anyone who cannot stand up to it, will fall. Ladies of fashion are not needed there, in Germany."

Presiding Judge: By "herrings" do you refer to salted fish? Why was this translation used?

State Attorney Bach: This is the way it has been translated. At the end it states that Ferenczy said:

"Only the most essential workers, doctors, should remain, with their families. The German advisor will determine who they are. They are doing this expertly, they have the know- how, and consequently the selection is also their task."

State Attorney Bach: I think that this meeting - I also conclude this from the number of trains - dealt in fact with all the provincial towns.

Judge Halevi: This works out exactly at the total of 330,000 Jews which the Witness Freudiger: mentioned. 110 times 3,000 is 330,000.

State Attorney Bach: Later on we shall submit comprehensive reports from both the German and the Hungarian sides on the total number of Jews deported, when they were deported and in what stages.

Judge Halevi: At the first stage the reference was to 330,000 - and that is it.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour. It corresponds exactly.

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1162.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our document No. 1319. Again it is a report of Ferenczy, dated 29 May 1944. The report was written in Munkacs. Here, in paragraph 2, it says:

"The German Security Police suggests, and even expresses its wish, that the Jews being sent on the transports should take with them food for the duration of the journey - for at least five days. The German Security Police based this attitude on its experience that they would be able to speed up the deportation of the Jews who had thus far been assembled, if the concentration of the Jews did not extend over large areas, but that they should be carried out simultaneously in small areas and there with appropriate forces, and they should be rounded up in the shortest possible time and in the most determined manner and they should be transferred to camps and their deportation should start immediately; forces of the German Security Police led by German officers should take upon themselves the control over the camps and also the technical implementation of future loadings. External guarding and security of the camps would be carried out by Hungarian executive authorities, under their own command. This arrangement was necessary owing to the relations of command which we discovered in the assembly camp at Ungvar."

I also draw the Court's attention to paragraph 6. Here it says:

"It is the wish of the German Security Police, for tactical reasons, that the meetings in the Ministry of the Interior should take place only a few days before the commencement of the cleansing operation in a particular region, and only a very limited circle should participate." In paragraph 7 it says:

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1163.

Judge Halevi: In the previous document it states: "Dated..." and the actual date on which the meeting at Munkacs took place is not mentioned.

State Attorney Bach: Is Your Honour referring to document No. 1318?

Judge Halevi: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: I understand that it was the month of May. As the Court can see, the date is blurred. If the Court will look at the original document, it will see that a rubber stamp was placed exactly on the spot, and hence it is difficult to read the precise date. At any rate it is clear that it was in the month of May, and that the subject was: Deportations which are to begin on 14 May. It therefore must have been between the 1st and the 14th of May.

Interpreter: This mark is the Roman numeral V and there is no doubt that the word "HO" indicates the month May.

Presiding Judge: Can you not decipher more than that?

Translator: Since there is a stamp here, it is impossible to read anything more. The numbers 94 appear here - that is to say it was in the year 1944.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor