INTRODUCTION
Holocaust in Slovakia 4. German Documents.
(1939 – 1945).
Since 1989 the research of Holocaust in
Slovakia has changed in its quantity as well as quality. One of the
possibilities how to deepen our knowledge of this problem has been a research
of German documents of various provenience.
The study of documents from various authorities
of Nazi Germany is important at least from two reasons. On one hand we can
learn from them about German appraisal of anti-Semitic policy of the wartime
Slovak Republic or about German interest in executing of this policy. On the
other hand, the German appraisal as well as the documents on German-Slovak
negotiations (e.g. on deportations) can be compared with similar documents
regarding similar negotiations with other German allies or satellites.
Regarding the chronology of Holocaust in
Slovakia for the period previous to the Salzburg negotiations we have
information from security authorities (e. g. SD – Leitabschnitt Wien) as well
as from German diplomats in Bratislava (H. Bernard, Ringelmann). These are the
source of basic information about the position of the Jewish community in
Slovakia. Diplomatic and security sources inform us about the beginnings of the
aryanization process.[1]
German ambassador H. Bernard believed aryanization to be a slovakization action
and warned about ideological, economic and other problems linked with this
process. German party was well aware of the lack of readiness of the Slovak
society (e. g. specialists) for this extensive interference into economic life.
German diplomatic and security authorities also accurately informed about the
number of anti-Jewish laws and decrees of the Slovak Government.
The highest number of documents is preserved
from the period between the Salzburg negotiations and the end of deportations
in 1942. These are mostly various reports of German advisor (Berater) for the Jewish question in
Slovakia D. Wisliceny.[2]
As regards to this there is an interesting proposal he presented in October
1940[3]
in which he touched the basis of racist legislation. D. Wisliceny asked again
for enforcement of the racist law at the meeting of German Beraters with V.
Tuka in May 1941. He asserted the failure to introduce the racist laws to be a
catastrophe.[4] Wisliceny’s
report of the meeting with the Minister of Interior A. Mach in August 1941
informs us also about the preparation of the racist law number 198/1941 SlC
(so-called “Jewish Code”).[5]
Wisliceny’s information about aryanization
process concerning the Central Economic Office (CEO)[6]
including the chairman of the CEO, Augustín Morávek’s appraisal of the
situation is also interesting. In this way the German source informs us about
the actions of individual people at the CEO as well as about their willingness
to get personal profit from aryanization (including A. Morávek).[7]
It is logical that the most documents refer to
the deportations in 1942. The deportations represented the culmination point of
anti-Semitic policy of the wartime Slovak State and the Government, the
Assembly of the Slovak Republic as well as the President bore full political
responsibility for taking these steps.
In the preparation period in November 1941,
German party contacted not only Slovakia but also Romania and Croatia regarding
the deportations of Jews of the given nationality or citizenship from the
territory of Nazi Germany into the concentration camps. They requested the
statement of the individual countries. All the above-mentioned countries
expressed their agreement.[8]
Slovak party was interested only in the property of these Jews to which they
were staking claims.
German documents inform us about the Nazi offer
of February 1942 to deport 20,000 Jews who are fit for work and also about
swift Slovak consent to this offer.[9]
Nonetheless, not even the published documents enable us to make a definite
decision about the problem of Slovak party’s initiative in the deportations of
the Jews who are fit to work, as it is written by L. Lipscher and Y. Bauer.[10]
M. Luther, the state undersecretary of Auswärtiges Amt, in an extensive
document which he prepared in August 1942 asserted that after the transports of
Jews (of the Slovak and other citizenship) from the Reich there turned out to
be shortage of labour force and therefore German party contacted the Slovak
Government with the request for 20,000 Jews as a source of manpower. After the
positive reaction of Slovakia German party expressed their willingness to take
over all the Jews.[11]
I consider German testimonies from this period
about Slovak willingness to cooperate in the course of deportations to be very
important. H. E. Ludin in his telegram to Berlin from April 6, 1942 wrote: “The
Slovak Government agreed to deport all the Jews from Slovakia without any
pressure from Germany. The President also gave his personal consent to the
deportations despite the intervention of the Slovak higher clergy (bishops).
Deportations apply to all the Jews who are recognized as such according to the
Slovak Jewish Code. The Jews excluded from the Jewish Code, i.e. the Jews by
their race who were baptized before 1938 and whose number is about 2,000 should
be concentrated in the camps in the territory of the state, as it was stated in
the President’s notice. Deportations of Jews are proceeding smoothly, without
complications. (…)”[12] The second evaluation comes from the pen of
one of A. Eichmann’s colleagues Günther, who in his May 15, 1942 letter wrote
to F. Rademacher at the Nazi Foreign Office: “(…) Securing the mobility
(understand trains –E.N.) on the part of the Slovak Government will make the
technical side of the evacuation much easier since the Reich railways at the
present condition of their overextending would manage to send their own special
trains only with great difficulties. (…)”[13]
Finally, the Nazi Government did not expect any
problems concerning deportations arising in Slovakia as it is expressed in the
document from the conference in Wannsee in January 1942.[14]
We can trace the presence of German pressure
only in two documents from the meetings of V. Tuka with German Beraters. In May
1941 Wisliceny promoted the enforcement of racist laws. In June 1942 Wisliceny
and Ludin insisted on resumption of deportations (subsequently four transports
departed from Slovakia in July, two in September and the last one on October
20, 1942).[15] This
pressure was not absolute at all, not even linked with any actual threats.
Finally, the above-mentioned M. Luther’s letter from August 1942 informs us
that it was clearly stated in German instructions for Bratislava: “(…) under no
circumstances there may be any domestic political difficulties”.[16]
As I have already mentioned the Slovak-German
negotiations about deportations in 1942 represent a very good comparative
material since at the same time Nazi Germany tried to accomplish also
deportations from Croatia, Romania and Hungary. I will only point out
differences among the individual countries.
Romania
However, Romania had changed her
mind – there were some protests from Romanian Embassies that were immediately
followed by the verbal note from June 23, 1942 sent by the Romanian Embassy in
Berlin. Romania required so that the Jews who were Romanian citizens would be
dealt with in the same way as with Italian, Hungarian, and Swiss Jews. On July
21, 1942 in the case of Klingenfuss – Valeanu (Secretary of the Romanian
Embassy in Berlin) – Valeanu said that different attitude towards Romanian Jews
than e. g. towards Hungarian Jews… is understood as a loss of political
prestige. In 1943 Romania transported some of her Jews back to her territory.
The deportations prepared to start
from September 1942 from Romanian territory (or rather from Transylvania and
Banat) eventually were not carried out. On one hand it was thanks to the
initiative of various Jewish groups, initiative of Romanian politicians such as
Juliu Maniu, but also of vice Prime Minister Mihai Antonescu who abandoned the
previous decision. He had sent it in writing to German Berater (advisor) for
the Jewish question, Richter. According to Richter’s reports from October 5,
1942 and November 26, 1942 the most important was the change of attitude of
marshal Antonescu. German party continued negotiating with Romania – even
Luther in his letter of December 14, 1942 wrote to German ambassador in
Bucharest, Killinger, that it did not matter that the deportations had not
taken place yet – the important thing was to start them in the spring. However,
none of them were executed then. The memorial document of the Romanian
Government from March 26, 1943, in which they summarized Romanian anti-Jewish
policy since 1938, deportations were presented as “the solution” – although the
Government expected the Jews to be deported to the territories under control of
Anglo-Saxon powers.
I just want to add that German party (despite
their fiasco concerning deportations) did not request for the responsible
Romanian politicians, e.g. M. Antonescu, to be punished or resign from their
functions.[17]
Hungary did not agree with marking of Hungarian
Jews in the Reich or with their deportations to the concentration camps and
they took over part of them and transported them (from France, Belgium, the
Netherlands) back to their own territory in 1943.
Hungary took a differential attitude towards
Jews in Hungary in their policy. They treated the Jews from the new territories
(Southern Slovakia, Ruthenia, Transylvania, Vojvodina) in a different way than
they handled the Jews from the original Hungary.
We can detect this differential approach also
in the proposal for deportation of the Jewish refugees, who stayed in the
territory of Hungary without permission, to the East, behind the River Dnester.
We can find several reports of these events in 1942. Eichmann’s letter to
Klingenfuss states that this partial action was refused – everybody was
supposed to be deported at the same time (the same thing is mentioned in
Himmler’s November 30, 1942 letter to Ribbentrop).
We can observe the presence of German pressure
in the course of many negotiations between Hungarian ambassador in Berlin
Sztojay, representatives of Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Prime
Minister Kallay, and German party. German party had also specified their
requirements relating to the realisation of the actual steps taken by Hungary,
e.g. negotiations between Luther and Sztojay on October 6, 1942. Regarding the
Hungarian Jews in the Reich and occupied Western territories, Germans asked for
them to be marked, imprisoned and consequently deported by December 31, 1942.
As regards the situation in Hungarian territory Germans requested for the Jews
to be excluded from cultural and economic life, to be marked, deported and they
asked for negotiations about Jewish property based on the territorial
principle. Hungary did not consent to this at that time – at first, on October
27, 1942 Prime Minister Kallay even said to German ambassador V. Jagow that it
was the matter of domestic politics. Later, on December 3, 1942, he said that
if they solved the Jewish question (i.e. if they deported the Jews), they would
have to assimilate Germans in Hungary. Hungarian concern what would happen to
the deported Jews in the hands of Germans can be detected in Sztojay’s
presentations as well. Furthermore,
there was the argument of impossibility to exclude Jews from economic life
because otherwise the industrial-military supplies for Germany were endangered.
We can find the whole group of arguments that
German party had to take into consideration and negotiate about them.[18]
On one hand, Hungarian-German negotiations indicate certain possibilities for a
German ally how not to agree unequivocally with German requirements for the
solution of the Jewish question. On the other hand, they point out how to save oneself from losing of
one’s own political position.[19]
Slovak politicians certainly did not have
detailed information on these negotiations, however, the published documents
indicate that they were especially interested in the situation of Hungarian
Jews in the Reich.[20]
We should add that the Jews who were Hungarian citizens were not deported from
Slovakia into concentration camps in 1942 (but they had to refer to their
citizenship).
On October 1, 1942 D. Wisliceny, the
advisor in Bratislava, met with a secretary of Hungarian Prime Minister Kallay,
Fay, to listen to his argumentation on the topic of the solution of the Jewish
question. Fay talked about the important position of Jews in economy, which
cannot be altered immediately, only gradually – in three steps (100,000 Jews
from Ruthenia and Transylvania, subsequently from the villages and then from
Budapest). Deportations realized in such a way as in Slovakia seemed impossible
to him at this stage. Wisliceny only took notes of this dialogue without any
critical comment.
On the other hand, on October 8,
1942, German Embassy from Bratislava sent a report to Berlin (after 56
transports from Slovakia – about 57,000 Jews were deported) that Jews in
Slovakia were still holding important economic position (after liquidation of
about 10,000 Jewish firms and aryanization of about 2,000 firms).
It looks as if the local perpetrator
(in this case various Slovak political, governmental and police authorities)
carried out the deportations. German party logically expected ”the final or
total solution” and thus it should have been Slovakia Without Jews, i.e.
Slovakia jundenrein.
Deportations as the extreme example of
anti-Semitism were the consequence of several factors. The
autochthonous pre-war anti-Semitism represented the resonance area for the
anti-Semitic policy in Slovakia. It became the basis for the ”actual” Slovak
political program of anti-Semitism represented by the Radicals and
Conservatives. General factor of radicalisation corresponded with a belated
constituting of the Slovak nation (only
under the 1st Czechoslovak Republic) as well as with the fact that
Slovakia reached its statehood only with help of Nazi Germany in March 1939.
Under the Slovak State the image of enemy – Jew, Czech, and Communist – had
been created as the factor of integration. These Slovak factors got mixed with
Nazi plan of Holocaust and they resulted in deportations. Slovak politicians were comfortable with the
way in which they disposed of Jews in 1942 (the Jews who had been presented as
a social, racial or other problem since the autumn of 1941, after liquidation
and aryanization).
I want to use the cited documents as
a springboard for pointing out that the politicians of the above-mentioned
countries (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia) had some space for negotiations of
deportations in 1942 (see Hungarian negotiations in 1942 regarding enforcement
of anti-Jewish legislation according to the model of Nuremberg, or the change
in policy of Mihai Antonescu who at first agreed with deportations from
Romania, and then in September 1942 they were not carried out.) I think that
this comparison illustrates that a peaceful development in the domestic
politics of the satellite countries, their participation in the war against the
U.S.S.R., their supplies of the military industry for Nazi army were more
important for Nazi Germany than the deportations of Jews.
The situation was certainly
different when these countries were under the direct occupation of Nazi
Germany. The example of Hungary in 1944 (but also of Slovakia after August
1944) illustrates that there was further need for cooperation of local
perpetrators, lower police forces or administrative authorities of the said
countries (of course paramilitary organizations included).
Several documents enable us to get a
better idea of the payments for the deported Jews.[21]
However, the published documents represent only a small illustration of the
texts regarding this topic that had been preserved. I consider the Slovak
verbal note from June 1942 to be very important because in here the Slovak
Government clearly declared their willingness to pay for the deportees.[22]
At the 5th joint
meeting of the Slovak and German governmental committees in September 1942 they
adopted a protocol. The article 31 of this protocol dealt with the issue of
payments for the deported Jews and some problems regarding their property. “(…)
Through the exchange of notes between German and Slovak Ministries of Foreign
Affairs (verbal notes of the German Embassy from April 29, 1942[23]
(…) and from May 1, 1942[24]
(…), as well as verbal note of Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs from June 23,
1942 (…) it was agreed that the Slovak Government would pay 500 RM for each Jew
who was a Slovak citizen and who had already been or would be deported to the
territory of the Reich. In the said verbal notes the German Government is
renouncing any further claims to the property of the Jews taken over by the
Reich that has been left in the Slovak territory after their departure.”[25]
Despite the above-mentioned agreement we are informed that Slovak party
attempted for reduction of the amount paid for the deported Jews. We have the
knowledge of several German urgencies and pressure about the Reich not being
able to pay wages to the Slovak workers in Germany.[26]
Slovak attempts for reducing the payment from 500 RM to 250 or 300 RM were
unsuccessful. Although German negotiators indicated the possibility of certain
concessions, there were none introduced in the following years.[27]
I consider the Slovak verbal
note about the number of the deported Jews from Slovakia (57,628) to be an
important document because this number is still challenged by some Slovak
historians.[28]
There is an extensive report
of SD-Leiabschnitt Wien from August 1942 that would deserve not only a
footnote, but the whole study. Despite the factual mistakes we can consider
this document to be of great importance in this area, including the attempt to
classify individual institutions and social classes based on “the solution of
the Jewish question”.
I will extract from there
only data concerning the agreement between Tuka and German Embassy from August
1942 that there will be 14,000-15,000 economically important Jews left in
Slovakia after the deportations. If we add to them about 4,000 Jews who were in
the Jewish labour camps (Nováky, Sereï, Vyhne) and in the 6th
battalion, who were the source of cheap labour, we will reach the approximate
number of Jews that was left in Slovakia after the deportations.[29]
This confirms assertion that
the wartime Slovak Republic “got rid” of the social problem of the pauperised
Jews (after liquidation and aryanization in 1941) through the deportations.[30]
Documents originating in
1943 are also interesting because of German party not pressuring the Slovak
Government into resumption of deportations in the spring of 1943. The
negotiations between Veesenmeyer and Tiso were of the similar character.[31]
The published documents from
1944 are quite rich in depicting of the deportations from Hungary[32]
that went through the Slovak territory. They clearly picture the disinterest of
the Slovak Government in the Jews from Slovakia, who had fled before the
deportations to Hungary in 1942, and who were then supposed to be deported
together with Hungarian Jews in 1944.[33]
Ludin’s August 1944 report
informs us about his appraisal of the situation in Slovakia from the end of the
deportations in 1942 till August 1944.[34]
However, in the excerpt from this report prepared for the Foreign Office it is
clearly stated that even without the outbreak of the Slovak National Uprising
Germans would have required the resumption of
“the solution”.[35]
We can characterize the
situation after the occupation of Slovakia by Germans in 1944 by the
presentation of a new Slovak ambassador B. Galvánek who agreed with the radical
“solution”.[36] Documents
record the consent of the Prime Minister Štefan Tiso with the concentration of
Jews.[37]
German party offered their coverage even in the case of intervention by
Switzerland or Vatican.[38]
German documents about
Holocaust in Slovakia (and their comparison to the similar documents of the
neighbouring countries) enable us to get a better idea of the actions of the
Slovak political elite (President, Government, the Assembly of the Slovak
Republic) and of their political responsibility for the “solution” of the
Jewish question in Slovakia.
Archeographical Note
The presented edition of the
sources is based on the research in the Yad Vashem Archives in Jerusalem,
Israel. Only some documents have been completed by the sources from various
fonds of the Slovak National Archives (see the Cited archives and fonds). The
editor completed these documents only so that the reader would be able to get a
better idea of the presented problem. It is the case of Slovak verbal notes or
Slovak-German negotiations that were not found in the fonds of German
institutions.
The idea of this volume of
the edition is based on the concept that one of the possibilities for comparing
things concerning Holocaust are the documents about negotiations of individual
Nazi allies (Italy, Hungary) or its satellites (Slovakia, Croatia) with Nazi
Germany about “the solution” of the Jewish question. The comparison is then
possible not only regarding German evaluation of the anti-Semitic policy in the
individual countries, but also concerning their willingness to cooperate e.g.
in the course of deportations.
We can divide the published
documents into three groups. German diplomatic reports, notes, etc. form the
first group. Their authors are either the employees of the Foreign Office
(Auswärtiges Amt) in Berlin or the employees of the German Embassy in
Bratislava (mostly Ambassador H. E. Ludin). These documents are located in Yad
Vashem in the Fond R 1. There are 75 documents in this fond. We can include
here also the reports of Berater D. Wisliceny who worked on the board of
advisors at the German Embassy. However, his reports (or their copies) are
mostly preserved in the Fond SD-Leitabschnitt Wien and they come from the
archives NAUS, Washington (YVA, Fond M 59). Reports of the SD authorities about
the situation in Slovakia represent the second group of the documents (16
documents). The third group of the documents is represented mostly by
diplomatic notes of German as well as Slovak origin, which are located in the
Slovak archives (17 documents). Many of them should be included also in the
Fond R 1 (Auswärtiges Amt) in Yad Vashem although the editor did not find them
there (or he found them only in the form of artifacts – e.g. document 61).
Although the publishing of several Slovak verbal notes (e.g. documents 35, 57,
58, 68, 76) as well as of several common Slovak-German documents (e.g. documents 32, 41, 70, 71) exceeds the
frame of this book, these documents complete the German documents because they
are mostly Slovak replies to specific German questions, possibly results of
Slovak-German negotiations.
Fonds R 1 and M 59 are
located in Yad Vashem on microfilms. The handwritten notes are very difficult
to read on the microfilms. Mostly the editor did not succeed in deciphering
them. The numbering of documents on microfilms that is commonly used especially
in the cases of documents from the Fond R 1 (Auswärtiges Amt) was often
illegible, as well.
I used the documents from
the period press only in two cases (Grenzbote,
Völkischer Beobachter). In one case it is the speech of German ambassador H.
E. Ludin in Kežmarok during the deportations and in the second case it is one
of the most extensive pieces of information about “the solution” of the Jewish
question in Slovakia that was presented to German reader.
Documents are published according to the established
rules for publishing sources concerning modern history. They are mostly
published in their full wording. In each case, if only a portion of the
document is published, it is noted; omissions are marked by an ellipsis (…).
Any eroded or illegible passages are marked graphically with […]. There are
some documents where the portions of text are crossed out. The editor found
them in this form in the original text – e.g. document 92. Documents are
published in their original language – in German only – in rare cases the
portion of the document is published in Slovak. Each document is supplied with
Slovak translation following the original text. The editor sought to interfere
minimally into the language of the documents. Only evident misspellings in the
cases of proper names are explained in the footnotes.
In the preparation of footnotes the editor included
them to identify persons only the first time the name was mentioned in the
German document. For this reason we advise the use of the index of names when
searching for this data.
Translations of local names (names of towns and
villages) are included in the text following the German text. Thus the editor
did not deem it necessary to supply Slovak translation in footnotes in the
cases of German documents (e.g. Neutra
– Nitra, Pressburg – Bratislava, Sillein – Žilina, etc.).
Reader may use the assistance of index of local names where there are Slovak
references to German local names. The editor used the footnotes only in cases
when there are misspellings in Slovak local names in the German documents (e.g.
Document 72 – list of transports).
The editor included textual footnotes concerning
institutions, laws, governmental decrees and other regulations written in
German in each German document since there is no index of these supplied in
this book. The editor thought useless to double data and list them in German
document as well as in its Slovak translation.
The inner structure of the book is based on the
chronological principle. In the head of each document there is a content
annotation (in italics) that was written by the editor. This is followed by the
text of the document itself mostly in German, which is then followed by the
translation of the document into Slovak and then by a citation of the source
(archives, fond, number), which is again in italics. The source citation
includes some abbreviations that are explained in the section on archives.
An attentive reader can
notice that the translation of German documents into Slovak language was
published in the collection of documents about SNP (the Slovak National
Uprising) Germans and Slovakia by V. Preèan (documents 85, 86, 87, 97, 99, 100, 103, 104,
106). Some documents (or their portions) were published in German in the
edition of documents Akten der deutschen auswärtigen Politik (ADAP, Serie D a E)
– documents 37, 59, 65, 79, 81, 84, 85, 97, 99, 100, 107, 109.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for the
opportunity to do my research in Yad Vashem, especially to Professor D. Bankier
(Director of the Institute) and to his predecessor in this position Professor
Y. Bauer. I want to express my appreciation for assistance in getting the
scholarship for the stay in Israel to Professor W. Benz (Berlin), Dr B. Kosmala
(Berlin), Professor K. Kwiet (Sydney), Professor F. Tych (Warsaw) and to
Professor Y. A. Jelinek (Beer Sheva).
While I was staying in Jerusalem in 2002 there were
people who were of great assistance to me in practical matters. These were
mainly Nathan Steiner, Sigmund Steiner and Flora Jacob. I want to thank also
Professor L. Rothkirchen and Mr and Mrs Richter, Mr and Mrs Weisfeiler and many
others for their time spent with me.
My biggest gratitude belongs to my wife Zlatka and my
daughters Zlatka and Zdenka. In the difficult year of 2002 they supported me
during my stay in Israel. Without their support and understanding this research
could not have been completed and this book could not have been written.
Document 3. March 15, 1940 – a
report of the German ambassador in Bratislava, Hans Bernard, to the Foreign
Office about the solution of the Jewish question in Slovakia. (39)
Document 4. May 8, 1940 – a report of the German ambassador
in Bratislava, Hans Bernard, to the Foreign Office about the Jewish legislation
in Slovakia in the area of economy. (50)
Document
5. June 14, 1940 - from Ringleman from Bratislava to the Foreign Office
about the anti-Jewish manifestations in Bratislava. (52)
Document 6. August 19, 1940 - from the German
ambassador Manfred v. Killinger to the
Foreign Office – a request to expedite the arrival of the German advisors (Beraters) to Slovakia including the Berater for the Jewish question.
(54)
Document 7. September 3, 1940 - from the German
ambassador Manfred v. Killinger to the Foreign Office about the preparations
for a listing of Jewish property. (55)
Document 10. December 18, 1940 - a report from
Bratislava to RSHA about the so-called “honorary Arians”. (69)
Document 12.
April 4, 1941 - Berater D.
Wisliceny’s report concerning the activity of the Central Economic Office that
was enforcing the liquidation and aryanization of Jewish enterprises. (75)
Document 13. May 28, 1941 - a report on the
meeting of Prime Minister V. Tuka with the German Beraters (including Wisliceny). (79)
Document 14. July 2, 1941 - from the German ambassador H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about the preparations for a visit to the Jewish labor camp in Upper Silesia. (82)
Document
15. July 7, 1941 - Report of the prepared anti-Jewish legislation in Slovakia
sent to the Central Reich Security Office (RSHA). (83)
Document 16. July 12, 1941 - D. Wisliceny’s
report of his visit of the Jewish labor camp in Sosnovec (Sosnowiec) in Upper
Silesia. (87)
Document 19. August 6, 1941 - Lohse’s inquiry
to the Reich Minister for the Occupied Areas (A. Rosenberg) about the
possibility of extending his jurisdiction in such a way that it would also be
extended to Jews from Slovakia and the occupied territories. (102)
Document 20. August 9, 1941 - D. Wisliceny’s
report of the dialogue between him and the Minister of Interior A. Mach,
including information about the draft of a new law about Jews based on the race
issue. (103)
Document 21. September 10, 1941- H. E. Ludin’s
report to the Foreign Office about the passage of the so-called “Jewish Code”
(governmental decree number 198/1941).
(105)
Document 22. October 22, 1941 - from Ludin to
the Foreign Office about exiling Jews from Bratislava. (106)
Document 23. October 28, 1941 - from F. Rademacher to E. v. Weizsäcker about the deportations of Slovak and Croatian Jews living in the territory of Reich together with German Jews to the East (General Gouvernament). (107)
Document 24. November 15, 1941 – from Woermann to the Foreign Office about the meeting between him and the Slovak ambassador M. Èernák, who talked about the pro-Hungarian behavior of Jews in Slovakia. (108)
Document 25. November 17, 1941 – from
Luther to the German Embassy in Bratislava to inquire of the Slovak Government
if they agree with the deportation of the Jews who are Slovak citizens from the
Reich into ghettos in the East, or if they would rather take them over to
Slovakia. (109)
Document 26. December 2, 1941 – minutes of the talks between a representative of the German Embassy and representatives Štefan Polyák and Jozef Mraèna stating that Slovakia would prefer if the Jews who are Slovak citizens living in the territory of the Reich would not have to be accepted back into Slovakia. The Slovak Government was only interested in the property of these Jews. (110)
Document 27. December 4, 1941 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office expressing the approval of the Slovak Government with the deportations of the Jews who are Slovak citizens from the Reich into ghettos in the East. Slovakia makes a claim on the movable property and real estate of these Jews. (111)
Document 28. Februar 16, 1942 – from M. Luther to H. E. Ludin stating that the German Government was prepared to accept 20,000 Slovak Jews who are fit for work. (113)
Document 29. February 20, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office
stating that the Slovak Government eagerly accepted the German Government’s
proposal for “accepting” 20,000 Slovak Jews. (113)
Document 30. March 13, 1942 – from the Foreign Office to
the German Embassy in Bratislava about Eichmann’s authorization to lead the
preparatory negotiations about the Reich taking over 20,000 Slovak Jews. (114)
Document
32. March 20, 1942 – Technical
preparation of the trains designated for deportations of the Jews from
Slovakia. (116)
Document 33. March 26, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about the issue of Hungarian Jews in Slovakia. (118)
Document 34. March 27, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office about A. Mach’s radio speech of March 25, 1942. (119)
Document
35. March 28, 1942 – Slovak verbal
note number 52/1942 stating that the Slovak Government was requesting that the
property of the Slovak Jews to be deported from the Reich should be recorded
and that the Slovak Government be given lists (including the list of property)
of Jews who had already been deported. (121)
Document
36. March 28, 1942 – from Urbantke to
Hermann about negotiations in the State Council on March 26, 1942 concerning
the deportations. (123)
Document
37. March 29, 1942 – M. Luther’s
notes of the telephone call from Ludin about the meeting of the State Council
on March 26, 1942 regarding preparations for Jewish transports from Slovakia. (124)
Document 38. March 30, 1942 – H. E. Ludin in Kežmarok about the Jewish question. (125)
Document 39. April 1, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office about the Vatican’s interference in the Slovak Jewish
policy. (126)
Document
40. April 6, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office expressing the approval of the Slovak politicians
(including J. Tiso) to the deportations of Jews without German pressure. (127)
Document
41. April 10, 1942 – Technical
preparation of the transports.
(128)
Document 42. April 11, 1942 – from M. Luther to
H. E. Ludin about the payment of 500 RM for each deported Jew. A request for
communicating the Slovak Government’s position. (131)
Document 43. April 18, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin
to M. Luther about V. Tuka’s proposal to sign an international contract about
the deportation of Jews. (132)
Document 44. April 25, 1942 – from D. Wisliceny
to the German Embassy in Bratislava about the draft of a verbal note for the
Slovak Government about the payment for the deported Jews. (133)
Document
45. April 28, 1942 – from D.
Wisliceny to the German Embassy in Bratislava about securing the movable
property of the deported Jews in Slovakia.
(134)
Document
46. April 29, 1942 – German verbal
note about the payment for the deported Jews. (135)
Document 47. May 1, 1942 – German verbal note
confirming that the deported Jews will not return to Slovakia and stating the
need to pay 500 RM for each deported Jew. There will be further negotiations
about the property of Slovak Jews in Germany and German Jews in Slovakia. (137)
Document 48. May 2, 1942 – from M. Luther to
the German Embassy in Bratislava about the Reich’s Government taking over guarantee
that the deported Jews will not return to Slovakia. It is possible to deport a
further 20,000 Jews in May. (138)
Document 50. May 12, 1942 – from F. Rademacher to
the German Embassy in Bratislava about the Jews who are Hungarian
citizens. (140)
Document 51. May 13, 1942 – from D. Wisliceny
to the German Embassy in Bratislava about the anti-Jewish regulations of the
Slovak Government connected with deportations. (142)
Document 52. May 15, 1942 – from Günther from
RSHA (Department IV B 4) to F. Rademacher from the Foreign Office about the
progress of the deportations and assstance of the Slovak party in the
transportation of the deportees that would have been impossible for the German
railways to handle. (143) Document
53. May 21, 1942 – from the
Foreign Office to the German Embassy in Bratislava about the planned visit of
A. Eichmann to Slovakia where he is to negotiate about the deportations. (144)
Document 54. June 8, 1942 – from M. Luther to the German Embassy in Bratislava concerning the payment of 500 RM for each Jew from Slovakia taken over by the Reich. This money should be used for payment to Slovak workers who work in the Reich. (145)
Document
55. June 10, 1942 – official record of a declaration of the German
Embassy official Ringelman to the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning
the payment for the deported Jews. (146)
Document 56. June 11, 1942 – from the German
Embassy in Bratislava to the Foreign Office about A. Mach’s anti-Jewish radio
speech to the members of Hlinka’s Guard on June 10, 1942.
(147)
Document
57. June 16, 1942 – Slovak verbal
note to the Foreign Office stating that the Slovak party relinquishes its
rights to objects surrendered by the Jews who are Slovak citizens in the
territory of the Reich. (149)
Document
58. June 23, 1942 – Slovak verbal
note confirming the Slovak party’s readiness to pay 500 RM for each Jew taken
over by the Reich. (150)
Document
59. June 26, 1942 – telex from the German Embassy in Bratislava to the
Foreign Office about the difficulties connected with the deportations of Jews
from Slovakia. (150)
Document
60. June 30, 1942 – from E. v. Weizsäcker to H. E. Ludin about V. Tuka’s
support for the continuation of the deportations. (151)
Document
61. June 30, 1942 – an excerpt from
the protocol about a meeting between V. Tuka and German Beraters (including D. Wisliceny) from June 25, 1942. (152)
Document 62. June 30, 1942 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office stating that the Slovak Government issues a written
confirmation of its readiness to pay 500 RM for each deported Jew. (155)
Document 63. August 11, 1942 – M. Bormann’s
letter to the Foreign Office stating his approval of the territorial principle
for negotiations about the property of the deported Jews. (156)
Document 64. A report on “The Jewish Question
in Slovakia” from the centre of SD in Vienna to RSHA, Department III B in
Berlin from August 1942. (156)
Document 65. August 21, 1942 – from M. Luther
to Rintelen about the solution of the Jewish question in Europe, including the
situation in Slovakia. (207)
Document 66. September 1, 1942 - from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office. Request of
the representatives of the press and authorities to be granted permission to
visit one of the detention ghettos of the Slovak Jews. (212)
Document 67. September 17, 1942 – German verbal
note confirming that the property of the Jews who are the citizens of the
Reich, as well as the citizens of the Protectorate, who were deported from
Slovakia, will stay in Slovakia. (213)
Document 68. September 22, 1942 – Slovak verbal
note confirming that the Slovak Government will pay 500 RM for each Jew
deported to the Reich’s territory. The Slovak Government also agrees with the
evacuation of the Jews who are Slovak citizens living in the territory of the
Reich under the condition that their property will belong to the Slovak State.
The Slovak Government also refuses the territorial principle in redistribution
of the Jewish property. (214)
Document 69. September 24, 1942 – from
Augenthaler and Endroess from Bratislava to the Foreign Office about the Slovak
offer during the negotiations of Slovak-German Governmental Committees
concerning the transfer of the Jewish money through interimkonto (a holding
account). )
Document 70. September 10 - 30, 1942 – an
excerpt of the protocol from the 5th joint meeting of the German and
Slovak Governmental Committee concerning the payment of 500 RM for each
deported Jew. (217)
Document
71. October 5, 1942 – German verbal note concerning the number of the
Jews deported from Slovakia. (219)
Document
72. List of Jewish transports from Slovakia in 1942. (220)
Document 73. November 5, 1942 – article from Völkischer Beobachter about a lecture
about the Jewish question in Slovakia given by the head of the 14th
Department of the Ministry of Interior (the so-called “Jewish Department”), A.
Vašek. (222)
Document 74. Preparation of further transports
in November 1942. (224)
Document 75. November 19, 1942 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about the baptism of Jews in Slovakia. (226)
Document 76. November 25, 1942 – Slovak verbal
note about the number of Jews deported in 1942. (228)
Document 77. November 30, 1942 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about the Slovak party’s request for information
about the position of Hungarian Jews in Nazi Germany. (229)
Document 78. March 8, 1943 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about
the impossibility of finding information about the property of Jews who were
former German citizens and about the return of Jews who are foreign citizens.
V. Tuka’s statement on the territorial principle. (230)
Document 79. April 13, 1943 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office about the circular letter of the Slovak Catholic bishops.
(232) Document 80. June 2, 1943 – from A. Eichmann to
Thadden rejecting the Slovak Government’s request to visit the deported
Jews. (236)
Document 81. July 3, 1943 – from E. Veesenmayer
to Sonnleithner about his visit to J. Tiso. Ludin should not have pressed J.
Tiso regarding further solution of the Jewish question (e.g. continuation of
the deportations).(238)
Document 82. July 21, 1943 – from Wagner from
the Foreign Office to H. E. Ludin that there is no need for interceding with
the Slovak Government concerning the solution of the Jewish question. (239)
Document
83. Undated report of F. Karmasin about the joint meeting of the
Committee on Constitutional Law, Economic and Budget Committees of the Assembly
of the Slovak Republic on September 3, 1943 which deliberated on certain
changes in the so-called Jewish Code (decree number 198/1941 SlC). (240)
Document 84. November 22, 1943 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about V. Tuka’s request for permission for the
Slovak Committee to visit one of the Jewish camps. (244)
Document 85. December 22, 1943 – E. Vessenmayer
about the negotiation with President J. Tiso. Tiso agreed that 16,000 – 18,000
Jews would be placed in the Jewish camps in the course of the following
months. (245)
Document 86. January 8, 1944 – A. Eichmann to
Thadden at the Foreign Office about the return of D. Wisliceny to Bratislava.
In his letter he mentions also a visit of the Slovak Committee to the Jewish
camp. (247)
Document 87. February 7, 1944 – from A.
Eichmann to the Foreign Office stating that the Slovak Committee can visit
Teresienstadt instead of the camp in the General Gouvernament. (248)
Document 88. May 10, 1944 – from H. E. Ludin to
the Foreign Office about prepared measures against Jews in the Šariš and
Zemplín Regions. (250)
Document
89. June 14, 1944 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about the
transports of Jews from Hungary through Slovakia. (251)
Document 90. June 20, 1944 – from E.
Veesenmayer in Budapest to the Foreign Office about the investigation of the
complications in Kysak during the transport of the Jews from Hungary through
the Slovak territory.
(252)
Document 91. June 23, 1944 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office about Jewish transports from Hungary through
Slovakia. (253)
Document 92.
June 24, 1944 – from H. E. Ludin to A. Mach about Slovak Jews in Hungary
during the deportations and the Slovak lack of interest in these Jews. (255)
Document 93. July 2, 1944 – from E. Veesenmayer
in Budapest to the Foreign Office about the investigation of the complications
in Kysak during the transport of the Jews from Hungary through Slovak
territory. (258)
Document 94. July 19, 1944 - from E.
Veesenmayer in Budapest to the Foreign Office about the planned meeting in
Bratislava. Confirmation of the Slovak lack of interest in Jews from
Slovakia.
(260)
Document 95. July 26, 1944 – German verbal note
about payment for the deported Jews. (261)
Document 96. August 4, 1944 – from H. E. Ludin
to the Foreign Office about the situation in Slovakia in the period of the
Jewish deportations from Hungary. (262)
Document 97. August 11, 1944 – H. E. Ludin’s
report to the Foreign Office about the status of the Jewish question in Slovakia
in 1943 – 1944. (263)
Document 98. An excerpt from H. E. Ludin’s
report of August 11, 1944 about the progress of the Jewish question in Slovakia
in 1943 – 1944, prepared at the Foreign Office on August 31, 1944. (270)
Document 99. September 27, 1944 – Thadden’s
record of the visit of a new Slovak ambassador B. Galvánek at the occasion of
his assuming his function. Besides other things there is information about the
participation of Jews in the SNP (Slovak National Uprising of 1944). (272)
Document 100. October 4, 1944 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about the dialogue with Prime Minister Š. Tiso
about the radical solution of the Jewish question. (274)
Document 101. October 5, 1944 – from Thadden to
the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs about using the participation of the
Slovak Jews in SNP to justify the radical solution of the Jewish question. (275)
Document 102. October 10, 1944 – the Reich
Minister of the Foreign Affairs expresses his agreement with H. E. Ludin’s
interpretation of October 4, 1944. (277)
Document 103. November 10, 1944 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about protests of the Swiss Embassy in Bratislava
against the persecution of the Jews in Slovakia. (278)
Document 104. November 15, 1944 – from H. E.
Ludin to the Foreign Office about the continuation of the Jewish deportations
from Slovakia without consideration of Switzerland’s protests. (283)
Document 105. December 6, 1944 – from Thadden
to the Central Office of the Reich’s Security about Slovak representative B.
Galvánek’s statement that, in the opinion of the Slovak President J. Tiso, all
the Jews were arrested except for those who ran off into the woods. (284)
Document 106. December 9, 1944 – report of the
branches of the SD in Slovakia. (285)
Document
107. January 3, 1945 – from H.
E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about the intervention of the Lutheran
archbishop of Uppsala. (287)
Document
108. January 6, 1945 – from Thadden to A. Eichmann about the
intervention of the Lutheran archbishop of Uppsala to President J.Tiso. (288)
Document
109. January 20, 1945 – from H. E. Ludin to the Foreign Office about
efforts of the representative of the Red Cross Dunand to establish an asylum
for the Jewish children, elderly and infirm. (289)
Document 110. January 24, 1945 – from Thadden
to A. Eichmann about the request of the representative of the Red Cross Dunand
to establish an asylum for the Jewish children, elderly and infirm. (290)
Archives and Literature list. (292)
Introduction. (294)
Contents (308)
[1] For more details see documents 2 and 3.
[2] Document 6 – request of M. von Killinger for sending a Berater for “the Jewish question” to Slovakia.
[3] Document 8. Similarly to his other reports (documents 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 44, 45, 49, 51) have not been published yet.
[4] For more details see document 13.
[5] For more details see document 20. See also Ludin’s report – document 21.
[6] The Slovak Government was authorized by law number 210/1940 SlC for one year to carry out anti-Jewish policy. Consequently, the Central Economic Office was established by decree number 222/1940 SlC and its task was to execute this policy – especially aryanization and liquidation of the Jewish firms.
[7] For more details see documents 11, 12 and 18.
[8] Telegram from Killinger (Bucharest) to Nazi Foreign Office in Berlin from November 13, 1941. “Herr Antonescu,(...), erklärte mir, daß die rumänische Regierung es der Reichsregierung überlasse, die Juden rumänischer Staatsangehörkeit gemeinsam mit den deutschen Juden in die Ghettos nach dem Osten abschieben zu lassen. Die rumänische Regierung habe kein Interesse daran, daß die rumänischen Juden nach Rumänien zurückkehrten”.Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1 “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g 52/5 (Microfilm JM 2215).
Telegram from Kasche (Agram-Zagreb)
to Nazi Foreign Office in Berlin from November 20, 1941. “Kroatische
Regierung dankt fuer die Geste hinsichtlich der in Deutschland lebenden Juden
kroatische Staatsangehoerigkeit. Sie waere aber fuer Abschriebung dieser Juden
aus Deutschland nach dem Osten dankbar.” Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R
1 “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g 52/5
(Microfilm JM 2215).
Telegram from Ludin (Bratislava) to Nazi Foreign Office in Berlin from December 4, 1941. “Slowakische Regierung hat auf Anfrage geantwortet sie sei mit Abschiebung der Juden slowakischer Staatsangehörigkeit in die östlichen Ghettos grundsätzlich einverstanden, müsse jedoch großen Wert darauf legen, daß slowakische berechtigte Ansprüche auf bewegliche und unbewegliche Vermögen dieser Juden durch Abschiebung in den Osten nicht gefährdet würden.(...)” Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1 “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g 52/5 (Microfilm JM 2215). Akten der deutschen auswärtigen Politik (ADAP), Serie E, Tom III. p. 356. Luther to Eichmann: “(...) wird mitgeteilt, daß die Regierungen von Rumänien, Kroatien und der Slowakei sich damit einverstanden erklärt haben, daß ihre in Deutschland lebenden Juden gemeinsam mit den deutschen Juden in die Ghettos nach dem Osten abgeschoben werden”. See also documents 23, 25, 26 and 27.
[9] For more details see documents 28 and 29 (“…the Slovak Government eagerly seized this suggestion …”) and document 65.
[10] LIPSCHER, L.: Jews in the Slovak
State 1939-1945. Print-servis
1992, p. 114-115; Y. Bauer: Freikauf von Juden? Verhandlungen zwischen dem
nationalsozialistischen Deutschland und jüdischen Reprezentanten von 1933 bis
1945. Frankfurt am Main
1996; A. Mach also
mentioned Slovak initiative although indirectly at the State Council’s meeting
on March 26, 1942. See also: NIŽÒANSKÝ, E.: Deportations of Jews from Slovakia in 1942
and Passage of Constitutional Law number 68/1942 about “the Expatriation of
Jews”. In: Studia Historica Nitriensia, X. Nitra 2002, p. 85-156.
According to Lipscher German party requested to increase the contingent of Slovak labour force in the Reich. After the agreement with I. Kos, Slovak governmental mandatary Kaššoviè offered the representative of the Reich Ministry of Labour Sager as a compensation 20,000 Jews. After the war was over Berater D. Wisliceny in his testimony verified this offer. According to him when Eichmann learned about this, he called Wisliceny to Berlin and informed him that based on Himmler’s order Jews will be transported to the camps under the authority of RSHA. Wisliceny was also expected to inform Slovak party that Germany is willing to take over the offered number of Jews as a labour force. SNA, fond National Court, Dr. Anton Vašek, 17/46-72. After the war German ambassador H. Ludin did not remember that Sager would say something like that to him and he stated in his testimony: “I suppose that this offer was based on Slovak initiative because Sager did not deal with Jewish issues and according to my knowledge none of the German authorities asked Slovak authorities for anything like this. … I remember that at the beginning of deportations there was no resistance against them from official places in Slovakia”. State Archives, subdivision Bratislava, Fond Populist Courts Bratislava, T. J. Gašpar 14/48, carton 13.
[11] For more details see document 65.
[12] For more details see document 40.
[13] For more details see document 52.
[14] ADAP, Serie E, Bd. 1, p. 272 (document 150) “…In der Slowakei und Kroatien ist die Angelegenheit nicht mehr allzu schwer, da die wesentlichsten Kernfragen in dieser Hinsicht dort bereits einer Lösung zugeführt wurden.” On the conference in Wannsee see for example: ROSEMAN, M.: Setkáni ve vile u jezera. (The Villa, the Lake, the Meeting (Wannsee and the final Solution). Praha 2003.
[15] For more details see documents 59, 60 and 61.
[16] For more details see document 65.
[17] For more details see YVA, Fond R 1,
A. A., Deutschland III (Microfilm 2215 a 2218). HILBERG, R.: Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden, p.
811 - 858.
[18] YVA, Fond R 1, A. A. – Inland II g 58/1 (Microfilm 2219). HILBERG, R.: Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden, p. 859 - 926.
[19] Slovak politicians used this argument at the trials after the World War II.
[20] See for example document 50.
[21] Slovak Prime
Minister Vojtech Tuka spoke at the State Council’s session on March 6, 1942. On
the subject of deportations he said: “...The Jewish question should be solved
by gradual deportations to the territory of Ukraine. They have already showed
us the area where they are supposed to be placed. Having left the territory of
our state Jews will cease to be the citizens of the Slovak Republic. They can
take with them only food for fourteen days. The Slovak Republic is obliged to
pay 500 RM for each Jew. Deportations of Jews will start in March and end in
August 1942. However, we have raised the condition for the Jews who have
accepted new baptism so that they would be placed into special colonies,
separated from other Jews and so that they would have there their own priests
and churches.” Slovak National Archives, Fond “The Office of the Presidium of
the Government ”, carton 242, The State Council – minutes from 1940 –
1943.
[22] Document 58.
[23] Document 46
[24] Document 47
[25] Document 70.
[26] Slovak National Archives, Fond ”The Ministry of Foreign Affairs”, carton 142, 1699/42.
[27] I can use an example of several German documents that deal with negotiations. Nazi Ministry of Economy reacted in the following way: “Ich habe die schwersten Bedenken dagegen, daß an die slowaksiche Regierung in dem von Ihnen vorgeschlagenen Sinn einer Herabsetzung des Betrages von 500 RM auf 300 RM herangetreten wird. Bei den Regierungsausschußverhandlungen im September v. J. konnte nur mit großen Schwierigkeiten die Finanzierung des Clearings und damit der weitere Bezug kriegswichtigster Waren aus der Slowakei für die nächste Zeit sichergestellt werden. Eine wesentliche Grundlage der bei den September-Verhandlungen in der Finanzierungsfrage gefundenen Lösung bildete die Zahlung der zwischen dem slowakische Außenministerium und der Deutschen Gesandtschaft in Pressburg bereits vereinbarten Judengelder. Da sich die Clearingslage seitdem verschlechtert hat – die derzeitige deutsche Verschuldung beträgt etwa 280 Millionen RM – und im Jahre 1943 ein weiteres erhebliches Ansteige der deuschen Verchuldung zu erwarten ist, muß ich im Interesse der Sicherung der kriegswichtigen Einfuhren aus der Slowakie größtes Gewicht darauf legen, daß nicht auch noch die Grundlage der bei den Sptember-Verhandlungen gefundenen Lösung durch Herabsetzung des seinerseit als feststehend angenommenen Betrages nachträglich entzogen wird.(...) gez. Dr. Augenthaler.” Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1, “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g (Microfilm JM 2216). German ambassador in Bratislava Ludin on March 8, 1943 announced that V. Tuka agreed with the territorial principle. Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1, “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g (Microfilm JM 2216). Slovak party according to the present knowledge did not open the issue of payments for deportations during the subsequent meetings of the Government in 1943 and 1944. Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1, “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g (Microfilm JM 2216). “(...) Bei den Regierungsausschußverhandlungen in Pressburg ist die Frage der Judengelder nicht zur Sprache gekommen.” Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond M 59, SD Leitsbschnitt Wien, (Microfilm JM 4806). We can find information about payment for the deportees also in the reply to the Slovak verbal note from September 22, 1942 in which the Slovak Government did not accept the territorial principle. German party replied on July 26, 1944 (!):“Das Auswärtige Amt beehrt sich, der Slowakische Gesandtschaft auf die Verbalnote von 22. September 1942 – Nr. 194/dov/1942 -, betreffend Zahlung von Zuschüssen zu den Verpflegungs- und Unterbringungkosten für evakuierte Juden slowakischer Staatsangehörigkeit und Behandlung des im Großdeutschen Reich befindlichen Vermögens slowakischer Juden mitzuteilen, daß deutscherseits vorgeschlagen wird, diese Fragen bei den nächsten Verhandlungen im deutsch-slowakischen Regierungsausschuß zur Sprache zu bringen mit dem Ziel, eine für beide Seiten annehmbare Lösung heibeizuführen.” Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, Fond R 1, “Auswärtiges Amt”, Inland II g (Microfilm JM 2216).
[28] For more details see document 76. See also document 72 – list of transports.
[29] According to the listing done by the Ministry of Interior on September 1, 1942 there were 23,451 Jews left in Slovakia. SNA, Fond MV, carton 267, 406 – 560 – 13. On January 1, 1943 there were 18,945 Jews left. SNA, Fond ÚŠB, 209 - 864 -2.
[30] In order to show that this is not only my construction I want to point out some data from the report on the governmental bill on the Fund for establishing and keeping of enterprises intended for the fulfilment of the working duty of Jews. The Ministry of Interior introduced this bill on April 1, 1942. According to this report there were 88,951 Jews (according to governmental decree number 198/41 there were 89,053 Jews) representing approximately 22,000 households out of which 32,527 persons (36.3 %) were gainfully employed. Another 4,000 Jews lived from the benefits of their property without engaging in any gainful employment (total 41 %). 22,267 persons were eliminated and 2,500 persons (out of 4,000) lost the opportunity to live out of the benefits of their property (total of 24,767 – 71.1%) as the consequence to aryanization and liquidation of corporations and enterprises, as well as of refusal of working permits, and of other anti-Jewish steps. According to this report 2/3 of them were heads of their families or households. The report concludes that basically 16,000 households of the families (72 % out of the original number of 22,000) were left without any means of earning living. It meant about 64,000 Jews. If we compare this number to the number of those who were deported – approximately 60,000 (this number was given by a member of the State Council, Pöstényi, at its meeting in March 1942) and add about 4,000 Jews who were in the Jewish working camps or they served in the 6th working battalion in the army, we see that the Government was successful in solving of the social problem concerning Jews and their feeding after deportations. Slovak National Archives, Fond ”The Ministry of Interior”, carton 267, 406-560-13.
[31] See documents 81, 82 and 85.
[32] See documents 89 – 94.
[33] See documents 92 and 94.
[34] See document 97.
[35] See document 98.
[36] See e.g. document 99.
[37] See document 100.
[38] See e.g. documents 100, 102, 104.