The Trial of Max Merten in the Changing Mirrors of Time and Place
 

The Trial of Max Merten in the Changing Mirrors of Time and Place


Samuel Hassid

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

 


Who is Max Merten and why is he relevant to our topic today? He is one of the very
few German war criminals ever brought to trial (in Greece or in Germany) for crimes
committed in Greece during the Holocaust—and the only one tried for crimes against
Greek Jews.


It is important for us to differentiate between the acts that he committed and
the fact that he symbolizes to many of us a miscarriage of justice by Greece and
Germany alike.


There is very little mention of Max Merten in the body of Holocaust
literature—nothing in the “Pinkas Ha-Kehillot” of the Greek community, and nothing
in Constantopoulou’s new volume of documents pertaining to Greek Jews. The
impression is that the topic is avoided…


Maximilian Merten was born in 1911. He obtained a law degree and was
appointed to a German court. Between July-August 1942 and 1944 he was
Kriegverwaltungsrat (military administration counselor) in Salonika, replacing the
Greek Administration (Ministry of Northern Greece) in the regions under his
jurisdiction, which included Salonika.


The three major accusations against him with regard to the Jews are as
follows:


a. His (alleged) participation in the events of July 11, 1942 at Eleftherias Square,
when the Jews of the city were gathered to be registered for forced labor.
b. His negotiations with the Jewish community over an exemption from forced labor
in exchange for 25,000 gold sovereigns and the remnants of Salonika’s destroyed
Jewish cemetery (to be used for building materials).
c. The expulsion of Salonika Jews in February-August 1943 (several of the orders
bear his signature, as shown in Molho and Nehama’s work).


After the war, Merten was arrested by the U.S. authorities, who requested that
he be transferred to Greece to stand trial. The Greek Legation in Germany (headed at
the time by Gen. Ypsilantis) was not interested.


Merten went on to build a career in the new Federal Republic of Germany
(Fleischer claims he even applied to become consul in Athens; the person actually
appointed became West Germany’s first Ambassador to Greece shortly thereafter…).
He was among the co-founders of Gustav Heinemann’s Gesamtdeutsche Volkspartei,
which in 1952 proposed a united but demilitarized Germany as a counter to Konrad
Adenauer’s pro-U.S. policies.


In 1957 Merten came to Greece on business (some Greeks say that he came in
pursuit of his lost treasures…) and was called to testify at the trial of his wartime
interpreter, Meissner. During this testimony, he was arrested by Prosecutor Toussis.
According to Spiliotis, this was in response to the fact that the German authorities had
never taken action against any individuals suspected of war crimes in Greece. In fact,
Greece had proposed an amnesty for German war criminals in exchange for
reparations from Germany. (Note that Greece was still trying to recover from the
consequences not only of World War II but also of a bloody civil war, which meant
that reconstruction efforts in Greece were undertaken five years later than in other
European countries. As with Israel during this period, the money from German
reparations was more than necessary for Greece.) Bonn refused the offer. This is, of
course, where the Greek and German narratives contradict each other: Germans speak
of a Greek attempt to blackmail Germany, whereas Greeks speak of Germany’s total
lack of interest in prosecuting war criminals for acts committed against Greece.


West Germany protested strenuously against Merten’s arrest. He was kept in
jail for almost two years and finally brought to trial on February 11, 1959 (the trial
lasted until March 5 of that year). Greek public opinion at the time questioned the
relationship between certain members of Karamanlis’ government and the German
wartime administration. Spiliotis notes that negotiations took place between the Greek
and German governments over the extradition of Merten to Germany—which would
have constituted an admission of guilt on the part of more than one member of the
Greek administration.
 

The Trial


The following charges were listed in the indictment against Merten:


1. Killing 680 Greek citizens
2. Jailing Greeks without military justification
3. Expropriations involving violence and deceit
4. Killing of Jews
5. Expropriation of Jewish property
6. Looting the home of Gen. Argyropoulos
7. Terrorizing the 9,000 Jews registering for hard labor in Eleftherias Square,
Salonika.
8. Torturing the above
9. Using the 9,000 Jews for forced labor and allowing them to die of malnutrition
10. Destroying the Jewish cemetery of Salonika
11. Systematic terror against 50,000 Jews
12. Looting the property of the Jews concentrated in the Baron Hirsch ghetto.
13. Expulsion of 46,061 Jews to Poland
14. Killing of Jews in the Baron Hirsch ghetto.
15. Killing of most of the Jews sent to Poland


The president of the special court was Colonel Kokoretsas. One of the first
actions taken by the court (actually recommended by the prosecutor no less) was to
exclude the attorneys of the Jewish community of Salonika—Ladas, Tsirimokos and
Vasilatos—because the Jewish community was not harmed by the actions of the accused(!) Individual Jewish plaintiffs were allowed to testify, however. The real motivation seems to have been avoiding the politicization of the trial, since some of the attorneys were—at the time—considered left-wing.
 

The Testimony


It is impressive that Merten was able to bring to his defense such eminent witnesses as
Burkhardt, Castrucio and Digkas, as detailed below.
 

Jewish Witnesses


Concerning the money paid in exchange for exemption from forced labor, several
Jewish witnesses testified that they paid the sum in cash since Merten refused to
accept a check. They also testified on the looting of the Jewish cemetery. One story
that repeats itself in many forms is the transfer of Jewish business assets under torture
or duress (examples include Benrubi, Alvo, Tiano, de Sigoura’s three cinemas,
Koen’s paper business, and Natan’s furniture company, among many others). In most
cases, the subject was ordered to report to the German authorities and set free by
Merten in exchange for payment.


Koen’s case was particularly interesting in that it involved the former editorin-
chief of Makedonia, Nikos Fardis, known for his anti-Jewish diatribes, which
played a role in fomenting the Campbell riots. Fardis tried unsuccessfully to use his
contacts with Merten to free Koen when the latter was arrested as a pressure tactic to
induce him to hand over his paper factory. Fardis, however, later informed him that he
was set free due to Merten.


Asser Moissis, who was not in Athens during Merten’s time, provided some
information based on Yakoel’s diary and his own contacts with the Salonika
community. His testimony contains certain errors, such as the statement that
Logothetopoulos resigned in protest against anti-Jewish measures and that Merten
authority superseded that of Brunner and Wisliceny.


Leon Cuenca, a doctor working for the Red Cross, spoke of his abduction—
described by the authorities as an escape so as to provide a pretext for further anti-
Jewish measures—and the arrest of 25 hostages on the basis of an order bearing
Merten’s signature.


Greek (Non-Jewish) Witnesses


These witnesses included goldsmiths and moneychangers who were arrested as a
means of frightening them into changing their rates. By increasing the price of the
gold sovereign, they were considered indirectly responsible for the rise in the price of
foodstuffs. At Merten’s trial, they also spoke of their properties being looted.


Ilias Douros, the head of ODIP (Department for the Administration of Jewish
Properties) spoke of Merten as a person who was harsh but honest. He did not think  that the German authorities were responsible for the deaths by malnutrition of Jews conscripted for forced labor; in his opinion, the pilfering of supplies was the cause. He did not believe that Merten pocketed the money paid by the Jews for exemptions from forced labor, nor that he benefited from the looting of Jewish properties. His services consisted of writing formal contracts for the transfer of Jewish property to new
owners. Douros was asked by the Prosecutor why his present testimony differed from
the one he had given in 1946, and was threatened with prosecution for perjury.


Athanasios Hrysohoou, mentioned in Fleischer’s work as the person who
suggested the use of Jews for forced labor, testified that the pro-Greek Merten often
served as an effective balance against the pro-Bulgarian Krensky. He also helped
people when asked to do so by Metropolitan Gennadios.


Digkas (a prominent Venizelist official and signatory to a declaration against
the expulsion of the Jews) spoke favorably of Merten’s support of Greece against
Bulgarian expansion. According to him, looting was due to criminal elements, not
Merten.


Vasileios Simeonidis (referred to negatively in Yakoel’s diary) was Merten’s
predecessor as head of the Greek occupation regime. He presented a favorable view of
Merten based on the latter’s efforts on behalf of Greece against Bulgaria. On several
occasions, he and Metropolitan Gennadios appealed successfully to Merten to block
the execution of certain hostages. He testified that Merten was not in Salonika during
the events at Eleftherias Square. His testimony was contradicted by numerous
witnesses, including Gen. Argyropoulos, who stated that he saw him that same day
(July 11, 1942) enforcing the separation between Greeks and Germans in local
streetcars.


Several other witnesses testified that Merten helped cancel the executions of
students and other hostages.


Foreign Witnesses


Parisius and Engel were former German military men who testified that Merten did
not have the authority to sign the orders shown in Molho & Nehama’s book.
According to them, he did not have any military authority at all and was limited to
administrative and supply-related duties. In any event, they claimed, those orders
were given by superiors and only signed by Merten. Further, the 1943 anti-Jewish
measures leading to the expulsion of Salonika’s Jews were the responsibility of
Wisliceny and Brunner and their people—and not Merten.


A German woman named Blumenwert testified that Merten tried
unsuccessfully to save her Jewish husband from execution.


Giuseppe Castrucio, the Italian consul in Salonika, testified that Merten
assisted him in the case of the 300 Jews who were saved by being sent from Salonika
to Athens on the basis of Italian blood ties.

 

René Burkhardt, a Red Cross representative who was thrown out of Greece by
the German authorities, testified that even if Merten had not been in Salonika, the
Jews would have met the same fate. He contradicted the facts with reference to the
Cuenca case, but insisted that Merten would not have signed the order for the 25
hostages if he had known Cuenca had been abducted (i.e., Merten thought Cuenca had
escaped, although Burkhardt admitted that Merten told him to warn Cuenca).
According to Burkhardt, following the arrival of Wisliceny and Brunner, Merten lost
his authority on Jewish matters. Burkhardt testified that he suggested sending a cable
to the Red Cross concerning 10,000 Jewish children to be sent to Palestine—a cable
that Merten claimed could not be sent.


Apology of the Defendant


Merten pleaded non-guilty to all of the charges listed in the indictment. He claimed
that he was never a member of the Nazi party (his application was rejected); that the
persecution of the Jews of Salonika started before he came to that city; that he was not
present at the events of Eleftherias Square; that he negotiated the release of the Jews
seized for forced labor out of humanitarian concerns and did not receive a cash
payment from the Jewish community. (Contrary to the testimony of the Jewish
witnesses, he claimed that the payment was made in the form of a check, which he
deposited in the Bank of Greece; the Bank’s records were later destroyed.)


Merten also claimed that he was not involved in any of the cases in which
Jewish property was impounded—this was supposedly done by other branches of the
German administration such as the Propaganda Service and the Counter-Espionage
Service. He stated further that the fact that he used his influence to save many
individuals from arrest or execution did not mean that he was responsible for these
arrests; that the measures that lead to the expulsion of the Jews in 1943 were initiated
by Eichmann and the henchmen of Wisliceny/Brunner, who were sent to Greece to
carry out Eichmann’s orders; that his signature on a particular order did not mean that
he had been involved in the decision-making process—in some cases, he argued, he
affixed his signature intentionally so that people would not execute the order since it
was not legal. In addition, Merten stated that he never made any false promises to the
Jewish community that they would not be persecuted since he knew through a friend
of his of the plan to exterminate the Jews in those countries where the plan had not yet
been implemented; he thought that the Jews would be concentrated at a single
location—but not that they would be exterminated. He claimed that he sought the
advice of Metropolitan Gennadios as to whether he should resign in protest against
the persecution of the Jews, but Gennadios told him that such a move would be
cowardly. (Merten also stated that the Metropolitan, later declared a Righteous
Gentile by Yad Vashem, had invited him to be present at an Easter ceremony.) Merten
testified that he even tried to warn Rabbi Koretz, but that Koretz reacted with
disbelief, prompting some 5,000 Jews who had fled to the mountains to return. He
concluded by claiming that he recognized the fairness of the court.


The Verdict 

Merten was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt on the following charges: the
killing of 680 Greeks; arresting Greeks without military justification; terrorizing and
torturing 9,000 Greek Jews; intentionally killing 5 Jews; murdering 46,000 Greek
Jews deported to Poland; looting several Jewish shops; and looting the gravestones of
the Jewish cemetery of Salonika.

 
He was found guilty of: incarcerating Greek citizens in the Pavlos Melas
camp; confiscating the property of three (non-Jewish) Greeks; killing two Greek
Jews; interning specific Jews in the Pavlos Melas camp; looting specific shops and
homes; involvement in sending Greek Jews to forced labor and abandoning them to
die of hunger; destroying the Jewish cemetery; terrorizing the Jews of Salonika; and
expelling the Jews of Salonika to Poland.


He was sentenced to many concurrent jail terms, the longest of which was 18
years for the murder of the two Jews. This was increased to 25 years (5 years more
than the term requested by the Prosecutor) due to the large number of indictments,
from which 2 years and one month were deducted for time served.


Aftermath of the Trial


The Merten trial was “a case of politics and not of justice,” in the words of Suzan
Spiliotis, who argues that the Greek government never intended to carry out the
sentence. Greece was too dependent on tobacco exports to Germany and too much in
need of an infusion of German money to be able to keep a man of Merten’s
connections in jail. Intense pressure was applied by the government of West Germany
and even the German parliament. Gustav Heinemann, who was later to become
Justice Minister and Federal President, stated: “The economic aid requested by the
Greek side makes our position stronger; the German embassy should make clear to
the Greek foreign minister that German public opinion would not favor such
negotiations before the Merten case is closed.”


Merten benefited from an amnesty for “war criminals” passed on Nov. 3,
1959. He was set free and sent to Germany just two days later, on November 5. Some
months later, in March 1960, an economic agreement was signed between Greece and
Germany stipulating the laughable sum of 115 million marks to be paid as reparations.
While the German side saw the central issue as compensating victims of racial
persecution (i.e., Jews), the Greek government was more concerned with paying the
victims of other war crimes (executed hostages, etc.). Germany also agreed to provide
a separate sum as loans to Greece (at an excessive interest rate, according to the Greek
Opposition).


Merten was arrested in Germany but released a few days later. Proceedings
there dragged on for 9 years, but the German prosecutor ultimately terminated the
case “due to lack of evidence.” The 42-page decision concludes: “With the
instruments of proof available to the court, the suspicion that he has committed crimes
not falling under the statute of limitations cannot lead, with reasonable probability, to
a conviction.” 

Another key phrase is: “It could not be proven that he knew of the murder plan
for the Jews he had helped concentrate and relocate.” Merten was dissatisfied with the
fact that compensation for his court costs was awarded for only three of the eight
counts in the indictment. His defense was conducted by the Heinemann-Posser firm;
both Heinemann and Posser (later, Justice Minister of Nordrhein-Westfalen) are
considered progressive German jurists who worked to reform the German justice
system following the Adenauer Cold War era. Merten later received damages
(Heimkehrerentschädigung) for the period he spent in jail in Greece. He died of old
age in 1976.


During the 1960s, he resurfaced as a witness at the Eichmann trial (the
transcript of his testimony is available in English on the Internet; see Bibliography
below). In his testimony, he makes reference to a plan to send some 10,000 children
to Palestine; according to Merten, Eichmann consented to the plan, which was
ultimately blocked by the British. Merten acknowledges the contradictions between
this testimony and his earlier statements in Greece, but blames this on his attorneys,
stating that he was under oath only during the later testimony. He also cites cases
where he had some success swaying Eichmann against the more rigid views of
Wisliceny—with whom Merten claimed to have had no contact. Merten attempts to
shift some of the blame for Eichmann’s actions onto Günther. Eichmann’s attorneys
denied many aspects of Merten’s statement.


Lately, there has been some talk in Greece of a ship containing Merten’s
“treasure” (valued at billions of dollars) that supposedly sank in the Messinia Gulf—
but nothing has come out of it.


Merten’s German period, and particularly his trial against Adenauer’s
secretary Hans Globke (who was involved in the drafting of the Nuremberg racial
laws), are the subject of an unpublished thesis in Germany (being prepared under the
guidance of Prof. Richter).


One cannot close without mentioning Hannah Arendt’s comment (Quoted by Spiliotis from the German edition: Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: Ein Bericht über die Banalität des Bösen (München, Zürich, 1987), p. 231. ) attributing the Merten case to the indifference of the Greeks toward their Jewish fellow-citizens. (Arendt’s statement—as well as her comparison of Greece with Bulgaria—is
considered unfair by Fleischer, who points out that Merten was extradited to Germany
over the strenuous objections of the Greeks and that it was the German system that
refused to deal with him and with many other cases of war crimes committed against
the Greeks.)

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Αητος Κουτσατος Κουτσοποδαρατος

Περπαταει και φθινει − η Δικαιοσυνη

Popular Greek Proverb 

 

 

Although our notion of his powers may be exaggerated, Merten cannot be considered
innocent in the eyes of most of us Greek Jews. He might not have participated in the
most heinous of Holocaust crimes, but he was directly involved in the destruction of
our community.


More distressing, however, than the case per se is the feeling that justice was not
served in the case of Greece and its citizens (Jews, but also Christians …)—which
makes the Merten case a symbol. If one accepts his defense that he was not
responsible for most of the crimes attributed to him, one must simultaneously
acknowledge the fact that almost none of those allegedly responsible were punished
either...


Bibliography

 

Constantopoulou, Photini, and Thomas Veremis. Documents Concerning the
History of the Greek Jews: Records from the Historical Archives of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
(in Greek). Athens: Kastaniotis Editions, 1998.


Droulia, L., and Hans Fleischer, ed. Von Lidice nach Kalavryta: Widerstand und
Besatzungsterror
. Berlin: Metropol, 1999. In particular: Rondholz, Eberhard.
“Rechtsfindung oder Taeterschutz: die Deutsche Justiz und die ‘Bewältigung’ des
Besatzungsterrors in Griechenland,” pp. 225-291.


Fleischer, H. “Der Neubeginn in den Deutsch-Griechischen Beziehungen nach dem
Zweiten Weltkrieg und die ‘Bewältigung’ der Juengsten Vergangenheit,” pp. 81-
108. Proceedings of the symposium organized by the Institute of Balkan Studies in
Thessaloniki and Ouranoupolis, 1989, entitled: “Griechenland und die
Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Rahmen Nachkriegseuropas.”


Fleischer H. Crown and Swastika: Greece of Occupation and Resistance (in Greek),
pp. 326-327. Athens: Papazisi Editions, 1995.


Fleischer H. “Schuld ohne Suehne: Kriegsverbrechen in Griechenland.” In
Kriegsverbrechen in 20. Jahrhundert, edited by W. Wette and G. R. Ueberschaer,
pp. 208-221. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 2001.


Giebeler, Karl, Heinz Richter, and Reinhardt Stupperich. ed. Versoehnung ohne
Wahrheit? Deutsche Kriegsverbrechen in Griechenland im Zweiten Weltkrieg
.
Mannheim am Moehnesee: Bibliopolis, 2001. In particular: S. S. Spiliotis. “Der Fall
Merten und die deutsche-griechische ‘Aufarbeitung’ der Besatzungsherrschaft in
Griechenland waehrend des Zweiten Weltkrieges,” pp. 68-77.


Molho, M., and J. Nehama. In Memoriam : Dedication to the Memory of the Jewish
Victims of Nazism in Greece
(in Greek), pp. 327-332. Thessaloniki, 1974. See also:
pp. 163, 166, 167, 169, 170 and 172 for orders signed by Merten.


Rivlin, B., and Y. Kerem. Pinkas Ha-Kehilot: Yavan (Encyclopedia of Jewish
communities: Greece). Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1998.


Society for the Study of Greek Judaism. The Jews of Greece under Occupation (in
Greek). Thessaloniki: Vanias Editions, 1998. In particular, S. S. Spiliotis. “A Case
of Politics and Not of Justice: The Merten Trial (1957-1959) and Greek-German
Relations” (in Greek), pp. 29-41. See also the same article in English in: Mazower,
Mark, ed. After the War Was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation and State in
Greece
, 1943-1960. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.


Special Military Court for War Criminals (Greece): Decision No. 1/1959. Proceedings
(in Greek).


Spiliotis, S. S. “Der Fall Merten, Athens 1959: Ein Kriegsverbrecherprozess im
Spannungsfeld von Wiedergutmachungs- und Wirtschaftspolitik.” Master’s thesis,
Ludwig-Maximilian Universität, Munich, 1991.


Tagesspiegel Berlin. 11 September 1968. “Verfahren nach 11 Jahren eingestellt.
Rechtsanwalt Merten ausser Verfolgung. Kosten traegt Landekasse.”


Internet sources:


Merten’s testimony in the Eichmann trial:


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Testimony-Abroad/Max_Merten-01.html
 

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Testimony-Abroad/Max_Merten-02.html

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Testimony-Abroad/Max_Merten-03.html



Wisliceny’s account of Merten’s role in Salonika:


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wisliceny/atIMT030146.html

 

 

 This Conference took place :

University of Haifa, Faculty of Humanity
Alexander Onassis Public Benefit Foundation
The Shtrochlitz Institute of Holocaust Studies

Symposium " The Holocaust in Greece"

Thursday, 12 december 2002 

http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/Departments/history-school/conferences/holocaust_greece/Holocaust_in_Greece_Eng.htm