* I am indebted to Professors James Felak, Yeshayahu Jelinek, Ivan Kamenec, and Norman Naimark, and to Stanford University's European History Workshop for their reading of the manuscript and their many helpful suggestions for revising it. Edina Horváthová, Zuzana Dudás̆ová, Mária Buchalová, and Mária Vulganová all provided invaluable assistance with translating. I am especially grateful to Mária Vulganová for her unflagging encouragement and thoughtful criticism. This project furthermore would not have been possible without the extraordinary support of the staff of the Slovak National Archive, in particular, Boz̆ena Slezáková, Mária Zsigmondová, and, above all, Peter Magura.Google Scholar

1. Estimates of how many individual exemptions Tiso granted include: 300 (Ladislav Lipscher, Die Juden im Slowakischen Staat, 1939–1945 [Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1980], p. 187); 800–1,000 (Ivan Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie [Bratislava: Archa, 1991], p. 127); perhaps 9,000 (Anton Ras̆la and Ernest Z̆abkay, Proces s dr. J. Tisom: spomienky [Bratislava: Tatrapress, 1990], p. 117); 9,964 (Joseph A. Mikus [Jozef Mikus̆], Slovakia: A Political History: 1918–1950 [Milwaukee: Marquette University, 1963], p. 97, cited in Anthony X. Sutherland, Dr. Jozef Tiso and Modern Slovakia [Cleveland: First Catholic Slovak Union, 1978], p. 100); and nearly 10,000 (Karol Murín, Spomienky a svedectvo, 2nd ed. [Topol'c̆any: Priatelia prezidenta Tisu, 1991], p. 111). In turn, estimates of how many Jews were thus saved from deportation include: around 1,000 (Ivan Kamenec, “The Deportation of Jewish Citizens from Slovakia in 1942,” in Desider Tóth, ed., The Tragedy of Slovak Jews [sic] [Banská Bystrica, Slovakia: DATEI, 1992], p. 87); 1,111 (Lipscher, Die Juden im Slowakischen Staat, p. 187); 27,000–30,000 (Ras̆la and Z̆abkay, Proces s dr. J. Tisom, p. 117); 30,000–40,000 (Milan S. D̆urica, The Slovak Involvement in the Tragedy of the European Jews [Abano Terme, Italy: Piovan Editore, 1989], p. 12); 35,000–40,000 (Joseph A. Mikus̆, Slovakia: A Misunderstood History [Stoney Creek, Ontario: Battlefield, 1979], p. 58); and 40,000 (Gabriel Hoffmann, “O z̆ivote a práci prvého prezidenta Slovenského s̆tátu Jozefa Tisu,” in Valerián Bystrický and S̆tefan Fano, eds, Pokus o politický a osobný profil Jozefa Tisu [Bratislava: Slovak Academic Press, 1992], p. 351, and Murín, Spomienky a svedectvo, p. 111). This confusion is also reflected in recent scholarship. Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, in his 1999 Historical Dictionary of Slovakia, confidently credited Tiso with saving some 30,000 Jews, while Frank Cibulka, in an article published that same year, reported that Tiso “is credited with the saving of about 10,000 Jews.” Further, Shari Cohen, in her 2000 study on the role of history in post-Communist politics in Slovakia, leaves the impression that Tiso granted 30,000–40,000 exemptions but that only 1,000 were effective, while Michael Phayer, in his 2000 book The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, reports vaguely that Tiso granted exemptions “liberally (if often venally).” Among Slovak historians, the last half-decade has seen only a slight closing of opinion: Kamenec, in his 1998 biography of Tiso, increased his estimate of exemptions granted to over 1,000, protecting a total of perhaps 5,000–6,000, while D̆urica, in his 1995 chronology Dejiny Slovenska a Slovákov, quietly admitted that Tiso was not the sole source of exemptions employed in the alleged protecting of perhaps 35,000 Jews. See Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, Historical Dictionary of Slovakia, European Historical Dictionaries, No. 31 (Lanham, MD, and London: Scarecrow, 1999), pp. lxxii and 172; Frank Cibulka, “The Radical Right in Slovakia,” in Ramet, Sabrina P., ed., The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), pp. 121–122; Shari J. Cohen, Politics without a Past: The Absence of History in Postcommunist Nationalism (Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press, 1999), pp. 79 and 210, n. 68; Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1939–1965 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000), p. 90; Ivan Kamenec, Tragédia politika, kn̆aza a c̆loveka (Bratislava: Archa, 1998), p. 98; and Milan S. D̆urica, Dejiny Slovenska a Slovákov (Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatel'stvo, 1995), p. 163. This is by no means a complete listing of all discussions on Tiso's exemptions.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Sokol, Martin, “Nás̆ prvý prezident,” Slovák, 13 October 1939, p. 2; and Slovenský národný archív (henceforth SNA), fund Národný súd, 1945–1947 (henceforth NS), tnl'ud (henceforth t.) 6/46, affidavit of Andrej S̆krábik, 17 January 1946 (incorrectly dated 1945), carton 53, folio 17b/45.Google Scholar

3. At the time of his sudden public transformation into a Slovak nationalist (in the fall of 1918), Tiso was considered Hungarian by, among others, his bishop. SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of Tiso, 8 March 1946, carton 51, folios 133a/43–134a/43; and affidavit of S̆krábik, 5 November 1946, carton 54, folio 100la/45.Google Scholar

4. See Ward, James, “‘Black Monks': Jozef Tiso and Anti-Semitism,” Kosmas, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2000, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar

5. For a detailed discussion of the Slovak autonomy movement, see Felak, James R., “At the Price of the Republic”: Hlinka's Slovak People's Party, 1929–1938 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994).Google Scholar

6. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 156.Google Scholar

7. While the Slovak government originally welcomed the opportunity to send unemployed Slovak workers to Germany, by 1942 their enthusiasm for the arrangement had waned. Jelinek, Yeshayahu, “The ‘Final Solution'—The Slovak Version,” East European Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1971, p. 436.Google Scholar

8. Consider, for example, the positive impression Hitler made on the former British prime minister David Lloyd George or the British labor leader and pacifist George Lansbury. Kershaw, Ian, Hitler, 1936–45: Nemesis (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 2000), p. 29.Google Scholar

9. “Krst z̆idovskej rodiny,” Nitra, 26 April 1919, p. 3; “Fronty z̆idov pred farámi,” Nitra, 28 June 1919, p. 3; Niz̆n̆anský, Eduard, z̆idovská komunita na Slovensku medzi c̆eskoslovenskou parlamentnou demokraciou a Slovenským s̆tátom v stredoeurópskom kontexte (Pres̆ov, Slovakia: Universum, 1999), p. 207; and Ivan Kamenec, Vilém Prec̆an, and Stanislav S̆korvánek, Vatikán a Slovenská republika (1939–1945): dokumenty (Bratislava: Slovak Academic Press, 1992), p. 119.Google Scholar

10. SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of Tiso, 8 March 1946, carton 51, folio 288a/43; and t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 19 December 1946, carton 94, folio 495/82.Google Scholar

11. [Jozef Tiso], “C̆o nám patrí, z toho nikomu nic̆ nedáme,” Slovak, 18 August 1942, p. 4.Google Scholar

12. Jochmann, Werner, Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944 (Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus, 1980), p. 377.Google Scholar

13. For detailed discussions of Catholic anti-Semitism, see Modras, Ronald, The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933–1939 (Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994) and David I. Kertzer, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001).Google Scholar

14. “Nas̆e stanovisko,” Katolícke noviny, 1 November 1940, p. 1.Google Scholar

15. SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of S̆krabík, 17 January 1946 (incorrectly dated 1945), carton 53, folio 17b/45.Google Scholar

16. The Slovak Bishops’ memorandum on the Jewish Code, 7 October 1941, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 62–66.Google Scholar

17. “Katolíckej verejnosti,” Katolícke noviny, 26 April 1942, p. 1, reprinted in Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, p. 107.Google Scholar

18. Report from Msgr Giuseppe Burzio, Vatican charge d'affaires in Bratislava, to Cardinal Secretary of State Luigi Maglione, 10 April 1943, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 137–138.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar

20. Various Vatican diplomatic correspondence, 9 March to 27 April 1942, ibid., pp. 79–108.Google Scholar

21. Note by Msgr Domenico Tardini, 13 July 1942, ibid., p. 117; see also note by Tardini, 7 April 1943, ibid., p. 132.Google Scholar

22. Murín, Spomienky a svedectvo, p. 76. For other examples of this hostility, see note by Tardini, 27 March 1942, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, p. 91.Google Scholar

23. Kamenec, Tragédia politika, kn̆aza a c̆loveka, pp. 127–128; and Walter Ullmann, “American and Vatican Reactions to the Tiso Trial,” Bohemia, Vol. 18, 1977, pp. 301–314.Google Scholar

24. SNA, NS 8/46, Ústredn̆a s̆tátnej bezpec̆nosti, c̆. 19.644/3-1942, “Vs̆eobecná politická zpráva za mesiac jún 1942,” 10 July 1942, carton 81, folio 24a/70.Google Scholar

25. See, for example, ibid., folio 20b/70.Google Scholar

26. Slovenský zákonník, 63/39.Google Scholar

27. SNA, NS, t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 19 December 1946, carton 94, folio 469/82.Google Scholar

28. Slovenský zákonník, 198/1941.Google Scholar

29. See, for example, the Slovak Bishops’ memorandum on the Jewish Code, 7 October 1941, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 62–66.Google Scholar

30. SNA, fund S (henceforth S), “Z̆idia na Slovensku podl'a ochrany. Stav: l.februára 1944,” carton 499–501, folder S-499-2.Google Scholar

31. Letter by Gejza Konka, head of 14 Division, to Ministry of Transportation, 5 March 1942, Ladislav Hubenák, ed., Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky na Slovensku: dokumenty (Bratislava: Edícia Judaica Slovaca, 1994–2000), Vol. 2, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

32. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 168.Google Scholar

33. SNA, fund Ministerstvo vnútra, 1938–1945 (henceforth MV), Ministerstvo vnútra, c̆. 14-D4-637/2-1942, 19 March 1942, carton 206, folio 619.Google Scholar

34. Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

36. SNA, fund Úrad predsedníctva vlády Slovenskej republiky, 1938–1945 (henceforth ÚPV), S̆tátna rada, c̆. 89/Taj.l942, 26 March 1942, carton 35, folder 2890/42; and 14th Division instructions for the deportations, 4 April 1942, Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, p. 87.Google Scholar

37. SNA, MV, “Koncept,” c̆. 14-D4-1922/1-1942, 13 April 1942, and “Okresný úrad v Starej L'ubovni, c̆. 321/1942 prez., 20 April 1942, carton 230, folder 1922/42, folios 577–578.Google Scholar

38. Slovenský zákonník, 68/1942, § 2, ods. 3.Google Scholar

39. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 183; press statement by Alexander Mach, 27 March 1942, Hubenák, ed., Ries̆nie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, p. 75; and “Vyst'ahovanie Z̆idov zo Slovenska,” Vestník Ústredne Z̆idov, 1 April 1942, p. 1.Google Scholar

40. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, pp. 172 and 175.Google Scholar

41. On 25 March 1942, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied rumors “about tearing apart families,” and on 31 March 1942 Burzio reported that the government was preparing a statement “with a view toward the reaction of public opinion and as a consequence of various interventions and protests, among which is not missing even that of the Slovak Bishops.” Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská Republika, pp. 90 and 93.Google Scholar

42. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, pp. 174–175.Google Scholar

43. Testimony of Dieter Wisliczeny, the German advisor on Jewish affairs in Slovakia, 6 May 1946, in Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 3, p. 219.Google Scholar

44. Report by Vas̆ek, 25 June 1942, Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, pp. 124–125.Google Scholar

45. Cited in D̆urica, The Slovak Involvement in the Tragedy of the European Jews, p. 13.Google Scholar

46. See report by Hans Elard Ludin to Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, 11 August 1944, Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 3, p. 139.Google Scholar

47. Report by Vas̆ek, 25 June 1942, as summarized in Lipscher, , Die Juden in der Slowakischen Staat 1939–1945 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1980), p. 115. Jews in work camps have been subtracted from the total. For original report, see Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, pp. 124–125.Google Scholar

48. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 193.Google Scholar

49. Ibid., pp. 173 and 195.Google Scholar

50. SNA, MV, cartons 245–257.Google Scholar

51. SNA, MV, Prezídium ministerstva vnútra, c̆. 14-D4-9961-3/1942, “Predmet: Súpis Z̆idov,” 26 August 1942, carton 244, folio 2.Google Scholar

52. Spis̆ská Nová Ves. In 1940, it had 1,280 Jews; in February 1944, 147. S̆tatistické zprávy, 1941, ser. A, No. 1, tab. 2; and SNA, MV, “Soznam B” (11 February 1944 census of Jews), folder “Spis̆ská Nová Ves,” folio 389.Google Scholar

53. The most significant among these was list 3 for Bratislava city, of which I found only a few of the final pages. Lists 1 and 2 for the city, however, were complete, and documentation also existed as to how long list 3 had been. SNA, MV, Prezídium policajného riaditel'stva v Bratislave, c̆. 6060/42 prez., “Súpis Z̆idov—I. Dodatok,” 12 September 1942, carton 253, folio 2.Google Scholar

54. SNA, fund Kancelária prezidenta republiky, 1939–1945 (henceforth KPR), cartons 82, 144–150, MV, cartons 244–245 and 568–571.Google Scholar

55. Under certain conditions, the Jewish Code classified mies̆anci as Jews. This created confusion at the time, which is reflected in the 1942 census; mies̆anci are often entered on lists 1 and 2 but later expunged by other officials. In this study, I have counted all as mies̆anci unless baptized after 20 April 1939, the prescribed cutoff date. “Kto je Z̆idom a kto je mies̆ancom,” Vestník Ústredne Z̆idov, 9 October 1942, p. 1.Google Scholar

56. SNA, fund Ústredný hospodársky úrad, 1940–1944 (henceforth ÚHÚ), Ústredn̆a Z̆idov, S̆tatistické oddelenie, odbora VI, “Soznam s̆tátnych zamestnancov,” 13 May 1941, carton 143, folder 25204/41.Google Scholar

57. SNA, S, “Z̆idia na Slovensku podl'a ochrany. Stav: 1. februára 1944,” cartons 499–501, folder S-499-2.Google Scholar

58. SNA, MV, carton 249, folder “Malacky,” list 3, folio 3, No. 13; carton 569, folder “Malacky,” list 3, No. 11.Google Scholar

59. As the total of presidential exemptions thus constructed is frequently substantially low, one must wonder if this system was not adopted in part to hide the extent to which Tiso was granting exemptions. Tiso allegedly complained that he could not give more exemptions than he had because it would “spoil the statistics.” SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of S̆krábik, 17 January 1946 (incorrectly dated 1945), carton 53, folio 17b/45.Google Scholar

60. Raw total from list 1 on 9 September 1942 census; SNA, MV, “Poc̆et Z̆idov na Slovensku ku dn̆u 12. XII. 1940 a 1. IX. 1942, podl'a z̆úp,” carton 262, folder 12261/42; and fund 209 (henceforth 209), “Referát Dr. Antona Vas̆eka,” addendum “Výkaz stavu Z̆idov na Slovensku k l.januáru 1943,” carton 864, folder 209-864-2.Google Scholar

61. The estimated range of mixed marriages used for this calculation was 69–86.Google Scholar

62. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 178; SNA, NS, t. 6/46, Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 2.036 kab./1942, 5 October 1942, carton 63, folio 883/53. See also the Central State Security order to arrest all left-wing Jews without regard to exemptions, 25 August 1942, Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, p. 143. In his trial, however, Tiso testified that he did not know of a single case of a presidential exemption holder being deported in 1942. SNA, NS, t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 19 December 1946, carton 94, folio 507/82.Google Scholar

63. I estimated this by calculating the number of direct exemption holders on the 1942 census between 21 and 41 years of age (19 years younger than average life expectancy in 1950, the earliest available such statistic; individuals younger than 21 tended to be the children of individuals with direct exemptions themselves); calculating the ratio between the resulting total (242) and the total number of direct exemptions on the 1942 census (504); multiplying the resultant total (0.48) by the total number of direct exemptions as determined above (681); multiplying the resulting total (326) by the percentage of direct exemptions that I knew Tiso granted before 15 May 1942 in relation to all direct exemptions on the 1942 census for which I knew their issuance date (59%); and, finally, multiplying by 2 for each theoretical parent. Most of the noted parents also would have been protected by having children baptized before 10 September 1942. Calculated using Historická statistická roc̆enka C̆SSR (Prague: SNTL, 1985), tab. 63–19, p. 638.Google Scholar

64. They only appear to confirm Lipscher's total of 1,111, which he based on an April 1943 report that classifies exemptions according to the single category method discussed above. My results suggest a greater number of exemptions by April 1943. SNA, MV, “Zpráva” (apparent 14th Division report on the present state of Jewry in Slovakia), 14 April 1943, carton 2479, no folder.Google Scholar

65. Of the latter, some of these may be unidentified mixed marriages, but this should not change the statistics so far as they apply to Jews.Google Scholar

66. Unless otherwise noted, I calculated all percentages henceforth using the 504 direct exemptions I found on the 1942 census. I did not use direct exemptions from the later sources because they were too incomplete.Google Scholar

67. This fact goes far in explaining the stubborn belief among Tiso supporters in the Z̆ilina area that Tiso saved 40,000 Jews. If every county in Slovakia had failed to deport half of their Jewish population, the total for Slovakia would be around 40,000. These figures do not take into account internal Jewish migration between 1940 and 1942, which was substantial. By 1942, Bratislava had decreased its Jewish population by over 6,600; some fled to Hungary and the regime “resettled” others in 13 Slovak cities, including Z̆ilina. See Kamenec, Ivan, “Z̆idia v Bratislave v c̆ase holokaustu,” in Peter Salner, ed., Z̆idia v Bratislave (Bratislava: Ins̆titút judaistiky FFUK, Ústav etnológie SAV, and Z̆idovská náboz̆enská obec Bratislava, 1997), p. 84.Google Scholar

68. Many authorities also note the importance of protekcia (patronage) in obtaining exemptions. In so far as it applies to the presidential exemption, I can neither confirm nor refute this. For an example of a presidential exemption holder who felt he owed his exemption to protekcia, see L'udovít Winter, Kúpele Pies̆t'any v pamätiach L'udovíta Wintera (Bratislava and Pies̆t'any, Slovakia: Slovenské národné múzeum, Múzeum z̆idovskej kultúry, and Balneologické múzeum, Pies̆t'any 1999), p. 88.Google Scholar

69. SNA, NS, t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 19 December 1946, carton 94, folios 486–487/82.Google Scholar

70. SNA, NS, t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 19 December 1946, carton 94, folio 487/82; testimony of Vojtech Tvrdý, 10 January 1947, carton 95, folio 714/83; and testimony of Alexej Izakovic̆, 19 February 1947, carton 99, folio 155/87.Google Scholar

71. Among the handful of files still preserved for individuals to whom Tiso granted exemptions, fee amounts range from 500 to 8,000 crowns.Google Scholar

72. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 133. In general, the granting of exemptions—similarly as with Aryanization—was an opportunity for massive corruption. While some critics have accused Tiso of sharing in such spoils, I found no convincing evidence to that effect among the materials I examined. For examples of accusations, see Frieder, Emanuel, To Deliver Their Souls: The Struggle of a Young Rabbi during the Holocaust (New York: Holocaust Library, 1987), p. 57; and Desider Tóth, ed., The Tragedy of Slovak Jews (Banská Bystrica, Slovakia: DATEI, 1992), pp. 170–171.Google Scholar

73. SNA, KPR, Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 3827/1942, 22 May 1942, carton 146, folder 3827/42.Google Scholar

74. See, for example, SNA, KPR, exemption file for Dr Eduard B., carton 150, folder 5745/42. I have abbreviated the last name to protect the individual's privacy.Google Scholar

75. See, for example, SNA, KPR, exemption file for Rudolf S., carton 145, folder 2656/42. See also SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of Tiso, 8 March 1946, carton 51, folio 287a/43; and t. 8/46, testimony of Tiso, 14 December 1946, carton 94, folio 103/82 and 19 December 1946, folios 479/82 and 482/82.Google Scholar

76. See, for example, SNA, KPR, Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 13314/1942, 11 November 1942, carton 147, folder 4433/42.Google Scholar

77. See, for example, SNA, KPR, intra-office worksheet for Samuel K., rejected 14 December 1943, carton 147, without folder, located between folders 4304/42 and 4369/42.Google Scholar

78. See, for example, SNA, KPR, Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 2079/1942, 18 April 1942, carton 145, folder 2079/42.Google Scholar

79. SNA, KPR, Mestský notársky úrad v Bratislave, c̆. 2215/prez. 1942, 14 October 1942, carton 148, folder 4680/42.Google Scholar

80. SNA, KPR, Okresný úrad v Z̆iline, c̆. 1542/1942 prez., 11 August 1942, carton 147, folder 4556/42. I have changed the names in this document to protect the individuals’ privacy.Google Scholar

81. SNA, KPR, Mestský notársky úrad v Bratislave, c̆. 2671/prez./1942, 24 November 1942, carton 146, folder 3647. The exclamation mark also appeared beside the same information on the intra-office worksheet for this application.Google Scholar

82. SNA, KPR, Okresný úrad v Pres̆ove, c̆. 1266/1942 prez., 23 April 1942, carton 150, folder 5943/42.Google Scholar

83. SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of Tiso, 8 March 1946, carton 51, folio 287a/43.Google Scholar

84. SNA, KPR, intra-office worksheet for Henrich P., carton 82, folder, 10868/41; intra-office worksheet for Vojtech Bernát H., carton 147, folder 4470; and ÚPV, letter from Mach to Vojtech Tuka, c̆. 3361/1942, 27 August 1942, carton 36, folder 10/52a/1942.Google Scholar

85. SNA, KPR, Okresný úrad v Lipt. Sv. Mikulás̆i, c̆. 1260/1942 prez., 17 August 1942, carton 145, folder 2897/42.Google Scholar

86. SNA, KPR, intra-office worksheet for Jakub W., carton 146, folder 3872/42.Google Scholar

87. SNA, KPR, carton 82, folders 10868/41, 10651/41, 11957/41, 12058/41, 13405/41, 13101/41, 13114/41, 13203/41, 13623/41, 13624/41, 13793/41, 13795/41, 14330/41, 14341/41, 14587/41, 14676/41, 15122/41, 15134/41, and 15228/41.Google Scholar

88. See, for example, SNA, KPR, carton 150, folders 5614/42–5616/42, 5690/42, 5693/42–5694/42, 5696/42, 5717/42–5718/42, 5746/42, and 5749/42–5751/42.Google Scholar

89. SNA, KPR, plea of Victor Magyar, 9 April 1942, and Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 4942/1942, 16 April 1942, carton 148, folder 4942/42. The president's office dispatched several other applications that same week. Among them was the plea of Armin Frieder (1911–1946), the main rabbi of Nové Mesto and a key member of the “Working Group,” the most significant organization of Jewish resistance to the Slovak deportations. It was Frieder who, just before the deportations, personally conveyed to Tiso a protest from the rabbis of Slovakia in a futile attempt to convince the president to intervene on behalf of the Jews. Both Magyar and Frieder survived the Holocaust. Frieder died before he could testify in the postwar trials, but not before he made a sworn deposition. SNA, KPR, plea of Armin Frieder, 8 April 1942 (incorrectly dated 1941), carton 148, folder 5003/42.Google Scholar

90. SNA, KPR, Kancelária prezidenta republiky, c̆. 4942/1942, 23 April 1942, carton 148, folder 4942/42.Google Scholar

91. Mrva, Ján, Paberky k dejinám s̆tátneho prevratu v Nitre (Nitra, Slovakia: Miestneho odboru Matice slovenskej, 1933), pp. 20–44.Google Scholar

92. I also found among the exemption files a 7 March 1942 complaint from an apparent Bratislava Jew, Jozef M., detailing the behavior of the Hlinka Guard during a seizure of Jewish property. The complaint directly addressed the impending deportations:Google Scholar

we heard reports that the [Central Economic Office] and the Ministry of Interior is preparing the complete deportation of the Jews at the request of the German Army for work in Ukraine and Poland. Please, I beseech you, Mr. President, if this is really so, prevent this from happening. There we would all arrive at a ready-made slaughterhouse. We would prefer to be shot and die here at home, in our homeland, which we, believe me, always greatly loved. (SNA, KPR, complaint of Jozef M., 7 March 1942, carton 147, folder 4369/42.)Google Scholar

Tiso's office sent the complaint on to the Ministry of the Interior, noting only the behavior of the Guard. Two months later, Jozef M. again wrote to Tiso about the deportations:Google Scholar

this terrible action that has happen[ed] borders on the most tragic horror that has ever afflicted mankind. From these ten thousand who already have departed … forever, so it seems … there has not been received in Slovakia from any of them still any report, even though the first transport left us seven weeks ago! Parents, children, sisters, and brothers do not know … where our brother and sister lie, and where our father and mother lie. The most tragic scene is played out in our innocent families! … Moderate and stop this terrible action, honorable Mr. President. We do not deserve this horrible tragedy. We were never enemies of the nation; what they now accuse us of was never true … Help us Mr. President! Someone scrawled on the back of this complaint what appear to be the words “only a report!” (SNA, KPR, complaint of Jozef M., 11 May 1942, carton 147, folder 4369/42).Google Scholar

93. SNA, KPR, “Curriculum vite“ of Angela B., n.d., carton 146, folder 4194/42.Google Scholar

94. SNA, KPR, plea of Alz̆beta D., 24 June 1942, carton 144, folder 1742/42.Google Scholar

95. Na stráz̆! (En garde!) was the Slovak fascist salutation, mandatory on all official correspondence during the Slovak state.Google Scholar

96. SNA, KPR, request of Ladislav S. and family, 14 December 1941, carton 82, folder 14864/41, folio 8.Google Scholar

97. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 173; SNA, MV, Okresné z̆andárske velitel'stvo Spis̆ská Stará Ves, 22 March 1942, carton 206, folio 330; Prezidium policajného riaditel'stva v Bratislave, c̆. 1715/42. prez., 21 March 1942, carton 210, folios 371–372; Okresný úrad v Banskej Bystrici, c̆. 499/1942 prez., 1 April 1942, carton 211, folio 72; Okresný úrad v Banskej S̆tiavnici, c̆. 212/1942 prez., 28 March 1942, carton 211, folio 268; Okresný úrad v Novej Bani, c̆. 3734/1942, 1 April 1942, carton 211, folio 377; Okresný úrad v Púchove, c̆. 3262/1942, 1 April 1942, carton 211, folio 424; and “Soznam Z̆idov, na ktorých sa vzt'ahuje ustanovenie c̆asti VI. bodu 1, 2, 3, 6 a 7 nar. Ministerstva vnútra v Bratislave zo dn̆a 4.IV.1942 c̆. 14-D4-1200/1-1942, Okres Trebis̆ov,” carton 245, folios 549, 555, and 558. It was not possible in the remaining counties to distinguish exemptions based on the March and April directives from those based on Law 68/1942.Google Scholar

98. SNA, ÚPV, S̆tátny s̆tatistický úrad, c̆. 573/1942 prez., 6 February 1942, carton 36, folder 1077/42, table 11; and MV, “Zpráva” (apparent 14th Division report on the present state of Jewry in Slovakia), 14 April 1943, carton 2479. Ludin estimated in 1944 that there were 1,000 mixed marriages in Slovakia before 14 March 1939. Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 3, p. 140.Google Scholar

99. Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 1, p. 187.Google Scholar

100. SNA, NS, t. 6/46, affidavit of S̆krabík, 17 January 1946 (incorrectly dated 1945), carton 53, folio 17b/45; Slovak Bishops’ memorandum on the Jewish Code, 7 October 1941, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 62–66.Google Scholar

101. “Katolíckej verejnosti,” Katolícke noviny, 26 April 1942, p. 1. The original protest is reprinted in Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 105–107.Google Scholar

102. Various diplomatic correspondence, 17 March to 21 April 1942, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar

103. Yad Vashem, “Prehl'ad pokrstenia Z̆idov na Slovensku v dobe od 14.III.39 do 1.IV.43,” M-5/51; and SNA, 209, “Referát Dr. Antona Vas̆eka,” addendum “Výkaz stavu Z̆idov na Slovensku k l.januáru 1943,” carton 864, folder 209-864-2. I am greatly indebted to Professor Yeshayahu Jelinek for providing a copy of the Yad Vashem document.Google Scholar

104. See, for example, SNA, ÚPV, “Návrh usnesenia vlády, ktorým sa predlz̆ujú lehoty na vykonávanie zverolekárskej praxe,” c̆. Prez-P-7418/1/41, 3 December 1941, carton 35, folder 32/44; Ministerstvo pravosúdia Bratislava, c̆. 16129/40-1, 24 September 1940, carton 35, no folder; and KPR, Ministerstvo dopravy a verejných prác, c̆. 66.295-prez. 1941, 22 October 1941, carton 82, folder 12415/41.Google Scholar

105. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 174.Google Scholar

106. Kamenec, Tragédia politika, kn̆aza a c̆loveka, p. 98.Google Scholar

107. Kamenec, Po stopách tragédie, p. 271.Google Scholar

108. Report of Burzio to Maglione, 9 April 1942, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 98; notes by Maglione, 11 April 1942, ibid., p. 99; and report of Burzio to Maglione, 7 March 1943, ibid., p. 122.Google Scholar

109. “Vs̆etci sme bratia, lebo sme Slováci!” Slovák, 10 September 1941, p. 2; note by Tardini, 21 October 1942, Kamenec et al., Vatikán a Slovenská republika, pp. 66–67; and note from the Italian embassy to the Vatican, 26 September 1942, ibid., p. 119.Google Scholar

110. See SNA, NS, t. 6/46, testimony of Michal Buzalka and Tiso, 30 January 1947, carton 54, folios 545a/45–548/45.Google Scholar

111. Kamenec, Tragédia politika, kn̆aza a c̆loveka, p. 99.Google Scholar

112. Jeremy Noakes, “The Development of Nazi Policy towards the German-Jewish ‘Mischlinge’ 1933–1945,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, Vol. 34, 1989, p. 338.Google Scholar

113. Dawidowicz, Lucy S., The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945 (New York: Bantam, 1986), p. 403.Google Scholar

114. Indeed, in the most famous example of such resistance in Germany, the so-called “Rosenstraße protest,” mainly “Aryan” wives protested the detention of their “Jewish” spouses, whom the authorities wanted to deport. See Stoltzfus, Nathan, Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996).Google Scholar

115. Children under 21 minus non-single men and women under 21 divided by the total for all women minus single women. C̆eskoslovenská statistika, sv. 98, tab. 17, p. 139.Google Scholar

116. Among Tiso's exemptions were 75 individuals in Jewish marriages with a total of 110 minors and 50 such marriages with no minors.Google Scholar

117. [Anton Vas̆ek], “Úvahy o odloz̆ení, pot'az̆ne o predbez̆nom zastavení vyst'ahovania Z̆idov,” 7 August 1942, in Hubenák, Ries̆enie Z̆idovskej otázky, Vol. 2, p. 137. This demographic trend is mirrored in statistics for the eastern Slovak city of Kosice (which was assigned to Hungary after the 1938 First Vienna Award). The birth rate fell drastically from 1937 until 1944, while death rates show a slight rising trend. In turn, 1942 saw nearly two-thirds as few Jewish marriages as 1937. Pavol S̆alamon, “Demografický vývoj Z̆idov v Kos̆iciach v rokoch 1841–1944,” in Jurová, Anna and S̆alamon, Pavol, eds, Kos̆ice a deportácie Z̆idov v roku 1944 (Kosice, Slovakia: Spoloc̆enskovedný ústav SAV Kos̆ice, 1994), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

118. The mean age for Tiso's direct exemption holders older than 20 was around 40; for the 1930 general population, the mean age older than 20 was 21. C̆eskoslovenská statistika, sv. 98, tab. 17, pp. 139–140.Google Scholar

119. One hundred and seventy-eight of all direct exemption holders, not including children granted direct exemptions, were apparently unmarried; extrapolating from 1930 census data according to age for both the general population and for individuals who identified their nationality as Jewish, one would expect around a total of between 120–135. For the purpose of calculating the surplus, I have used the median value of 128, making for a total surplus of 50 singles that were possibly mixed marriages. Calculated from C̆eskoslovenská statistika, sv. 98, tab. 17, pp. 139–140, and tab. 19, pp. 160–163.Google Scholar

120. 196 mixed marriages times 0.88 minors per mixed marriage.Google Scholar