We have here several issues: Was the Slovak “deal” a deal at all? Who initiated it? The Germans? Jews? Were bribes offered by the Jews effective then and later? This was the political and practical side of the matter, whose answer is to be sought in German documentation, when possible, because whether the Jewish side had initiated the bribes or not, the success of such deals depended on the German side and on their autonomous allies. The moral and political issue, however, seems to be detached from the practical one. One should have paid the Germans; even for nothing, if this would have finally proved to be the result, as long as one was not entirely sure about it, and even for the sake of rescuing one's image or reputation in the eyes of future generations. Yet “not finally sure” may be an indefinite, self-defeating procedure in which the other side may always be given the opportunity to maintain that your side could have done more, a strategy adopted by Eichmann himself regarding his alleged Hungarian ransom offer, to be discussed as the “Gestapo Deal,” in his trial in Jerusalem. Thus, he sought to transform the victim and third parties, who were supposed to deliver the goods, into collaborators in the victim's own doom. But for what actual purpose? Eichmann certainly did not prepare for his trial in Jerusalem in the early 1940s during the Hungarian Holocaust, and hence other reasons for his apparent willingness to negotiate the Gestapo Deal must be explored such as propaganda gains and political goals aimed at splitting the Allies.