Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-063 Last-Modified: 1999/05/27 209. As to the second wave: On 12 December 1942, Himmler issued a directive to evacuate the Zamosc district and to settle Germans from other regions there (N/26). The operation was assigned by Himmler to Krueger, who had to co- operate with the head offices subordinated to Himmler. The Attorney General cross-examined the Accused about this operation in Session 98 (Vol. IV), and this time, too, the Accused endeavoured to show that his activity was limited to organizing timetables (pp.xxxx 3, 21-22). But the documents prove that Section IVB4 did much more than that, and was also occupied with the deportations. They were given a special reference number, IV - 3666/42g (1505), which appears for the first time in a cable dated 26 October 1942, signed by Guenther (T/373). On 31 October 1942, Mueller submits to Himmler a plan of action bearing the reference number of the Accused's Section IVB4a, and Himmler confirms it (T/374). According to the plan, the Polish population is to be divided into four groups. One group is to be settled, a second is to be brought to Germany for labour purposes, a third is to be "Germanized;" as to the fourth group, a distinction is made between those under the age of 14 and above the age of 60, and those between the ages of 14 and 60. Those fit for work from the 14-60 age group are to be taken to Auschwitz, and the aged above the age of 60 are to be taken to "pension villages" (Rentendoerfer) (see also T/375). In the order of implementation dated 21 November 1942 (T/372) - signed, it seems, by Krumey, who worked at the time at the Centre for the Change of Residence - the distinction of those fit and those unfit for work in the 14- 60 age group - classified as group 4 - is unclear, and the report T/382, dated 16 December 1942, about the transport of 644 Poles to Auschwitz, shows that those unfit for labour were also sent there. In regard to this matter it says: "As far as the question of their ability to work is concerned, it has been pointed out (by the Deputy Camp Commander) that only Poles able to work are to be sent there, in order to avoid an excessive burden on the camp and on transport. It is necessary to remove the mentally weak, the insane, the crippled and the sick from the camp as quickly as possible. They must be liquidated, in order to alleviate the burden carried by the camp. But this step involves difficulties, because, according to directives from the Head Office for Reich Security, Poles must be allowed to die a natural death, and the methods employed against Jews cannot be used against them. Therefore, the management of the camp demands that people who cannot be included in the labour effort should not be sent there." A cable dated 29 December 1942, sent from the Accused's Section, signed by Guenther (T/378), deals with the question of how to treat the clergy. This constitutes additional proof that the Accused did not limit himself solely to organizing timetables. The witness Rajewsky (T/1356, the second day of the trial, p. 175 of the original) gave evidence in the case of Hoess in Poland, and related that Poles from Zamosc reached Auschwitz. He, too, mentions the reference number IVB4 366/42 g/1505. On p. 189 he testified that the transport of Poles from Zamosc "went to the gas" (as distinguished from transports of other Poles). We cannot say how many Poles were evacuated from Zamosc, but it is clear from exhibit T/371 that, in any case, many thousands were deported. From exhibits T/377, T/381 and T/382, we learn about the conditions of the transports: Children arrived with frozen limbs; after a short journey of twelve hours, a considerable number of dead bodies had to be removed from the waggons; those who tried to escape were killed. The result is that the Accused's guilt of a crime against humanity has been proved, in that between the years 1940 and 1942 he caused, together with others, the expulsion of a civilian population - namely hundreds of thousands of Poles, under the circumstances already described by us. 210. The tenth count charges the Accused with a crime against humanity, in that, in the year 1941, he took part in the expulsion of over 14,000 Slovenes, in order to settle German families in their stead. In this matter, too, the Accused does not deny his own activity and the activity of his Section in matters of transport, but according to the argument by the Defence it has not been proved that the deportation was carried out in an inhuman manner or by means of terror. The proof at our disposal is in exhibits T/898-T/901. The Accused reacted to a part of these documents in his Statement T/37 (pp. 245 and 3559). The witness Novak mentioned the deportation of the Slovenes briefly on p. 5 of his evidence, and the settling of the Slovenes in the Lublin area is mentioned in exhibit T/370. The beginning of this action is to be found at a meeting held in Marburg (Untersteiermark) on 6 May 1941, the invitation to which was sent from the Accused's office, signed by Heydrich. We know about deportations on 7 June 1941 and 27 September 1941 to other localities in Yugoslavia. We do not doubt that these, too, were forced deportations, as is evidenced by the use of the word "evacuation" which appears in the letter of invitation T/898, and occurs in Novak's evidence and in the Accused's Statement. This is also shown by the hurried pace of the transports and by the fact that the implementation and the provision of escorts were in the hands of the Security Police. In October 1942, thousands of Slovenes were still left without a permanent abode, and an order was given to settle them in the Lublin district (T/370). This fact provides further confirmation of our conclusion that this was an enforced deportation, and not a planned and orderly exchange of populations. Every act of forced deportation of a civilian population is in itself a crime against humanity. The fact that at the end of 1942 thousands of Slovenes still had not found permanent dwelling places for themselves, proves that this act of evacuation brought much human suffering in its wake. The Accused's complicity with others in a crime against humanity was thus also proved on this count. 211. The eleventh count charges the Accused with a crime against humanity by participating in the deportation of tens of thousands of Gypsies, their assembly in places of concentration, and their transportation to extermination camps for the purpose of murdering them. In the material placed before us, first mention of the Gypsies appears at a meeting held on 21 September 1939 (T/164), at which Heydrich ordered the deportation of 30,000 Gypsies to Poland. The same order is mentioned again at a meeting held on 30 January 1940 (T/166), after the setting up of Section IVD4, headed by the Accused; but at the time priority was given to other activities (p. 6). In the documents before us, there is no evidence of action against Gypsies, until the deportation of 5,000 Gypsies to Lodz in the months of October-November 1941 (T/222), in spite of protests by the local authority (T/221, T/220, T/243). We have more information on this subject from the declaration made by Friedel on 13 June 1949 in the prison of Bialystok (T/293), from the memoirs of Hoess (T/45, p. 124), from the evidence of Rajewsky (T/356, the second day of the trial, p. 189), from the evidence of Dr. Beilin (Session 69, Vol. III, pp. 1259-1260), from the Accused's Statement (T/37, pp. 977, 1662-1663), and from the evidence given by Novak. From all these, we gather that the transportation of the Gypsies was carried out by the Accused's Section, and for that he bears responsibility. But we do not have sufficient proof before us that the Accused dealt also with the concentration of Gypsies. In this connection, and also in connection with the general supervision of the Gypsies, Friedel and Hoess mention Group V2 of the RSHA, viz., the Criminal Police. Gypsies were exterminated at Auschwitz and at Chelmno (see T/1297), but we have no reliable proof before us that the Accused knew that the Gypsies transported by his Section to Auschwitz were to be exterminated there. The result is that the Accused's complicity in the commission of a crime against humanity has been proved by his participation in the deportation of the Gypsies. 212. Thetwelfth count of the indictment charges the Accused with a crime against humanity, regarding approximately 100 children, residents of the village of Lidice in Czechoslovakia. According to the indictment, the Accused participated in their deportation, their transport to Poland, and their murder there. The Accused denied all activity in, or knowledge of, this act, and Counsel for the Defence also contends that the murder of the children was not proved. In addition to the documentary material, we also have before us in this matter Krumey's evidence, Mrs. Freiberg's statement (N/19), and the evidence submitted in the case of Greifelt and others (the case against the Head Office for Race and Resettlement, Green Series, vol. 4, p. 599; and vol. 5), especially in the evidence of Maria Hanfova (vol. 4, p. 1033). In connection with this evidence, we mention our Decision No. 48 given on 24 May 1961 (Session 50, p. 904). From all this material, the following picture emerges: After the Nazis had wrought their deeds at Lidice, two transports of children from the village were sent to Lodz. The first transport consisted of 91 children (a list of names is attached to exhibit T/1091), but in fact only 88 children arrived, for three children had been removed from the transport as being "fit for Germanization." While they were in Lodz, an additional seven children out of the remaining 88 were removed for Germanization (a list of names, dated 20 June 1942, is attached to the evidence of Krumey). With these seven was Maria Hanfova who gave evidence at Nuremberg (in both lists her name is given as "Hankova"). The remaining 81 children were put into a camp at Lodz, from which they were removed on 2 July 1942. The Attorney General contends that these 81 children were removed to the East. And, indeed, it says on the printed copy of Form T/1095: "To the Generalgouvernement, 81 Czechs." But the photocopy of the original document, which was put before the Accused as exhibit T/37(246), leaves a doubt, for there three items are crowded into the space intended for the description of those who are "leaving," and the remark "81 Czechs" does not appear on the line reading "To the Generalgouvernement" but just above this line. On the strength of this document, it is impossible to establish with certainty where the children were sent. But on the strength of the document dated 2 July 1942, also attached to the evidence by Krumey, it can be established that the children were handed over to the Lodz Stapo. This document reads as follows: "Confirmation: In accordance with a cable from the Head Office for Reich Security, 81 Czech children, who were temporarily lodged in the camp at 41 Gneisenau Street, were handed over today, 2 July 1942, to the Litzmannstadt Stapo." The document is signed by two SS men, the one who handed over the children, and the other as the one receiving them. We did not learn any more about the fate of these 81 children. Immediately after, there is a further transport of 18 children, six of whom are destined for Germanization and are immediately transferred to a certain children's home. The remaining children were handed over on 25 July 1942 to the Lodz Stapo (exhibit T/1099), and according to the confirmation of the delivery and the receipt, in the meantime these twelve children were also in the above camp. Hence, we are concerned with 93 children handed to the Lodz Stapo, and with 16 children transferred for Germanization. It seems that the indictment refers only to the 93 children, and in any case it has not been proved that the Accused fulfilled any function in connection with the sixteen children who were transferred for Germanization. These (or some of them) were at the Puschkau Home near Poznan, as transpires from the evidence given by Maria Hanfova at the trial in Nuremberg. We are, therefore, convinced that the children whom Mrs. Freiberg mentions in her declaration (N/19) are the children intended for Germanization, and are not from amongst the other 93 children who, according to the argument of the Attorney General, were murdered. We shall comment here that the kidnapping of children for "Germanization" is also considered a crime against humanity (see the case against Greifelt and others - Green Series, vol. 5, p. 96).
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor