The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Session 50
(Part 3 of 7)

State Attorney Bach: The other testimony was just not printed here. I suppose that a record exists, but this one is not complete. They felt that it was enough to quote the testimony of one girl.

I should also like to include the declaration that appears on pages 1038-1039; this is a sworn statement by Hermann Krumey about his own actions with regard to these children. He says in the declaration that the children were transferred to his office, that some of the children were sent to Germany for "Germanization," and that the rest of the children were transferred by way of the Gestapo to the Gestapo office in Lodz, and that as far as he can recall the order had come from Bureau IV.

Presiding Judge: Did you include questions on this subject in your questionnaire to Krumey?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Sir, not necessarily in connection with the declaration appearing in the Green Series, but the affair of the Lidice children - who gave the order, on whose order were those children transferred - all that was included in the questionnaire.

Presiding Judge: But you did not mention the declaration?

State Attorney Bach: No, we did not. But perhaps it does not add much. As a matter of fact, we have documents on that. I just wanted to draw the Court's attention to the existence of that declaration. If Counsel for the Defence agrees that all this material shall serve as evidence in this Court - i.e., the statements made by the officials who were the accused in that trial and the Judgment - then I think there should be no objection to the Court also taking into account this declaration by Krumey.

Presiding Judge: If you will agree on that, we will no doubt consider that request positively.

State Attorney Bach: But, as I said, my main request refers to the testimony of the girl Maria Hanfova.

Presiding Judge: Yes, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: I agree that all the material included in the Green Series to which the State Attorney has referred be admitted in this trial. As for the children, it appears that they did well in Germany, as they testified. As to what happened to the other children, that is a subject for later discussion, at which time I will take a stand.

Presiding Judge: Does that mean that you propose that all that is contained in Volume 4 on the affair of the Lidice children be submitted here as evidence? Is that correct?

State Attorney Bach: Maybe also what is in Volume 5?

Presiding Judge: And also the Judgment in Volume 5?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, everything related to this point and to its connection with the Head Office for Reich Security.

Your Honour, that was a slip of the tongue, I did not mean the Head Office for Reich Security, I meant the Race and Settlement Office.

Judge Halevi: Another question to Dr. Servatius. Since you have agreed that all the material on this point in Volume 4 be admitted, please note that Mr. Bach has drawn attention to Krumey's declaration that he believed that the order came from Bureau IV; as far as I am aware, this is not the Race and Settlement Office, this is the Gestapo.

Dr. Servatius: This is indeed Krumey's declaration, related to the document submitted here.

Judge Halevi: Do you agree that this should also be brought before this Court?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I agree that that document also be admitted here, and I assume that when the witness Krumey is interrogated in Germany, he will also be asked to answer questions on this subject.

Presiding Judge: Is there anything else in Volume 4, apart from what you have mentioned, in relation to this affair, so that we shall not have to grope in the dark?

State Attorney Bach: Not to my knowledge. I have not found anything.

Presiding Judge: So we could confine the document to the testimony given by Hanfova and the declaration by Krumey, to be more specific?

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps Counsel for the Defence also wishes to quote from the volume; for the time being my request refers only to the two items, the girl's testimony and Krumey's declaration.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 48

With the agreement of both parties we decide to accept as evidence in this trial all the material relating to the fate of the Lidice children contained in Volume 4 of the Green Series, as well as the Judgment published in Volume 5 of the Series, relating to the actions taken by the Race and Settlement Office in connection with the children.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps we ought to type the statements on a separate page, so that we can submit them as separate exhibits - with the permission of the Court.

Presiding Judge: In the meantime let me give it a formal marking. This exhibit will be marked T/1100.

State Attorney Bach: On page 1033 the girl describes the events that took place in Lidice on June 9, when German troops came, woke them up at 3 o'clock in the morning, took them away from their mothers, and how the children were later moved to Lodz; she says that they were treated very badly. Then, on page 1034, she is asked:

Q. Where were you taken to after leaving Lodz?

A. To Lodz, to the city.

Q. To another camp in the same city?

A. To another camp in the same city.

Q. How long did you stay there?

A. We were there for about two months.

Q. As you said, there were only seven who were chosenswith you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened to the other children after you were separated, do you know?

A. We were not allowed to ask any questions about them. We do not know what happened.

Q. Did you ever see any of these children again, or did you hear about them, after you were separated?

A. I never saw them.

Q. Not one of them is alive today in Czechoslovakia, to your knowledge, is there?

A. I do not know.

Q. And when you left Lodz, where were you, the seven children taken to?

A. We were taken to Pushka, in Poznan.

The girl then goes on to describe what happened to them in Germany, but this does not concern us here. Finally, on page 1038, I wish to quote one question. Here the girl is asked:

Q. At the beginning you mentioned seven children who stogether with you were separated from the others in Lodz, and you mentioned the names of two children whom syou met in Pushka. These children - did you see them when you returned to Czechoslovakia?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to these children?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they live in Germany during the War?

A. Yes.

I have already brought to the Court's attention the passage from Krumey's declaration I am interested in, and there is no need to repeat it; it appears on page 1039.

Judge Halevi: Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt - is that a part of RSHA?

State Attorney Bach: That is a separate office, in formal terms. As Reichsfuehrer, Himmler was its head; he was, as such, the head of several offices, one of them being the RSHA, which was a mixed - Government and Party - office, another being the "Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt," which was a pure (if we may use that word) a pure SS office, separate from the RSHA; yet another was the "Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptampt" (Economic-Administrative Main Office, also a separate office within the framework of that set-up, headed by the Reichsfuehrer-SS.

Dr. Servatius: Through the simultaneous translation I hear that the girl told what happened to her in Germany. I do not know whether the translation is correct, but for the sake of fairness I want to point out that the children testified that they did very well in Germany, and they said that they did not want to go back; one girl was supposed to go back to her grandmother, but she refused, and in reply to repeated questioning, she insisted that she was better off in Germany than at home.

Presiding Judge: Where do we find that?

State Attorney Bach: The fact is that the girl I was talking about - although I did not mention it - testified just the opposite. She said that there was discrimination between the children, that they were treated very badly, that they were not allowed to speak Czech. I did not mention this because we do not accuse the Accused or his Section with this, and we are not dealing with the Race and Settlement Office. I do not doubt what Counsel for the Defence said, maybe one of the children said something of the sort, but I have not seen it, certainly not in the testimony of this girl who says that they were badly treated. But I did not bring that up, did not mention it, because I did not think it was of any importance.

Presiding Judge: Where then are those things that Dr. Servatius mentions? In the statement made by the Hanfova girl?

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I do not have the document before me, but I have read various statements made by these children, and the State Attorney does not deny that.

Presiding Judge: But does it say that in Volume 4?

State Attorney Bach: I must say that I have not seen it.

Presiding Judge: If Dr. Servatius finds it, he can submit it to us.

State Attorney Bach: I just want to point out that this girl says there was discrimination and that the German children were given better treatment; but, as I have said, I do not attach any importance to that, these things are not part of the Charge Sheet.

With the Court's permission, we shall now go back to the Holocaust of the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: In that case you will have to bear in mind that we still need a decision on document No. 1149.

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 369.

Presiding Judge: Does that again concern Slovakia?

State Attorney Bach: This is again about the Jews of Slovakia.

Presiding Judge: Lidice is in Bohemia, is not it?

State Attorney Bach: Lidice is in Bohemia. We brought it up at this point because I was presenting evidence relating to the killing of Heydrich, and the Accused happened to be in Slovakia at the time and left straight for Prague, and Lidice of course was a direct result of that incident.

Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius was apparently referring to another girl, by the name of Bergner, who was not a Czech girl, and her statement is printed on page 1021.

State Attorney Bach: I really checked only what those children said.

Document No. 369 is a report by Ludin which says that Wisliceny, the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, stressed that the "Jewish Action" was in its final stage; 52,000 had been removed and 35,000 are still there, for the time being. At the end he says that Wisliceny supports the retention of Moravek in his post, since he is honest and tolerates no compromise. The report ends with Ludin's recommendation for a hundred per cent solution of the Jewish Question.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1101.

State Attorney Bach: There is also a description of a meeting with Tuka at that period, which was also attended by Wisliceny.

The next document is Prosecution document No. 1526. This is an invitation to Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny from the RSHA to a meeting in Berlin on August 28, to be attended by all the specialists on Jewish affairs. The Court will recall that meeting, to which Richter from Romania and the specialists on Jewish affairs assigned in Western countries were also invited.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1102.

State Attorney Bach: I now wish to submit three documents concerning a Jewish woman by name of Machalek. The first is our No. 1013. This is a letter from the Accused and signed by him, addressed to von Thadden, in which he states that a Jewess by the name of Machalek had been sent to Theresienstadt in the course of the usual evacuation measures, and that her husband had divorced her, so that he could hold on to his job.

And now, Eichmann continues, the Slovak Consulate in Prague had written a letter, in response to the husband's application to have his wife declared an Aryan. In that letter there is already mention of "Anna Machalek, Aryan." Then Eichmann adds: "I am hereby taking the liberty of informing you of this behaviour on the part of the Slovak Consulate General in Prague, which seems to be odd."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1103.

State Attorney Bach: The second document is our No. 1643. This is a note verbale from the Slovak legation in Berlin to the Foreign Ministry, in which the legation explains why Mrs. Machalek is really not Jewish; she is really the daughter of a maid who had been working for a Jewish family and was adopted by that family as their child, but she is really an Aryan and not Jewish. The legation therefore requests that the woman be set free.

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1104.

State Attorney Bach: The last document on this case is our No. 1014. We are now in May 1944; the Court will note that the first letter was dated November 1943, and by May 1944 the matter had not been attended to. Guenther now writes to von Thadden that, because Wisliceny was in Hungary, "we were not yet able to check on that and therefore could not ascertain Mrs. Machalek's racial status."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1105.

State Attorney Bach: Our next document, Your Honours, is No. 1016. This is a letter from the German legation, Ludin, to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, copy to the Accused, concerning a pastoral letter by the Slovak bishops against the governmental anti-Jewish measures. It expresses the Slovak clergy's profound concern over various reports of what had happened to the Jews. Ludin states as follows: "The Prime Minister, Dr. Tuka, has informed me of his concern." At the end he says that he (the Prime Minister) had been informed by one of the bishops that "in the Ukraine masses of Jews were shot to death, not only men, but also women and children, and before they were killed they had to dig their own graves. In one case a mother was shot or stabbed to death, and her baby was thrown live into the grave." And Tuka said that "the naive Slovak clergymen might lend credence to such atrocity stories and requests that, in order to enable such rumours to be refuted, a commission be permitted to pay a visit to the East." Ludin adds: "If such a tour could be organized, I would certainly welcome that suggestion."

State Attorney Bach: This document was passed on to the Accused. Before quoting his response, I request the Court to accept as evidence a document in Wisliceny's handwriting, in which Wisliceny refers to an article published by Fritz Fiala in Grenzbote, a newspaper. This article was mentioned in testimony given at yesterday's session, and later on we shall provide the Court with a photocopy of it. At this point my purpose is to prove to the Court the circumstances under which this article came to be written. Wisliceny gives details of his negotiations with the Accused on this matter, of the talks he had with Fiala and of his joint journey with Fiala to Auschwitz, on the orders of the Accused, and he tells the story of how the article came to be written. As I said, the document is in Wisliceny's own handwriting and bears his signature. It is of relevance to the entire trial, and I will link the Accused to it by the document I will submit next, in which the Accused mentions that same Fiala article. I therefore request the Court to accept this document as evidence, under Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law.

Dr. Servatius: As regards declarations by Wisliceny. I have the same objections to his statements that I have raised before.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.