Judgment 63, Eichmann Adolf

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

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).

Last-Modified: 1999/05/27