Session No. 50
9 Sivan 5721 (24 May 1961)
Presiding Judge: I declare the fiftieth Session of the trial
State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission, I shall
continue with the fate of Slovakian Jewry. First, I wish to
present a number of documents. the first document is our
No. 1267. In it Ludin, the German Minister, asks the
Foreign Ministry for permission to send a delegation to the
labour camps in Silesia, to include Wisliceny, the purpose
being to establish similar camps in Slovakia. The visit
should take place in the presence of several Slovak
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1075.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1268. In
it Ludin once again reports that the Slovak Ministry of the
Interior does not, for the time being, plan to deport the
Jews from the country, and its intention – in which it has
been influenced by the German adviser – is to put up
ghettos, on the model of the Generalgouvernement. This, in
fact, is the beginning of the displacement about which we
heard yesterday from witness Dr. Abeles.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1076.
State Attorney Bach: The report, by the way, specifically
mentions “evacuation of the capital.”
Our No. 1269. Here the subject is the seizure of the
property of Jews who are nationals of the Reich, the
Protectorate of the Generalgouvernement; Wisliceny here
sends the legation a list showing the situation regarding
the property of Jews of such nationality.
Judge Raveh: In the previous document, the German adviser
mentioned there is, of course, Wisliceny?
State Attorney Bach: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Your No. 1269 will be marked T/1077.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 837.
Luther reports that in the context of its measures for the
Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe, the German
Government is ready to accept, without delay, 20,000 young
and able-bodied Slovak Jews who would be sent to the East,
where there is a need for them; the details would be worked
out orally by the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, as soon as the
Slovak Government agrees in principle.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1078.
State Attorney Bach: And now our document No. 1270. The
important point here is paragraph 2, in which Bratislava is
informed that Eichmann will be coming, on behalf of the
Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, for
preliminary discussions on the evacuation of 20,000 Jews
from Slovakia. This is what the German Foreign Ministry
tells Bratislava. At the bottom there is a handwritten note
asking that Wisliceny be informed.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1079.
State Attorney Bach: The next document, our No. 1271, is
also a letter by Luther to Pressburg; it reports that,
according to a letter of March 1942 from the Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service, the deportation of
Slovakian Jews can be effected as planned, and that the
Slovak Government be asked to pay to the Reich RM 500 for
every Jew taken over. This is the first mention we find in
our documents of this sum of RM 500 which is to be paid for
every Jew Germany agrees to accept.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1080.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1015. In
it Luther reports that the Slovak Government has taken a
positive decision on the evacuation of the Jews from
Slovakia, adding that Minister Ludin has advised that three
evacuation trains with 600-1,000 Jews have already left;
that the rest will follow without delay; he believes that
another 20,000 Jews can be dispatched at once, and after
that a start can be made on the evacuation of the remaining
70,000 Jews. At the bottom there is a note saying that this
is to be notified immediately to the Chief of the Security
Police and Security Service.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1081.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1234.
This is a reply by the Accused to the German Foreign
Ministry regarding a request by the Slovak Government –
which the Ministry has passed on to the Accused – to permit
the transit through German territory of Slovak Jews for the
purpose of emigration. Eichmann rejects the Slovak
Government’s request to permit such passage for purposes of
emigration, and at the end he says: I request that the
Slovak legation and the embassy of the Vatican (which had
submitted a similar request) be given a negative reply. The
final sentence reads as follows:
“In view of the efforts underway for the immediate
evacuation of 20,000 Jews from Slovakia, the subject
may anyway be considered closed.”
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1082.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1272. In
it Pressburg is informed that Government Councillor Suhr
from the Accused’s office will be going there on duty, on
behalf of the Chief of the Security Police and Security
Service, the object of his journey being to deal with legal
aspects of the disposal of the property of Jews being
deported to the East. Again there is a handwritten note on
the document for the information of Wisliceny.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1083.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 282.
Here Wisliceny writes to the legation in Pressburg and
encloses the draft of a letter that he proposes be sent to
the Slovak Government. In this letter reasons are given for
the demand that RM 500 be paid for every Jew the Slovaks
will expel and the Germans will agree to accept. He
explains that there are expenses involved to which the
German Reich therefore has the right to ask the Slovak
Government to contribute.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1084.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 838.
Here Wisliceny again writes to the legation concerning
measures to secure the movable property of the Jews of
Slovakia. He says that, within the framework of the
evacuation of the Jews from Slovakia, their movable property
has been secured by means of an ordinance issued by the
Central Office for the Economy. Then he says that the value
of the movable property owned by the Jews of Slovakia is
estimated as being worth at least 150-200 million Crowns.
Further he states that the Jews have also been forbidden to
take out their property by way of gift or deposit, and
provisions have been made for the punishment of any such
attempt to dispose of Jewish property.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1085.
Judge Raveh: Mr. Bach, I want to ask you something: On
document 1272, at the bottom of the page, there is something
in shorthand. This is not the first time; I have seen this
on several documents. Has anyone tried to decipher these
notes? The shorthand system used is one that is very common
in Germany. I can read some of the words.
State Attorney Bach: No, as far as I know, we have not
looked into this. We assumed that some secretary made some
notes for his or her own use.
Judge Raveh: It is worth trying. This is a very common
system, and there must be people who would be able to
State Attorney Bach: Your Honour, I thank you for your
observation. We shall give this our attention, something we
have not done up till now.
Judge Halevi: The last document mentions the safeguarding
of Jewish property by means of an order issued by the
Zentralwirtschaftsamt (Central Office for the Economy).
What kind of institution is that? Is it a Jewish
State Attorney Bach: The “Zentralwirtschaftsamt” is the
“UHU” headed by Moravek, which in fact was controlled by
Wisliceny, on whose initiative it was set up. Moravek, the
Slovak, who headed the institution, was completely
subordinate to Wisliceny. Actually, the other institution,
the “Jewish Centre,” was also controlled by this Central
Judge Halevi: What is “UHU” and what is “UZ”?
State Attorney Bach: “UHU” is the Economic Office; “UZ” is
the Jewish Centre.
The next document is our No. 835, which was drafted in the
Foreign Ministry and is addressed to the Slovak Foreign
Ministry in Pressburg. Its form is that of a “note
verbale,” a memorandum; it advises the Slovak Government of
the conditions applying to the acceptance of the Jews by the
Germans and their expulsion by the Slovaks: (1) that the
Jews will not return to Slovakia; (2) that Germany will have
no claim on the property in Slovakia; (3) that the Slovak
Government pay RM 500 for every Jew.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1086.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 836.
Here Luther asks the (German) Minister in Pressburg to
forward to the Slovak Government the conditions listed in
the previous document, and he adds that another 20,000 Jews
who are fit for work can now be evacuated from Slovakia and
transferred to the East, the details as arranged previously.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1087.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 1068.
Hunsche informs Rademacher, of the Foreign Ministry, of the
details concerning the property of Slovak Jews in the German
Reich and in the Protectorate that had been confiscated up
to that point. There is a detailed list of clothing and
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1088.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 839.
This is a letter from IVB4a, bearing Guenther’s signature,
in which he informs Rademacher that the first group of
20,000 Jews, most of them fit to work, had already been
moved from Slovakia to Auschwitz and Lublin, and that on 4
May the expulsion of another 20,000 Jews to Lublin had
commenced; it can be expected that henceforth 20,000-25,000
Jews from Slovakia will be moved every month. Also
technical details about the implementation.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1089.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 786.
This document was also shown to the Accused under No.
T/37(234). This is a short letter in which the German
Foreign Ministry informs the legation in Pressburg that “SS-
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann will be going to Slovakia at
the end of May on behalf of the Chief of Security Police and
Security Service” for the purpose of “holding talks on
questions arising from the deportation of Jews from Slovakia
which is now underway.” This, of course, is the visit that
did take place, and at the time of this visit Heydrich was
killed. I wish to draw your attention to certain parts of
the Accused’s Statement:
His reaction to the document begins on page 2879, and on
page 2880 he says that this was indeed an official visit,
arrangements for which were made by Wisliceny, and that it
was really a courtesy visit. Inspector Less asks: “Did you
not really go there in order to discuss official business
with Mach?” To which the Accused replies: “Of course we
talked about all these matters, in accordance with the
instructions I had from my superiors.” Next, on page 2882,
Inspector Less asks: “What was the assignment you were given
when you went to Pressburg.” To which Eichmann replies: “As
far as I remember, to discuss with Wisliceny and with the
German Minister the possible evacuation of the Jews.” At
this point Inspector Less draws the Accused’s attention to
another part of his (Eichmann’s) statement, an earlier part
on the fifth tape of the statement, at page 44, where the
Accused says that he really went to Slovakia at that time
because Wisliceny had told him “come at some time, you will
see that Mach is quite a pleasant gentleman, quite a
pleasant chap,” and that nothing of substance had been
discussed, “on matters of substance I never said anything,
not to Mach either. I was in Vienna, and I took the
opportunity to go to Pressburg, in order to see the German
Minister there, and then, through Wisliceny, I got to see
Mach. We had a friendly chat, and then he invited me to a
game of skittles.” After the meal, Eichmann says, Mach told
him “I have just had a report from Prague that there was an
attempt made on Heydrich’s life.” Less shows this passage
to the Accused and asks him whether he has any comment to
make, to which the Accused replies: “What I have to say is
the following, Inspector, Sir: …and essentially that is
what I had said earlier, and in the main it is correct,
except for the reference to matters of substance.”
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1090.
State Attorney Bach: At this point, Your Honours, when we
have reached the moment of the attempt on Heydrich’s life –
to which he succumbed a few days later – I will, with the
Court’s permission, make a short pause in the presentation
of the evidence concerning the Jews of Slovakia, and present
evidence relating to Count 12 of the Charge Sheet, another
tragedy, the tragedy of the children of Lidice, the children
of the Czech village where, or next to which, the attempt on
Heydrich’s life was made. I want to draw your attention,
first, to the passage from the Accused’s statement, page
3016, where Inspector Less asks the Accused: “What happened
to the children from Poland, from Czechoslovakia, and from
other countries, who were taken away from their parents, or
whose parents had been liquidated, those children who were
classified as being suitable for ‘re-Germanization'” (or
shall we call it ‘Germanization,’ to make it less
artificial). To which the Accused replied: “That I do not
know, Inspector, Sir, that I don’t know at all, that is a
chapter… Was there an authority competent to deal with
it?” Upon which Inspector Less asks him: “Did you have any
connection at all with the Rassen- und Siedlungshauptamt
(the SS Central Office for Race and Settlement)?” To which
the Accused replies: “No, I never had any connection. That
is why I ask myself ‘suitable for re-Germanization’ – did I
ever – I cannot recollect any such thing.” Less then asks
Eichmann what he knows about the fate of the inhabitants of
Lidice, and he replies “I had nothing to do with this.” And
when Less asks, “Do you know what happened to some of the
children?,” he says “I do not know. But I had no connection
with Lidice…none at all, not the slightest, nothing…not
even…not even – I would say – for information only. I
read about this affair – Lidice – in the main only after the
War. After the War I read about Lidice.” And then Less
asks: “Do you know anything about transports of children,
who were deported from Prague to Lodz, by the BdS, and were
handed over to Krumey?” “No,” is Eichmann’s answer, “no,
about this I know nothing.”
Whereupon several documents were presented to the Accused.
First, Prosecution document No. 865 – in fact, I think that
this document has not yet been shown to the Accused. In
this, the Main Office for Resettlement in Litzmannstadt –
the office headed by Krumey – is notified of the impending
arrival in Litzmannstadt, on June 12 1942, of 86 Czech
children who are unsuitable for Germanization, and whose
stay in Litzmannstadt will be temporary; the Litzmannstadt
Security Police and the Field Office of the Security Service
have been informed of the children’s expected arrival by the
SS Race and Settlement Main Office in Berlin. There is also
a list containing the names of the children.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1091. Where does
Krumey come in?
State Attorney Bach: Krumey’s name does not yet appear, all
I said was that this was Krumey’s office. The next document
already bears Krumey’s signature. But the Field Office and
the “Umwanderungszentralstelle (Resettlement Office)
Litzmannstadt” is Krumey’s office, as we shall gather from
the next document.
The next document is our No. 866. Krumey informs the BdS
and Prague of the arrival of 88 children on June 13 1942,
and asks to find out from IVB4 what is to be done with the
children. This is signed by Krumey.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1092.
State Attorney Bach: Incidentally, this document was also
presented to the Accused. I will give you his reaction in a
moment. It was given No. T/37(244); it was handed to the
Accused together with the document I am going to present
next, our No. 867, and given No. T/37(245). This is a
letter from Krumey to the Head Office for Reich Security,
Section IVB4, for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.
Subject: Transfer of 88 Czech children from townlet Lidice
to Lodz; Reference: Consultation with SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann (Ruecksprache mit SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann). Referring to a talk he had
with Eichmann, Krumey states that 88 Czech children from the
above-mentioned places arrived on June 13; that he had asked
to ascertain from IVB4 what to do with the children; and
that in the meantime the Race and Settlement Office had
determined that seven of the children were
“rueckdeutschungsfaehig” (suitable for re-Germanization),
meaning that these seven could be brought back to the German
Krumey further adds:
“So far I have had no reply, neither from IVB4 and nor from
the BdS…and I urgently request instructions on the further
disposal of the children, who have been brought here without
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1093.