State Attorney Bach: The Accused was asked about these two
documents, and his reaction to them is to be found on pages
3018, 3019, 3020 and 3021. The two documents were in fact
read out to him, as was the phone conversation with him, and
then he says: “First I have to say that I do not remember
anything about this, about the whole affair; secondly – and
this is quite clear – the subject was dealt with by my
Section in some way, there is a reference to a consultation
with me – I can imagine that there was some involvement on
the technical level, regarding transportation.”
Further on he says: “I do not know what orders were issued
on this subject.” On page 3020 Inspector Less asks: “Why
was it you who was addressed in writing about the fate of
these 88 children?” To which Eichmann replies: “Yes, they
must have been included in all these matters concerned with
transportation; they may have been attached to a transport
on a train, a train with a transport of Jews,” etc. He
claims that he does not remember the matter.
I now come to the central document in this affair, the
importance of which actually even goes far beyond the affair
of these children. This is our No. 868, which was presented
to the Accused and was marked T/37(247). This is a letter
from Krumey to the Head Office for Reich Security, Section
IIIB4; this is the Rasseamt (Race Bureau) in the Head Office
for Reich Security, Rasse- und Volksgesundheit @93(Racial
and National Health), Einwanderung und Umsiedlung
(Immigration and Resettlement); it is that Section.
Presiding Judge: Was “Umsiedlung” at one time IVB4?
State Attorney Bach: It used to be called
Raeumungsangelegenheiten (matters of evacuation); here it is
called Einwanderung und Umsiedlung.
Judge Halevi: “Rasseamt,” that is a mistake.
State Attorney Bach: “Rasse- und Volksgesundheit” is IIIB3;
IIIB4 is “Einwanderung und Umsiedlung.”
In this letter Krumey reports that by the well-known
operation, 88 orphaned Czech children (elternlos gewordene
tschechische Kinder) from Lidice arrived in Lodz. Then he
tells how they got there and asks for instructions. This is
followed by the decisive sentence, in which he justifies and
explains why he approached IVB4 on this matter: “Ich habe
IVB4 von der Ueberstellung dieser Kinder in Kenntnis
gesetzt, in der Annahme dass dieselben fuer eine
Sonderbehandlung vorgesehen sind. In der Zwischenzeit hat
RuS sieben rueckdeutschungsfaehige Kinder herausgenommen.”
(I approached and informed IVB4 on this matter, on the
assumption that they are destined for special treatment. In
the meantime RuS (Race and Settlement Office) has taken away
seven children suitable for re-Germanization). What this
means is that when the subject is the killing of children –
even non-Jewish children – that is the right address.
Presiding Judge: How does this really become a matter for
IVB4, by the official organizational scheme?
State Attorney Bach: IVB4 was actually charged with Jewish
affairs, but there was also the general subject of
Raeumungsangelegenheiten (matters of evacuation). But the
Rasseamt simply did not have a staff for murder operations.
This also appeared in the trial of those persons; their job
was to deal with the Rueckdeutschungsfaehige, the children
who it was thought could be put through this process. But
when Krumey assumes that these children are destined for
“special treatment” – Sonderbehandlung – he turns to IVB4, a
Section with which he is familiar; and that is the address
which has the solution for children who cannot be salvaged
in any other way; they are destined for special treatment,
and therefore the approach is to IVB4.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1094.
We are not going to argue about this, but are you telling us
that in all of Bureau IV, or even in the whole Gestapo,
there was no other apparatus able to carry out murder?
State Attorney Bach: At this stage it would perhaps be
correct to say that Krumey did not know any other address.
But perhaps there is also a difference between killing just
a certain person who had been sentenced and the case of
children. This is about a substantial number of children
who, so Krumey apparently thought, were to be executed.
They are in Poland, have by now reached Lodz. Krumey knows
that there is one Section which deals with such drastic
treatment, and that is IVB4, and that is why he approaches
IVB4. We see that in fact it was IVB4 that he approached.
I therefore think that we must conclude that, at least as
far as Krumey subjectively is concerned, he at least did not
know of any other Section.
Presiding Judge: Was Krumey in Lodz at the time?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, Krumey was then in Lodz, where he
was in charge of the Resettlement Office, the
Umwanderungsstelle at Litzmannstadt.
Our next document is No. 869. It was given to the Accused
and marked T/37(246). It is not very legible, but it is
quite clear that in it the Security Police and Security
Service in Litzmannstadt reports the “Abgang in das
Generalgouvernement” (Dispatch to the Generalgouvernement)
of “Personen, 81 Tschechenkinder” (persons, 81 Czech
children), in July 1942.
Presiding Judge: It says here, on top, in a typewritten
note, that the photostatic copy is not legible. Do you have
that photostatic copy?
State Attorney Bach: We got this from Yad Vashem. We
apparently do not have the document with us at this moment.
What is important in it is the statement that it contains:
“Abgang in das Generalgouvernement – Personen, 81
Presiding Judge: Try to find the photostatic copy.
State Attorney Bach: Yes, Sir.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1095.
State Attorney Bach: Our next document is No. 936. It
informs Krumey, “Leiter der Umwandererzentralstelle” in
Litzmannstadt, that on July 7 another twelve children who
are “nicht wieder eindeutschungsfaehig” – incapable of being
reabsorbed into the German race – will be arriving in
Litzmannstadt, together with six children who are “wieder
eindeutschungsfaehig” – i.e., can be reabsorbed into the
German race. This document was given to the Accused, marked
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1096.
State Attorney Bach: The next document is No. 937, which
was handed to the Accused, marked T/37(249). This is a
letter to Krumey from the Reichsfuehrer-SS Race and
Settlement Office; it deals with the same twelve children
who are not reabsorbable into the German race and will be
arriving in Litzmannstadt, as stated in the preceding
document, a telegram dated July 4 1942. It also mentions
the six children who can be reabsorbed into the German race.
A list of the children’s names is attached, of the six, and
of the twelve “lost” children.
Presiding Judge: There are two places mentioned, Lidice and
Lezaky; what is the second name?
State Attorney Bach: Lezaky is also a village, near Lidice.
It appears that the children come from two villages.
Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1097.
Judge Halevi: What is the meaning of the words – “zu
weiterer Veranlassung ueberstellt” (transferred for further
action)? This is unclear. It says that the twelve children
are being sent to Krumey for further action; does Krumey
have to understand what that means or will that be explained
State Attorney Bach: It will be explained later. I thank
your Honour for pointing this out. The words that you
quoted are preceded by “im Einvernehmen mit dem
Reichssicherheitshauptamt,” that is to say, that the
children are being dispatched to Litzmannstadt in agreement
with the Head Office for Reich Security. The document as
such does not yet say what the plans are for these children.
One can see that that office is not interested in the kind
of treatment the children will be given.
Our next document is No. 938; it was presented to the
Accused, marked T/37(25). This is a telegram from Krumey’s
office, signed by an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, addressed to
Section IVB4 of the Head Office for Reich Security,
attention SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. Subject: Czech
children. “From the Race and Settlement Office in Prague we
have received twelve children who are not reabsorbable into
the German race, from the Lidice and Lezaky areas, in the 1-
15 years age group. Request further instructions.”
Presiding Judge: Where does this come from? Where is this
State Attorney Bach: It follows from it that this also
comes from Krumey’s office.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1098.
State Attorney Bach: May I call the Court’s attention to
the following: I was asked by the Court about the
photostatic copy that is attached to the document handed to
the Accused. It is in the Court’s file under number
T/37(246); that is where the original is to be found, and
that is why it was not attached to our file.
The reply to the previous letter which was sent to IVB4 is
to be found in our No. 939, marked T/37(251). Actually it
consists of two documents. The first is signed by Guenther
and is addressed to Krumey’s office in Litzmannstadt, asking
for the children to be delivered to the Gestapo Post
Litzmannstadt, which has already received further
instructions. The second document, attached to the same
telegram, is an order according to the telegram of 14 July
1942, from the Head Office for Reich Security, stating that
the twelve Czech children are to be handed over to the
Gestapo Post Litzmannstadt for further custody. Then there
is a confirmation that they have been actually received at
the Gestapo Post Litzmannstadt. There is a signature by a
Hauptscharfuehrer of the Stapostelle Litzmannstadt. We see
therefore that these children were handed over to Gestapo
Post Litzmannstadt on orders originating from IVB4.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1099.
State Attorney Bach: Concerning the 81 children, we do not
have the specific order in our possession. However, on the
basis of the documents we have already submitted and those
still to come, we shall ask the Court to draw the conclusion
that, in view of the fact that in both instances the
approach was to IVB4, and we have IVB4’s orders for twelve
children – in both cases the orders were actually given by
the same office.
Now I will bring two more pieces of evidence to the Court’s
attention. One is a booklet on the fate of these children,
published by the Czechoslovak Government in 1945; it
contains the children’s names and their photographs. With
regard to the fate of the children who had been found to be
“wiedereindeutschungsfaehig,” as the Germans put it –
reabsorbable into the German race – who were taken to
Germany, some of them were found there, alive, and their
names are also cited in the booklet. As to the others –
nothing more was heard of them, from the moment they were
handed over to the Stapostelle, on IVB4 orders. I am
submitting this as proof that these children have been
missing ever since, and nothing about them has come to
light. In view of the fact that the booklet was published
in 1945, we took steps to find out whether any trace of
these children, all or some of them, has been discovered
since 1945. Accordingly, the Charge d’Affaires of Israel in
Prague at the time, Dr. Eliahu Livneh, applied to the Czech
Government concerning this matter. Attached to that Czech
report we are submitting a sworn statement by Dr. Livneh
declaring that he made inquiries about the fate of the
children with the Czech Foreign Ministry, and that Dr.
Rudolf Kucoznik, Director of the Near East Section,
officially informed him that not a single Lidice child had
been discovered since the publication by the Czech Ministry
of the Interior of the booklet on the Lidice children in
1945, and that not one Lidice child has since been found,
except for those mentioned in the booklet itself.
The booklet was published in 1945, right after the War;
attached thereto is the sworn statement by the Charge
d’Affaires of Israel in Prague. I ask the Court to accept
this Exhibit – our No. 1499 – as proof of that point only,
namely that there is a confirmation by the Czech Government
that all traces of these children have indeed been lost. I
ask the Court to take that decision, in the wake of similar
decisions it has taken with regard to reports emanating from
Presiding Judge: Was there a special inquiry in 1945?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, an inquiry was made to find out
what happened to the children, and we have here the
children’s photographs and all their biographical data, and
the statement that they disappeared from the moment they
arrived at Lodz.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I have only the Hebrew
translation and the Czech text of these documents, and I
have yet to see a German translation. Therefore I cannot
peruse them fully. To preserve my rights, after I have
received them in translation, I may submit any objection
which I may then have. Otherwise I have no formal objection
Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, perhaps you will first let Dr.
Servatius have the translation, and we will decide on the
acceptance at a later stage.
State Attorney Bach: Actually I gave Dr. Servatius a
description of the contents of the document this morning; I
thought we had provided him with a translation.
Presiding Judge: Never mind, you can finish that later,
after Dr. Servatius has received the translation. We would
not want to make a conditional decision, in case an
objection is raised later and we have to give the document
back to you.
State Attorney Bach: Certainly, Your Honour.
I also wish to draw the Court’s attention to a passage in
the Accused’s statement, which he made when he had all the
documents before him. On page 3035 we find:
“Eichmann: I would not say it was I…but the Section, that
I see quite clearly.
Less: Yes, were you the Chief of the Section in 1942?
Eichmann: Yes, I was Chief of the Section.”
There is another passage later, on pp. 3134-3140, in which
he reacts to this affair again. In general terms he
repeats his argument that the whole thing had slipped his
mind, but that it appears that his Section had indeed
handled the subject, and that he apparently must have talked
about it with Krumey; that is what he gathers from the
documents. Now, as one last item of evidence on this
subject, I wish to draw the Court’s attention to evidence
submitted in the trial of the senior officials of that Rasse-
und Siedlungshauptamt, the Main Office for Race and
Settlement. One of the Lidice children was a witness in
that trial, one of those who had been classified as being
“reabsorbable” into the German race. As a matter of fact,
two of these children gave evidence in that trial. The
charge against those officials was not the murder of the
other children, they were not charged with that; the charge
against them was abduction of the children and their removal
to Germany, and they were found guilty on that charge only.
Presiding Judge: What was the number of that trial?
State Attorney Bach: That was trial No. 8, and the volume
is No. 4.
A picture of the girl, Maria Dolacelova, appears on page 606
of Volume 4; the evidence given by that girl was not printed
in that volume, but the evidence given by the other girl,
Hanfova – another of those seven children – appears on page
Presiding Judge: So what is it that you wish to submit?
State Attorney Bach: The testimony of the Hanfova girl. I
understand that Counsel for the Defence is even interested
in having this material submitted to the Court. I talked to
him before the Session opened this morning, and he said that
he would like to see all the material relating to this
subject submitted to the Court, in Volume 4 and also in
Volume 5, which contains the Judgment given against these
officials, so that it could be seen how much of the
responsibility – or the responsibility altogether – lies
with those officials.
In her testimony the Hanfova girl describes how she was
taken away from Lidice, with the other children. She
describes the process by which these seven children were
separated from the other children; she tells what happened
to them in Germany, and then she says that while she
sometimes saw the other children who were in Germany with
her, she never again saw any of the children from whom they
had been separated and who had been taken to an unknown
destination. So it seems to me that this testimony
complements the evidence we have submitted, that it is
relevant, and that it should be taken into account.
Presiding Judge: This is then the testimony that you want;
why did you mention the picture of the other girl?
State Attorney Bach: Because she also testified in that
trial; the picture is mentioned here, and it says that she
had also testified.
Presiding Judge: Did she testify about the same things?
Judge Halevi: Where do we find the other testimony?