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 chosenšwith
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
štogether with you were separated from the others in Lodz,
and you mentioned the names of two children whom šyou 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.
Last-Modified: 1999/06/02
