Session 080-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 80
13 Tammuz 5721 (27 June 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the eightieth Session of the
trial open. The Accused will continue with his testimony.
I remind you that you are still testifying under oath.

Accused: I am aware of the fact.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I was saying that I had
received a communication from a witness with regard to the
affair of the Lidice children – I have tried to obtain more
information, and now I have received a sworn affidavit by a
witness from Notary Public Merling in Bremen. I should like
to submit this statement to the Court as an exhibit. Perhaps
I might make one point – the children in question were
Czech, and I have some doubts, therefore, as to whether the
treatment of the affair is relevant here, since only the
Jewish people – crimes against the Jewish People – are being
tried before this Court.

Presiding Judge: I think the indictment contains a count
which deals with the Lidice children, and therefore it does
fall within the competence of this Court to hear the matter
and to deal with it.

Dr. Servatius: I am aware that there is a count dealing
with the matter.

Presiding Judge: Very well. Mr. Hausner, what is your view?

Attorney General: The declaration which the Defence has
received is one of double-hearsay: The declarant Mrs.
Freiberg, states that a woman, whose name is not given
there, had told her that thirty children who had been seen
in the area of Posen, in a place called Puszykowko, or in
German Puschkau, were Lidice children. As I have already
said, this is a double-hearsay statement, so it is not
simply a question of accepting Mrs. Freiberg’s affidavit,
but Mrs. Freiberg herself cannot rely on her own knowledge,
but only on what another woman said, whose name is not
stated and the matter cannot be investigated.

However, I do not object to the submission of this exhibit,
although the exhibit can have only minimal value in terms of
legal weight, if any. In this respect, if the Court accepts
the exhibit, I shall on my part request the Court to accept
a publication of the Organization of Anti-Fascist Combatants
on the same subject.

Presiding Judge: Let us first deal with this matter, and
then you can pass on to the second matter.

Attorney General: Certainly. Dr. Servatius, may I have the
witness’ name, please?

Dr. Servatius: The affidavit shows her to be Waldtraut
Elise Freiburg, born in Riga, 17 March 1907, resident in
Bremen, Karl Goerdelerstrasse 2.

Your Honour, I am aware that this exhibit has weak
evidential value, but I have submitted it because of the
urgency of the matter, so that if necessary I will have time
to summon this witness, and examine her before the end of
the proceedings. Then she will also have to state who the
person in question is from whom she heard about the matter.
Here she says: “…I am still corresponding with this woman”
– she may have special reasons for not giving the name.

Presiding Judge

Decision No. 86

We accept the affidavit by Mrs. Freiberg as evidence. The
Attorney General has no objections.

I mark the exhibit number N/19.

Dr. Servatius: Perhaps I can read the main part of the
affidavit to the Court. The witness made the following
statement under oath:

“From 1941 until I fled on 20 January 1945, I lived in
Puszykowko, known as Puschkau in German, near Posen,
and every day I saw thirty or so children from Lidice,
who were either going to school in neighbouring
Puszykow, known in German as Unterberg, or were playing
in the large garden of the convent under the
supervision of a young lady. The lady in charge of the
children told us that they were children from Lidice
whose parents had been shot. I talked to this lady
quite often, and she would sometimes make phone calls
from my home. When we had to flee, the lady came to my
home, totally desperate, not sure what would happen to
the children with the arrival of the Russians. She
phoned the government in Posen, and was told that she
should look after the German people and leave the
children to their fate. The children were dressed like
orphans, but were clean and neat. The children I saw
were aged roughly four to eleven. I do not know what
happened to them subsequently. It would be possible to
enquire of the Polish governess, with whom I still
correspond, where the children went after the arrival
of the Russians.”

Then there is the form of oath.

Attorney General: If it please the Court, I have evidence
which I shall have to submit as rebutting evidence when my
turn will come. But if the Court wishes to hear me now, I
should appreciate that, and then the chapter of the Lidice
children and the documents pertaining to it will be before
the Court in their entirety.

I have a declaration from Dr. Eliahu Livneh, head of the
Israeli Mission in Prague, who indicates that in connection
with the fate of the Lidice children he was referred by Dr.
Rudolf Kosucnik, a Departmental Head in the Czech Foreign
Ministry, to a book published in Prague in 1949. On page 79
of the book…

Presiding Judge: What was the name of the book?

Attorney General Zdu cmabaru Luduze.

Presiding Judge: What does that mean?

Attorney General: “This Was Lidice.” The book was published
by the Organization of Anti-Fascist Combatants – the
organization responsible for all such matters. The statement
is dated 19 June 1961.

I should like to point out to the Court that we have
submitted the deposition by Hanfova which gave certain
numbers as well as certain names of the Lidice children;
while Affidavit N/19 is extremely general and just mentions
the figure of thirty children, without giving names. The
book gives numbers and names, and there is a statement as to
the final fate of the children in a more detailed way.

Presiding Judge: What do you mean by statement? What is it
based on? According to what testimony?

Attorney General: Based on information which was collected,
and on the basis of the fact that these children were never
seen alive again, and on the basis of testimony from the
children who were saved.

Presiding Judge: And what can the man whose testimony was
taken by our Consul say about the contents of this book?

Attorney General: Not his testimony. He is an official of
the Czech Foreign Ministry, and our Head of Mission in
Prague was directed by that man, whose name I have given,
Dr. Kosucnik, to this book as an authentic book on the
Lidice affair. That is all he was able to say. He also said
that the publisher of this book was the authorized institute
for collection of information in this matter – the
Organization of Anti-Fascist Combatants.

Presiding Judge: And what did the book say? That the
children disappeared? Or that the children were killed?

Attorney General: The children were gassed in Chelmno,
eighty-two children, listed by name and date of birth. It
also refers to the children who were born to Lidice women
after the destruction of Lidice. If the Court recalls – the
women were imprisoned in a concentration camp, and the men
were killed on the spot. Some of the women bore children.
The fate of the children after the disaster is given in
detail: the fate of the children who were given to German
families – for Germanization, as the phrase goes. There is a
detailed list of names here. This is significant
corroboration to the Hanfova testimony.

Presiding Judge: Why are you only now asking for this to be

Attorney General: Firstly, we have only just received this.
The Court will remember that we intimated that we were
applying for additional information, and we did so. And
secondly, we believe that since there is now a statement
about thirty children, without any details, it is our right
to refute this testimony by the testimony of the institute
on which the official Ministry in Prague relies, a document
which is detailed and confirmed testimony which we have
already submitted to the Court.

With the Court’s permission – and I would apologize, since
the document really arrived at the last moment – I see here
if from my knowledge of Polish I understand the Czech
language sufficiently, that there is a reference to
Pusczykow, in other words the place referred to in Mrs.
Freiberg’s testimony.

Presiding Judge: What does it say about it?

Attorney General: Perhaps I can ask Dr. Robinson, who is
conversant with two dozen languages, to translate this
passage for us on the spot?

Presiding Judge: Let Dr. Robinson tell you what the content
is. And in the meanwhile we will hear what Dr. Servatius has
to say.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, it is my view that this
document contains nothing new. The details provided by the
names come from German documents. Since the parents were
shot, there is no other possible source for the names, and
therefore they do not provide any new insight. As to the
decisive point of what became of the children, that they
were apparently killed in Chelmno is only referred to in the
document as what is said to have happened… But there is no
proof in the document, none at all.

Presiding Judge: Has this now been clarified?

Attorney General: In the meanwhile we have discovered that
one of the seven children who were handed over for
Germanization – Waclaw Zelenka – was in Pusczykow as related
in the book, and from there he was returned to his native
country, Czechoslovakia, in 1947. I think this may be
important to shed light on the statement which has now been
submitted and refers to thirty children.

Judge Halevi: Testimony could be taken from this child.
Today he is no longer a child, of course.

Attorney General: That is possible. As I have said, in any
case this is important as corroboration for Anna Hanfova’s
testimony, insofar as this is allegedly refuted by the
declaration submitted just now.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I have not seen the book yet.
And before the Court takes a decision, I must have the
opportunity to look through it and perhaps have a
translation of the decisive passages made available. I do
understand a little of Slav languages, but I do not
understand Czech.

Presiding Judge: We shall return to this matter at the end
of the case for the Defence, if the Attorney General should
then wish to raise the matter again. Of course, meanwhile
you will allow Counsel for the Defence to see the documents.

Attorney General: Of course.

Presiding Judge: So let us now continue with the testimony
of the Accused.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I should like first to submit
some tables about organization which refer to Germany but
also extends to the other countries. I believe it would be
expedient to have them available now, in order to be able to
peruse them as required.

One plan has already been submitted. The Accused has drawn
my attention to the fact that the draftsman has drawn an
incorrect line which could be of importance. On the last
page, there is a dotted line indicating a connection from
the Higher SS Police Leader to the Command Staff of the
Security Police Security Service. It should have been a
continuous line with an arrow.

Presiding Judge: Is that N/3? Where is it, which part of
this table, A, B or C?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, it is in part C. The line from the
Higher SS and Police Leader marked in red to the Commander
of the SIP and SD marked in blue, a continuous line with an

Presiding Judge: All right, please proceed.

Dr. Servatius: I should now like to present a table
prepared by the Accused about the chains of command, the
subordinate and superior relationships, and the positions of
the various offices and authorities involved.

Witness, did you prepare this table and is it correct?

Accused: I prepared the table, and it was then copied
according to my table.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, I shall submit a further copy;
so far that has not been possible for technical reasons.

Presiding Judge: Very well. I mark this exhibit N/20.

Dr. Servatius: This shows the following: Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service is the department
marked in red, then the Foreign Ministry, which is the
opposite number here, is marked in blue. I do not wish to
discuss this in detail now, it is necessary to study this
drawing in depth.

Presiding Judge: I see something which looks remarkably like
a snake biting itself somewhere along the line – what is
that supposed to be?

Dr. Servatius: Yes, that struck me also – it is the route
taken by files: if you look at the explanation of the names,
it says it is the route for IVB4 files in accordance with
the orders issued, upwards and the Foreign Ministry, von
Thadden’s section etc., in other words the files enter and
return there.

Presiding Judge: All right, we shall study that.

Dr. Servatius: Then there is another table – chains of
command in the organization of the Security Police, with
special representation of Himmler’s two functions. The
functions are shown as Chief of Police and Reichsfuehrer-
SS, as well as the functional role of the Higher SS and
Police Leaders in the occupied territories. On this, the
Accused says that in the Generalgouvernement, in occupied
Russian territory, there was a special arrangement, with
which I am not particularly familiar, and also in the
Warthegau. I here refer you to the notes on the plan.

Witness, you have seen the table – did you draw it, and is
it correct?

Accused: Yes, I drew it, and it is correct.

Presiding Judge: I mark this plan N/21.

Dr. Servatius: At the bottom of the chart it says: “Minor
errors excepted for the sake of precaution”; does that mean
that there is some doubt as to its accuracy?

Accused: Essentially not at all, but in such a drawing
what can happen, as I have just seen, is that instead of a
continuous line, there is a dotted line, but those are minor
details which can be rectified. That is what I meant by
“minor errors excepted for the sake of precaution.”

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08