Mentioned in the indictment at lest defendant is:
"Matthias Graf - (2nd Lt) in the SS, member Einsatzgruppe C." defendants, as officers or staff members of one or more Einsatzgruppen or subordinate units, had committed the crimes specified in the indictment.
this statement on page 1 by saying that the defendants had been commanders and officers of special groups known as Einsatzgruppen, that each of the defendants in the dock had held a position of responsibility or command in an extermination unit and each of them had assumed the right to decide the fate of men. Examining the individual responsibility of the defendants the proseuction states in the opening statement (p. 35 and 36 of the German translation) in addition: "Each of the defendants held a position of responsibility or command in an extermination unit. By virtue of his post he had the power to order executions." And further I quote: "As military commanders these men were bound by laws well known to all who wear the soldier's uniform, laws which impose on him who takes command the duty to prevent within his power, crimes by those in his control." Finally, the prosecution in its opening statement (p. 36 of the German translation) promised; "We shall show in this case that the rank and position of these defendants carried with it the power and duty to control their subordinates. This power, coupled with the knowledge of intended crime and the subsequent commission of crime during their time of command imposes clear criminal responsibility." about evidence; concerning the Defendant Matthias Graf, it has not proved anything at all as to participation, In any form whatsoever, in the crimes specified in the indictment.
It could not do so and can never do so. assigned to the Einsatzkommando C-6 from the end of May 1941 to about the middle of October 1942. During all the time of his membership in this Kommando the defendant had not the rank of an officer. At the beginning of the war with the war with the Soviet Union the defendant Graf had the lowest rank among all members of the Kommando. It can therefore not be said that Graf had held any authority of command or even only a position of responsibility in the Einsatzkommando C-6. Nor had the defendant Graf to do any police work with the Einsatzkommando C-6, nor had he in the least to do with the executions carried out by the Kommando. Graf was specialist III of the Department SD: His task consisted in reporting from all fields in the life of the population. These reports concerned:
ethnic questions and people's health, all diseases, whole of the time of his membership in the Kommando the work of the defendant Graf was within this framework. The fact, that the defendant Graf had no officer's rank in the Einsatzkommando C-6, results from the document submitted by the prosecution, NO-4801, Exhibit No. 147, in Doc. Book IIIC. This is the personnel file of the defendant. On page 1 of this document it is entered that Matthias Graf was appointed 2nd Lt on 20 April 44.
Consequently the defendant became an officer only after being away, again, from Einsatzkommando C-6 for nearly 2 years. that the defendant Graf was actually not a member of Einsatzkommando C-6 as officer, and was never a staff member of the Kommando or of Einsatzgruppe C, that, at no time, he had or exercised authority of command, at no time, did any police work and had nothing to do with any execution. The defendant Matthias Graf can never be connected with the crimes described in the indictment.
dants had been members of the SS and, in addition, the defendant Graf is enumerated among the members of the SD. Hereby Graf is charged with membership in organizations declared criminal by the judgment of the IMT. On the part of the defense it is objected in this respect that the defendant Matthias Graf withdrew from the SS in 1930. This fact results from the personnel file of the defendant, prosecution exhibit 147 in Doc. Book IIIC. On page 6 of the Document (page 3 of the original) the following time is given as period of membership in the SS; 1 April 33 - 15 March '37, and as rank; SS Sturmann Graf did not rejoin the SS. starting point that the SD was a voluntary organization, end states as a fact that all members of the SD joined this organization in a voluntary way. In the conclusion the IMT declared "as criminal in the sense of the statute, the group of those members of the SD....who became or remained members of the organization, although they know, that this organization was made use of for carrying out acts declared criminal according to article 6 of the statute, and who, as members of the organization, took a personal part in the commitment of such crimes." The conviction of a defendant on account of membership in the group declared criminal - of members of the SD is consequently dependent on two preliminary conditions:
(1) Voluntary joining of the SD and hereby membership in the SS or voluntary maintaining of membership and (2) Taking a personal part in the commitment of crimes mentioned in the statute and in the Control Council Law No. 10.
prior to 1 September 1939. It will be proved that Fraf never joined the SD voluntarily, but in January 1940, became liable for emergency service for the war period as auxiliary war worker.
That he was, first, employed in the SD intelligence service at home, was detailed, temporarily, to Einsatzkommando C-6, against his will, and, finally, was retransferred to service at home. Evidence will be submitted that Graf refused repeated suggestions to be taken over by the SD, and repeatedly tried in vain to get away entirely from the SD. The fact that the Defendant Graf obtained an SS rank for the period of his employment with the SD, did not mean new membership in the SS. The request of the prosecution concerning conviction of the Defendant Graf on account of membership in a criminal organization cannot be complied with -- apart from other points - because of the lack of membership in the SD or SS. It was already previously mentioned that there is no proof at all for any criminal activity of the Defendant Graf. indictment is completely unfounded in all three counts.
Your Honor, I would like to put a question to the Tribunal. In the opening session on the 15 September it was stated that motions for the calling of witnesses to be interrogated are to be put in. I have complied with this request. I have made my motions. If I only count one day for each of the defendants, my turn will come at the earliest four weeks from now. Yesterday the Defense Center already brought the witness Franziska Reimers from Bonn to Nurnberg, but I can not see why this lady who has a job today at homo has to sit idling in Nurnberg for four weeks. I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to permit me to tell this Miss Reimers to return to Bonn, and to stand ready to come back to Nurnberg at my call.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank you, Dr. Belzer, for your immediately and enthusiastic compliance with the request of the Tribunal -
DR. BELZER: I have not the connection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May be you don't have your earphones on correctly.
DR. BELZER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And I want to congratulate the Defense Center for the speed with which it operated, as it would seem they have go ahead of all of us. I see no reason why this witness should be compelled to wait the period of time which you have estimated, so you have the consent of the Tribunal to release her, and to see to it that she is back here in Nurnberg in time to be called as a witness when you are ready for her.
DR. BELZER: Yes, Your Honor, Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: All the opening statements appear now to have been delivered, and I want to thank the Defense Counsel for their cooperation with the Tribunal in every respect, and we will now recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock. Dr. Aschenauer will proceed with the presentation of the Ohlendorf defense. Do you have something to present?
DR. STUEBINGER: Dr. Stuebinger for the defendant Werner Braune. ment for the defendant Braune may be read. I have not as yet read this.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I am very sorry, yes.
DR. STUEBINGER: May it please the Tribunal: all the other defendants, on the following three counts:
1. Crimes against Humanity.
2. Commission of War Crimes.
3. Membership in a criminal organization. terial and emphasized it in its opening statement, demonstrating how the defendants, - including defendant Braune - are supposed to have committed acts making them guilty in the meaning of the Indictment. It has characterized the acts of the defendants as "the tragic fulfillment of a program of intolerance and arrogance". Over, and above that, it has stated that each of the defendants, in his position of responsibility or as commander in a so-called liquidation unit, usurped the right to determine the fate of human beings, and was imbued with the idea of death as the intended result of his power and contempt.
The acts for which the defendants have to answer were supposedly not dictated by military necessity, but by an extreme perversion of human ideas, the National Socialist doctrine of the master race. In refutation of this, I as Defense Counsel, should like to make the following statement : question put by the Presiding Judge as to whether or not he considered himself guilty of the grave charges brought against him, the defendant answered "Not guilty" and with this statement he thus expressed his own inner conviction. answer as an ejected incomprehensible denial and therefore to attach no significance to it; nothing could be further from the truth than to interpret the statement of the Defendant as an attempt at cowardly evasion of responsibility. pressed the fact that He feels absolutely innocent of the grave charges which have been brought against him and that those who were ultimately responsive were quite other persons who are not sitting in the prisoners' dock today. rations and trains of though are the basis for this feeling. It is inherent in defendant Braune's attitude that he in no way attempted to disown his acts or to white-wash them and that his statements are entirely trustworthy.
easier for me to carry out my task as defense counsel. I do not regard it as my task to attain a dubious result by legal tricks and distortions, but merely to serve the cause of law and justice before this high Tribunal. against humanity, in which he is alleged to have participated, as defined by the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.
war crimes by the sane actions, crimes which were committed through violation of the laws and customs of war, including murder, maltreatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population of countries and territories under the belligerent occupation of or otherwise controlled by Germany and wanton destruction and devastation not justified by military necessity.
1.) with having been a member of the Schutzstaffeln (SS)
2.) a member of Ant III of the RSHA. (SD)
3.) a member of Ant IV of the RSHA (Gestapo) i.e. of organizations, declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal and paragraph 1 d of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. the actions constituting the subject of the indictment comply objectively with the above-mentioned facts with regard to Germany's fight against Bolshevism unless measures taken in individual cases seem justified as permissible retaliation according to existing customs of international and war law or were permissible as punishment for offenses against orders expressly and publicly issued by the occupying power. under orders in a frontline assignment and acted only within the scope of orders which He considered to be bindings The question of acting on orders is of special importance in this case, since the defendant was not holding an important key position, but was a subordinate receiving orders and received his assignment at a time when all orders had already been issued and had been in the processof execution for months.
Under these circumstances He had no possibility to disobey "the order, apart from the fact that he trusted the legality of the order given to him.
1.) These points of viewmade the Defendant speak his "not guilty".
2.) This trial receives its special characteristics through lacking consciousness of guilt and emergency resulting from orders. three counts of the indictment existent by claiming in figure 9, letters A-P of the indictment, -- without, however, completely specifying the actions with which the Defendant BRAUEN is charged (with exception of letter F) -- that the Defendant as leader of Einsatzkommando 11b of Einsatzgruppe D murdered a considerable number of human beings in his territory of assignment (Crimea) during the tine of November 1941 until March 1942. concept common and unchanged at all times to all civilized peoples, of killing a human being from joy of killing, avarice or other low motives, maliciously or cruelly or by morns constituting a common danger. that the defendant without any efforts of his own was ordered to an Einsatzgruppe in the East and that in his position he only acted within the scope of binding orders issued long before his arrival and that he could not act differently although the contents of those orders in no way corresponded with his own ideas concerning the treatment of members of other races or were even in accord with his own inner disposition and wishes. On the contrary the carrying out of the orders given to him was rather a heavy psychological burden for the Defendant and only the idea of duty and obedience, but also the knowledge that it would be impossible for him to evade this order, made it possible for him to stand this strain. It was not in his power to annul or to alter orders. was told what his tasks were, when all ordershad already been given a long time ago and when they had been executed since months.
objectively or subjectively. His Kommando did not exterminate but it carried out orders which, as they had been given, were given from a point of view of safeguarding the territory. He was not entitled to examine or even to decide upon what was a military necessity and what not. That was solely the task of the highest military authority. more than 2000 kilometers resulted from the situation reports and that these reports were sent to 60 different agencies, as is proven by the distributor, and situation reports were sent out in 100 copies to Reich Ministries, as for instance to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, v. RIBBENTROP, proves, that it wasout of the question for the defendant to doubt that this was anything but a Fuehrer order. Wehrmacht, as the executor of executive power and of the responsibility in the execution of the measures, participated to a very essential extent or that the Einsatzgruppen received any possible assistance in the execution of their tasks. Thus he soon received orders directly from the Army to take and execute measures in the sense of the Fuehrer orders, be it the assignment for the combing of Simferopol, in which it was expressly stated that they were to be on the lookout fur Jews, or the order given by the 11th Army, which in December 1941 ordered the execution of the measures against the Jews in Simferopol to be finished before Christmas. the fight was going on in the East may not be forgotten, and that one had to deal here with an opponent, who originally disregarded any International Law and fought a total war, in which He thought every means admissible. systematic way of the partisan warfare, which had already been well prepared by the Russians before the outbreak of hostilities and which was considered an especially effective means to decrease the strength of the enemy.
The manner of fighting in the Eastern campaign, for which the assignment of partisans behind the lines of the German Army had been considered as a well calculated means of fighting and which had been cultivated accordingly in an over increasing measure, has shown how far in modern total warfare the methods of fighting have come away from the ideologies of the Hague REgulations for Land Warfare, and how fluctuating had become the whole complex of the problems of "military necessity". That is also borne out by the manner in which the modern air warfare was conducted and the development of the atom bomb as the latest means of combat until its first employment in Japan. himself in the assignment in the East and make clear the situation concerning orders given him. The Prosecution has also acknowledged this situation concerning orders without any reservations, when they talk on pages 11/12 of the Opening Statement of an information given the commanders of the Wehrmacht by HITLER on the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen, and when they refer to HITLER's decree as shown in the verdict of the IMT, and mentions that detailed instructions were put into effect.
The defendant's conduct: The defendant BRAUNE saw to it that orders, issued long before this assumption of office, were carried out correctly and he took special care that no excesses or cruelties occurred. the defendant's examination in his own case, in no way conforms to the picture of my client which the Prosecution hasgiven in itsopening speech. The Defendant BRAUNE was not the man to take upon himself the right to decide the fate of men and to deal out death in a cold-blooded manner. To the contrary, he considered this, his task, his duty as a tremendous burden, carrying it out merely in realization of his war-time duty as a subject and soldier to abide by the orders and laws of the head of the State and his Supreme Military Commander true to his oath as Civil Servant and soldier.
consciousness of carrying out a Fuehrer order, thereby engaging in a legal activity. In harmony with his personality and position he could under no circumstances oppose this order. Much loss did it occur to bin that ho might possibly refuse to carry out the order, as he was aware of the consequences which such a refusal in the operational theater would mean to him. It would have meant his certain death. been expected. The judgment of the I.M.T. defines it as a question whether there actually existed a choice in accordance with ethical laws.
Court No. II answered this question in its judgment of Erhard MILCH (page 96 of the opinion) to the effect that it. did not intend to suggest to MILCH and had never' done so that he (MILCH) should have chosen any way cut which might have cost him his life. Life is a legal right the maintenance of which must above all be granted to man, but open resistance to HITLER's order would have brought it to a sudden end. The defendant BRAUNE was no more than a small cog in a largo machine and he would nave been removed by the force of authority and power and HITLER'S order would still have been carried out. ho wasappointed and he could not sabotage the orders for he was always under the control of his superiors and his subordinates who independently of him had for some time already acted on orders given them.
I shall describe BRAUNE's conduct when not under orders from his supreme commander. on that point.
He left the SD in April 1939 when transferred to Coblence. After the outbreak of war he did not belong to Amt III, Amt VI or Amt VII of the RSHA. does not provide the basis for a sentence, for BRAUNE was made to join the Gestapo by deception and coercion, he did net join by his own free will and it is this free will which is a condition for a sentence.
totally different light from that in which the Prosecution has tried to present him. The only possible answer to the Prosecution can be a verdict of "Not Guilty".
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you understand, Dr. Stuebinger, that there is no intention to slight you by nut calling you this afternoon. The confusion arose through the fact that you had appeared at the podium this morning, and apparently you were checked off, so now we certainly do have your opening statement, and now we will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 8 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal,
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants Rasch, Strauch, Blobel, and Blume are excused from attendance today in accordance with previous arrangements. Dr. Aschenauer, are you now ready to proceed with the defendant Ohlendorf?
DR. ASCHENAUER : I call the defendant Ohlendorf as a witness in his own case. as follows:
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SPEIGHT): Raise your right hand and repeat after me: speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SPEIGHT): You may be seated, BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q What is your name?
Q When and where were you born? District of Hannover.
Q What was the profession of your father?
Q Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Q What is the profession of your brothers and sisters?
A My oldest brother is a biologist; my second brother is a farmer; my sister has a business.
Q What was the political opinion in your parents' house? was a trustee of the German People's Party.
Q What was the religious attitude in your parents' homo?
Q Where did you spend your childhood and adolescence? and worked on the farm in my leisure hours. father's farm. Does that have any special significance in your development? of handling a farm and got to know the human conditions in a farm district, that is, the cooperation and living together of farmers, industrial workers, and peasants, merchants, tradesmen, and people of other trades. The rest of the time my professional development proceeded along with my political development, these conditions of administration, culture, religion, and education, as I got to know them in that village, always remained with me, and they became the leading motives for my own philosophy.
Q What kind of education did you have? I graduated from the Gymnasium.
Q Where and what did you study?
,8 October-M-IL-1-3-Caming (Int. Lea) were law and national economy, Later, after my graduation, I spent one year in Italy studying the fascist system and the fascist philosophy of international law.
Q Are you married?
Q Since when?
Q Do you have any children? ago.
Q When did you become a member of the Nazi Party?
Q How did you come to enter the Nazi Party? days on. When I was 16 years old, I was director of a youth group of the German National Party; but I was not sufficiently bourgois and involved in the class system not to turn my back very quickly from this People's Party. The interests of that party in the special political methods did not appeal to mo. However, on the other hand, I was too much involved with the religious and cultural philosophy of the traditional bourgeoisie to become a Marxist. But at that time I recognized that the social need was a truly national problem, a problem, that is to say, for the whole people, and I recognized that the national need was also a truly social problem. These two points of view seemed to have been expressed best in National Socialism in my opinion. In addition, I was attracted very much by the fact that active people count as valuable in building up a national state, symbolically expressed in the concept of the Worker's Party. Likewise the idea of national thought was attractive to me as well, that is, the doctrine that peoples are independent concepts which by themselves and in themselves have to solve their own problems.
Q What activity did you engage in in the Nazi Party? done in the relatively small organization at that time. I was director of a district group. I sold papers, I posted posters. I participated in discussions and spoke in gatherings. I went from house to house and from man to man.
Q Were you at that time a member of the SS too? that at that time those particular functions were not seperated as yet. There were no sub-organizations of the Party. Thus, the question of participating in the functions of the SS was not a question of becoming a member. Rather, together with four other members of the Party, I was detailed for service in the new SS functions, but since I left my home town shortly afterwards, I did not get to perform that service. I was merely crossed off the list and therefore never found out under what number I was registered.
Q. What was your activity in the Party after 1926?
A. In 1926 there were the first differences between myself and my superiors in the Party. I did not agree with my superiors' political and other philosophies. Therefore, from 1926 to 1933 I did not work within the official party. On the other hand, on my own, especially in the years 1929 to 1931 as a student in Goettingen, I was very actively engaged in spreading National Socialism by arranging for gatherings by myself, by arranging discussions, and especially conducted training courses. These courses were probably the first which were systematically started by the Party.
Q. Why do you emphasize these training courses especially?
A. Because in these courses my entire activity, even in later years, mirrors my activity later on. I was of the opinion that our time was spiritually a time of consciousness; that is to say, human beings did not want just to take what was given to them but they wanted to decide what they wanted by themselves and on their own free will. Therefore, I considered it correct, if one wanted to succeed in establishing an idea or a movement, to win over people consciously for this idea or for that movement. Thus, I started training courses in which I tried to discuss the political, social, and spiritual factors of the time in order to educate people to have their own opinions about these matters. Even though this was not recognized in this field in which I did this work, it was, nevertheless, successful, and the Party went through no crises in this field.
Q. Weren't there at that time already definite directives, and didn't you have to operate according to these directives?
A. Yes. The year 1930 was a very decisive year for the Party insofar as one considered the years 1925 to 1930 as the years of building an ideological basis for the Party. In 1930, on the other hand, the Party leadership decided to assume power in the country by means of a parliamentary mass party. According to this mission, the tactics and the strategy of the Party were laid down. Instead of the ideological basis, the mass propaganda was evolved.
In the leadership of the various agencies, regarding both the men who considered this propaganda as correct and who could carry it out, the ideological basis was simplified. An attempt was made to make the utterances of the Party systematic. But at the same time an opportunity to continue the ideological foundations was missed. At that time lists of speakers were made up and these speakers instructed about the subjects of their speeches and the way of handling them. I did not do any work in making out these lists, nor was I ever an official speaker of the Party. I rather objected to such a systematic laying down of principles; and thus it is understandable that until 1933 I was not active within the official framework of the Party any more.
Q. Until what time is your activity valid in the Party?
A. Until the spring of 1931. In the summer of 1931 I took my state examinations. After that I went to Italy for one year.
Q. Why did you go to Italy?
A. I went to Italy because, as a National Socialist who was conscious of the fact that his own opinion was not yet fit to develop a program for the people, I wanted to study the development of an apparently parallel, movement in order to see what that party which had already been in power for ten years was doing for its nation.
Q. What significance did your stay in Italy have for your further development?
A. I became an absolute anti-fascist in Italy and returned from Italy with the will to fight this fascism wherever and in whatever form I encountered it and to do everything to keep this development away from National Socialism and to find a basis for it which by its quality would not only put it in a position to avoid fascism but even to overcome it.
Q. Where did you see the dangers of fascism?
A. With the secularization of the religious values of Christianity and with the neglect of observing the Catholic laws. It went hand in hand with this dissolution of the communio fidelium, the community of the faithful.