Dr. Reinhard Maurach, professor of criminal law and Eastern European law, has examined this question with a view to the present case (legal opinion of Dr. R. Maurach in Document Book II Ohlendorf p. 4 and following) and subjected the possibilities which might be considered to a scientific scholarly examination. This question was dealt with also in my opening statement so that I may be allowed to refer thereto, in order to save time. tribunal called up to decide in the present case can appraise the defense of the defendant exhaustively only if making a so-called continental "cross-section" of the laws on legitimate self-defense and the state of emergency the basis of its judgment. tain doubts as to the application of this continental "cross-section", the Soviet criminal law in any case must be applied as supplementing Law No. 10 in preference to the lex fori, and that on the following considerations: 1947 concerning the abolition of capital punishment in the beginning of my final plea I have expounded how the American Tribunal is acting by way of trustee of the State which has the primary right to punish, namely the Soviet Union. Consequently, an attorneyship under public law has been established for which according to the prerequisites of international law the law of the State having the primary right to punish must be considered.
should still hesitate before applying the continental "cross section". This would be appropriate especially for this reason that according to this Russian Law legitimate self-defense and the state of emergency as legal conceptions, including the assumed self-defense and the assumed state of emergency, are the subjects of general rules so that the Tribunal could only in this way on a far-reaching scale deal justly with the defense presented by the defendant. permit the application of the aforesaid legal conceptions from the laws on legitimate self-defense. With reference to the expert opinion of Professor Maurach I intend to do this as far as the legal prerequisites are concerned in the form of references to my opening statement and to the expert opinion of Professor Maurach. In the examination whether the se prerequisites can be actually claimed to exist, the problem of the war against the Soviet Union as war not following normal military precepts must be made the first object of consideration. national emergency as legal institutions are considered it appears at once obvious that normal actions of war as such do not in themselves justify the application of these legal conceptions. If that were the case at least one of the billigerent parties could always claim to act in legitimate self-defense, and both parties could plead to be in a state of emergency. Actions of war can therefore lead to the application of these legal conceptions only when they exceed the limit of normal war operations, i.e. if the war aims and war methods to be expected with certainty from the enemy are "extraordinary" to such extent that the traditional ideas and limits of international law are inapplicable.
In this case it would not be possible to refuse the opponent of such a state even for the duration of the war to plead legitimate self-defense and state of emergency. The establishment of this fact must be the cornerstone of the whole consideration of the question whether in view of the nature of the Soviet Russian war methods and altogether the Soviet Russian interpretation of international law and laws of war the Eastern war conducted from 1941 on was a war as defined by existing international law. Therefore the question is: Can the Soviet Union in this respect be considered in a way that will permit her opponent to plead a legitimate self-defense practiced in a time of war which can be recognized by international law? ples and doctrines represented most clearly in the following thesis proposed by Stalin: "The aim of our foreign policy will always remain the same: 'Establishment of communist dictatorship in the whole world'." No particular comments are required to prove that this guiding principle stated by Stalin himself forms a radical contrast to the idea of international law. This idea acknowledges the right to live for every state belonging to the international community of nations. Contrary thereto the Soviet Union will eliminate all non-Soviet, i.e. capitalistic nations. Therefore it cannot on principle acknowledge the law of nations and does not acknowledge it either as I shall explain later. But since the Soviet Union -- even though it be only for a certain "transition period" - has been placed within the community of non-Soviet states, the result must be the necessity of the reluctant and revocable acknowledgement for the duration of this transitory period of certain conventional rules as applicable also to the Soviet Union.
Professor Korovin, today considered the leading specialist of international law and the spokesman of the views of the Kremlin says hereto: "Since other state organizations are still in existance in addition to the Soviet Russua the relations of Soviet Russia to these states must unevitably be based on this or that legal foundation of the 'transitory period'. Only the nature of this foundation is questionable." The nature, however, is disclosed by Soviet attitudes and publications proving that the Soviets use international law and its rules as weapons in the service of the class war against the non-communist world. In his "International Law of the Transitory Period" and in other essays some of which have appeared also later than 1945, Professor Korovin has expressed opinions, to this effect. From these publications the following overall picture can be deduced as regards the laws of war: sovereignty since it is itself -- even after 1945 -- in an isolated position and for reasons of self-preservation cannot impose any chains of convention on its own sovereignty. This reasoning is the basis of its extensive use of the veto power in the UN and also of the aspect under which the entire law of treaties is viewed. On the strength of this attitude the Soviet Union accents obligations to concluded treaties only so far as they do not "delay" the world revolution. This applies in particular to the case of war, in which the Soviet Union believes to be right in simply stripping off such obligations because it expects nothing else from the bourgeois states. On this professor Korovin says: "On one hand we know better than anybody else that the loyalty towards accepted obligations is not "being observed either generally or towards Socialistic states by virtue of the signature of a bourgeois government or by the motives deduced from normal scholasticism.
.. however... the relative value (of such war conventions) must be acknowledged also for Soviet Russia, but with the 'unavoidable improvement with reference to the social revolution in the form of the clausula rebus sic stantibus'." In the opinion of the Soviet Union every war is fighting a defensive war because it is fought only for the sake of "class self-defense". The same basic attitude is found again in the laws on prisoners of war. It is true that official Russian authorities have not disclosed any opinion on the question as to whether the USSR is bound by the rules established by the laws on prisoners of war and Korovin, too, has left that question open. However, it is emphasized that even in the treatment of prisoners a considerable discrimination must be practiced according to "whether the prisoners are politicians or class enemies (officers and other responsible leaders); in the interest of the propaganda for the world revolution it would be attempted to influence the former "in a friendly way" whereas the latter category could hardly be "re-educated" (Korovin p. 124); but then the Soviet doctrine is prepared to accept the discriminatory treatment of the members of its own army as unavoidable retaliation.
The political events of recent years (repatriation of the Soviet prisoners of war from Finland 1940) have made it clear that the USSR considered these prisoners who had breathed the "air" of a bourgeois state to be actually lost to the political community and provided for their elimination. The same treatment is also applied to civilian prisoners. According to Soviet views the arrest and deportation from occupied territories will always be permissible if such parts of the population constitute groups which are a danger to the Red Army.
In such cases a general display a hostile attitude towards the USSR. In all such cases it is imperative according to Soviet ideology to render them harmless. The system of hostages, it is true, is repudiated "in principle" (Korovin p. 129), but it is here stressed that the particular circumstances under which the Red Army must fight justify also the arrest of innocent persons according to the hostage principle "even though it is in pursuance not of legal ethics but of actual expediency". It is also mentioned that certain groups will be preferably considered in the selection of hostages (such as mayors, notories, public teachers, ecclesiastics) who as "spiritual supporters" of the enemy are particularly tied up with the ruling (capitalist) class of the enemy state. bound by conventions under international law as little does it regard the principles of the administration of occupied enemy territories as binding with respect to itself. The official opinion of the Soviet Union does not leave any doubt as to this official opinion. Korovin writes: ("In this connection . . . ) the question arises whether the fact can be considered unlawful that the Soviet Power does not in the least feel itself obligated to protect the inviolability of exploitation and the impertubability of the capitalistic order within the borders of the occupied territory, but, on the contrary, fighting for its socialist existence it lends any possible assistance (Finland, Poland, Esthonia, Latvia) to the efforts of the local working masses towards organizing the society on a socialist basis.
The revolutionary committees, the support of the rise of national Soviet republics, and other working principles of the so-called "Sovietizing" are the consequences thereof." recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
C urt II, Case 9 5 Feb 1948_M_MSD_8_1_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The principles which I have here quoted must be considered the quintessence of the Soviet theory of international law. They have been published by the only spokesman of this doctrine in the USSR and, finally, were approved of by the Soviet federal censorship. It must be beyond doubt that these proclamations coincide with the official opinions of the Kremlin. The conjectures inferred from these doctrines of the Soviet Union as to the conduct to be expected in a possible war were on a considerable scale confirmed by the experiences of the Finnish winter war (Blue-White Book of the Finnish Government I). Also in taking over the Baltic States the Soviet Union displayed towards the civilian population of the occupied countries the aforesaid principles contrary to international law as it is generally known and besides was explained in detail e.g. by the witness Dr. Maw in the Sandberger case. Indeed even in 1913 the Soviet Union officially notified the German Reich Government through its diplomatic representatives at that time that the Russian Government denounced all treaties formerly concluded by the Russian State among which also the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention. That means that already when the war with Germany started the Soviet basic thesis had received corroboration that the USSR would acknowledge the rules of international law in a certain sense only for the so-called "transitory period" during which it actually decisive clash with another power it would on principle reserve for itself the right to free action. In the eyes of the Soviet Union, however, international law is just not the modus vivendi between states for mutual restriction of their respective rights to existence but a diplomatic weapon to be used for realization of its world-revolutionary aims. Therefore the Soviet Union was also prepared to acknowledge certain theses of international law only if they did not run contrary to its revolutionary plans. The entire development of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union discloses the tactics of openly sacrificing the rules of international law if this will be in accordance with the alleged "dialectic evolution" i.e. the interests of the "coming unavoidable" world revolution.
In all such cases international law must he superseded by the requirements of class warfare. During the time of existence of the Soviet Union - as already mentioned - this was proved unmistakably in particular by the numerous Soviet interventions. These interventions in themselves made it clear that the war going on from 1941 had to be fought by Germany not only against the Stte of the USSR but against world Bolshevism as such, in other words against the entire political Communist movement threatening the non-Soviet world. The part played by the Comintern - or Cominform as it is called at present - is so well-known throughout the world and in consideration of the political development of recent years so undisputed also by Americans that I may be allowed to abstain from dealing with this question in detail. Therefore many psychological conditions which are not relevant as far as other wars are concerned namely the imperative idea based on factual knowledge that under the circumstances collective security measures might not be avoidable even though they were reprehensible from an ethical point of view, became rightly a subject of discussion among the defendants. should like to invite the attention also to the selection of war conventions to which the Soviet Union has acceded. These are most significantly the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 concerning prohibition of chemical and bacteriological warfare (with a few qualifications) and the London Protocol of 6 November 1936 concerning the rules of submarines warfare. hesitation because its incomplete preparations in the field of chemical and submarine warfare made restrictions expedient whereas the far more essential treaties, the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, threatened to restrict the totality of the war which by the Soviet Union would be carried on according to principles of civil war.
of civil war.
Therefore such rules must be eliminated for a war against "capitalistic states". This applied in particular to the incitement of partisan warfare for which valuable strategical experience had already been gained through the civil war from 1917 to 1920. All this is no theoretical discussion, on the contrary this rather led perforce to the expected behavior of the Soviet Union in a war with a "capitalistic power", which then also materialized in the war with Germany. In accordance with the views it had repeatedly announced, the USSR in this war in which it did not consider itself bound by the rules of the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of Landwarfare, disregarded also the unwritten basic rules of generally acknowledge customs of war although to the observation of which it would also have been bound. The leaders of the German State who, because of the National Socialist ideology and the geographic position of the Reich had concerned themselves with the Communist world of ideas more than the rest of Europe anticipated this behavior with certainty. The defendants were of the same opinion by virtue of their political and professional experience. All these circumstances must be taken into account when examining the charge of the Prosecution that the defendants are responsible of the elamination of "politically undesirable elements for ideologica reasons". I have already eleborately expounded my view that the Defendant Ohlendorf could not and was not entitled either to undertake an examination of the question whether these groups of persons were rightly designated to be included in the extermination action. These persons were by the official authorities of the German State described as an actual and potential danger to military operations and the planned permanent occupation of Soviet territory. For the danger rose from their ideology which they were bound to annihilate all opponents in order to realize the Bolshevist world revolution. From this it appears that obviously it was a question of forestalling or defeating a typically Soviet method. of carrying on war in Soviet partisan warfare. This partisan war is contrary to all principles of martial law, as already mentioned.
A more detailed examination of its specific strategical nature in this case will confirm this allegation. Accordingly, under no circumstances can partisan warfare still be considered a permissible kind of warfare, not even by an only analogous application of the rules of war. The USSR here acted according to the principles adopted in 1918 and taken over from the atmosphere of civil war in which they had proved their effiency in an in glorious way. to know translated into practice is briefly recapitulated as follows: Military operations are subject to no obligations established by international law. Any means which injures the enemy is permissible. An object of particular importance is the disorganization of the troops by all means and through utilization of the entire population. The organization of partisan bands therefore is determined solely by the purpose to be served at any time. In the first place, bands existed carrying weapons openly and for which the most part were composed of elements wanting to evade the discipline of the regular army, e.g. released convicts and forced larorers who were frequently under the command of notorious prostitutes. In this category also the undisguised robber gangs came socalled "Machno". Large groups of the population were forcibly bound to perform scounting service for these partisan bands, to feed and to hide the partisans, and finally to serve as leaders and agents. Behind the front-lines active soldiers were parachuted from planes who were supposed to terrorize the population in the territories occupied by the Germans, to force them to intelligence and scouting service, and to instigate assaults and murers of individual German soldiers. It was their duty to force the population to carry out the Stalin order dated 3 July 1941 in which it says: "The war against Fascist Germany cannot be considered an ordinary war. It is not only a war between two armies, it is at the same time the great war of the entire Soviet people against the Fascist German troops.....
5 Feb 1948_M_MSD_9_3_Hoxsie (Hildesheimer) In the occupied territories intolerable conditions must be created for the enemy and his accomplices, their every step must be doggedly followed, they must be destroyed and their acts must be thwarted. "And in this way the so-called "Vernichtungs-Battallione" (Destruction Batallions) came into being, of which the tribuanl has heard again and again from the testimonies of the defendants, and the activities of which made up a great part of the defensive assignments of the defendants. forcing of the entire population of the hinterland into the service of the resistance movement - as was actually experienced by the defendants and described by them on the witness stand. Not only men, but also women and children were drawn into the net of the organization under coercion and forced to carry on acts of scouting and intelligence work. For this reason, total war was conducted by the Soviet Union from the very beginning through the compulsory, in disriminate use of other parts of the population. This corresponds to the picture shown by the excerpts from the "Russian Encyclopedia" in (Ohlendorf Document II a, No. 42.) There it speaks about the fact that "the Partisan is not only a fighter, but also a political agitator, an organizer of the masses" (Page 4 of Ohlendorf Document No. 42.) It is his taks to "create a hatred of national indignation" and not only to call on the adult mases of the population but also women, old men and boys." (Page 6.) The Partisan war must "take on savage and manifeld forms." It must "join the revolutionary struggle of the exploited classes against their exploiters as well the struggle of the people against interventionist troops". In these case "the acts of armed units from the local population took on a particularly audacious and bitter character." was possible in the history of European warfare. Not only does it transgress the modified laws of international law, consciously unrecognized by the Soviet Union, but to the same extent transgresses all the unwritten customs of the conduct of war of civilized nations. The defendants have offered numerous examples in this connection.
The organized and extensive compulsory utilization of women and children, the poisoning of wells, the spreading of typhoid fever bacillae, the destruction of the harvest and the burning of entire cities are symptoms of a type of fighting which could in no way be countered with the weapons of the former European conduct of war. In this connection we see the peculiarities of the extensive virgin land, the immensity and expanse of Russian territory. Under these conditions security measures had to be taken which are unknown in the war conditions in the West and which do not permit of generalization. In many cases the liquidation of the male population of Partisan villages was found necessary, and often it was imperative to eliminate the instigators and "wire-pullers" of a cunning and cowardly conducted "war"., qualities recognized instinctively by the German soldier. The conclusion to recognize or at least suspect as such instigators certain classes or niveaus of the population is particularly evident under the conditions of such a total war. The Soviet doctrine as well holds no divergent point of view when it experminates the bourgeoisie and those opposed to its ideology, and does this in its own country and those nations under its domination without benefit of trial. occupied himself with the foundamentals of political events, and who not only was familiar with the theoritical writings of Communism but experienced the direct perilous threat to Germany of Communism and followed its practice in Finland and the Baltic countries, never entertained doubts for one minute that the Bolschewist leadership would not observe the rules and customs of international law and laws of war in the inpending war and possible defeat of German. Therefore it was self-evident to him that Germany as well could not observe these rules towards the Soviet Union, for this would have meant an unjustifiable disadvantage against thes adversary who was intent on his destruction.
of the German text, the prosecution attempts to tie up the attitude of Ohlendorf concerning the killing of civilians in the Soviet Union without benefit of trial and the affirmation of Ohlendorf daring the crossexamination of the prosecution that the killing of civilians in the occupied territories was regarded as pure and simple murder . However, such an interpretation, following the clear statements of Ohlendorf concerning the conduct of war according to international law of the Soviets, which he regarded as a state of emergency so far as Germany was concerned, is neither feasible, nor can such an interpretation be inferred from the connection of the passage from the cross-examination as quoted by the prosecution. For this question from Ohlendorf's point of view is not tied up with the questions concerning the killing of civilians in Russia. After all, "he did not admit anything", but rather he answered, without hesitation, with "of course", or "yes". It was clear to him that the prosecutor was questioning him for the purpose of collecting evidence against him with respect to his conduct in the Soviet Union. However, according to his own firm conviction that the German measures in Russia, including the ordered killing of civilians, should be held to be outside of every consideration of international law and beyond every recognition of the otherwise customary rules of war since the party of the second part, who would represent the prequisite for its consideration, is looking Ohlendorf cannot consider these questions of the prosecutor as being pertinent to the Soviet Union. He was able to hold this opinion for all the more reason that the two questions which proceed that quoted by the prosecution refer concretely to International Law and Conventions of War, which the Soviet Union never considered binding upon it.
The three questions and answers were as follows:
"Q: Have you ever heard of the Geneva Convention?
"A: Of course.
Q Have you ever heard of the Hague Convention? in the organization which was subject to Military Law, were you not aware that the killing of civilians in the occupied territories without benefit of trial was regarded as pure murder and nothing else according to International law as well as according to the Law and Customs of War?
A Yes. I have again brought those points before the High Tribunal in order thereby to illustrate what prerequisites bespeak the assumption of a mistaken belief of a state of emergency and self-defense on the mistaken belief of being attacked with respect to the defendant OHLENDORF and his co-defendants. This is a question of subjective prerequisites which can be induced at all only by objective conditions. The complete lack of any inhibitions with which the USSR conducted "total" war from the very beginning, and in particular the Partisan war which was fought with complete disregard of the laws of war, and their collective measures which were carried, out by the Soviet government in their intervention before 1940, also induced Germany to regard certain groups of the Russian population as a potential danger spot, and which had to be eliminated for the safety of the fighting troops. justified on the basis of the conditions described above need not be further discussed. However, one point must be examined, namely to what extent such measures were subjectively conceivable to the defendants, In this question the point must be discussed as to what the relationship of Bolschevism and Jewry was according to the ideology of National Socialism and also according to the personal conception of the defendants. I may forego a detailed description of the development of the NationalSocialist ideology in this respect. but its psychological effects upon the defendants must be considered.
defendants before the outbreak of war had conjured up a picture of the collaboration of Russian Jewry and Bolschevism, which was then confirmed in the course of their assignment in Russia. last decades by the historical-sociological research of Russia that the percentage of the Jewish population in political, cultural, and scientific key positions within the Soviet Union is unusually high. This is not based on German research but on data supplied by Russians and Jews. It is shown that the number of Jews in official positions amounts on the average to about 20%. In Party offices, this percentage was considerably larger, e.g. the Ministry for Foreign Trade with its offices abroad was a Jewish domain to a particularly great degree. The same applies for the Ministries of the Interior, for State Security, and for the great number of economic Ministries. The percentage of Jews within the army in the so-called political administration is particularly large. This percentage in higher top positions reaches 65%. These and similar facts made up a part of the daily reading matter in the German press many years before the war and thereby also formed a part of the convictions of the defendants. majority of offices, in particular the higher offices which enjoyed no great popularity among the great masses of people, such as the economic officials, and above all the Political Police (N.K.W.D.) were actually occupied to a high decree by Jews. In this connection it must be remarked that for these reasons, though it is true, conditions varied according to regions, an mistakable anti-Semitism became evidente in all parts of Russia. And finally it was learned quite soon that the Jews played a particularly important part in the resistance movement and especially in the underground organizations of the Partisan movement. This assertion is substantiated by such scenes as Jews going to their death with cries of STALIN on their lips and singing the Internationale.
Under these conditions one must see in the Jew the leader of the resistance and sabotage. This situation gave rise to the psychological prerequisites already mentioned for the fact that the liquidation order was accepted as a necessity conditioned by the war, about which the individual could think ashe pleased, which however in the framework of general events had to be recognized and carried out.
In its opening statement (page 5) the prosecution devoted only one section to the line of thought, which, according to its interpretation, forms the ideological basis of the case in chief, namely the "Nazi doctrine of master race and inferior races." At the opening it stated that this "Nazi ideology" was devoid of any humanitarianism and represented ruthless materialism. The defendants fell complete victims to this doctrine. They despised members of other races and this extremely criminal way of thinking led them to commit their deeds. The High Tribunal will recallthat on the witness stand OHLENDORF stated quite rightly that there existed no uniform interpretation of the racial question in the Third Reich at all, that rather these problems were viewed by the most diverse leading functionaries in the most diverse way. National Socialist literature as well was full of contradictions. I remember the books of Prof. GUENTHER and Prof. KLAUS. For this very reason it is misleading to wish to explain the obediency of the defendants to the order under discussion by the falsely stated "Nazi doctrine of master race and inferior races." As far as the particular case of the defendant OHLENDORF is concerned, I believe that the High Tribunal itself has gained an entirely different personal impression of OHLENDORF than that which the Prosecution has attempted to convey, OHLENDORF's entire life and pursuits were directed to ward the correcting of the aberrations and abuses of the conceptions of individual influential National Socialists and to abolish them in their effects. I wish to refer to my statements just made with respect to membership in criminal Court,2, Case 9 organizations.
The very humanitarian thinking of OHLENDORF in opposition to the cynical, autocratic and ruthless nature of LEY, BORMANN, GOEBBELS, KOCH, HIMMLER and HEYDRICH was the motivating factor that induced OHLENDORF to stand in constant opposition to these men. His conception of the state and his opinions concerning folk and race were diametrically opposed to these which individual authoritative leaders of the Third Reich proclaimed and in fact attempted to translate into action.
In this respect the High Tribunal stated quite clearly (see page 5038 of the German transcript):
".....whatever can be brought forth to show that his character excludes criminal intent is certainly of material importance."
Therefore, I may summarize: OHLENDORF strove for a constitutional state in which power was bound by constitution and law. OHLENDORF's conceptions concerning people and race were in sharp contrast to these which in this connection were actually translated into action. OHLENDORF sharply rejected the measures taken against the Jews during the years before the assumption of power and was not in agreement with the radical racial conceptions of the NSDAP. Remaining consistently loyal to his opinions, OHLENDORF went so far as to intervene personally through a minority statute for the Jews living in Germany. Beyond that he represented the principle of "Equality of all citizens before the law" and "Independence of the Judge." avail, to bring about an independent legal procedure in the pronouncing of protective custody within the framework of the Security Police, an attempt motivated by these his thoughts and his concern for the preservation of legal security in national life.
In the field of culture and education (OHLENDORF was constantly at odds with the authoritative offices in the Party and State, and stood up for freedom of the sciences and for a natural, healty education of German youth, just as he stood up in the field of economics for the independence of industry.
friends and even by his ideological adversaries is actually in contradiction to that man which the prosecution wishes to make of him. To characterize this man simply as a thousandfold murderer, whom one deems it necessary to deprive of any feeling of conscience or morals appears as a crass contradiction to the description of a disinterested observer. For this reason Frau Dr. KLEIN acknowledges in her affidavit already mentioned: "Following my confinement in prison I never saw Herr OHLENDORF again and heard nothing from him for many years. Then when I saw in the press the hints concerning his activitiesin the East, I was deeply shaken. I must admit that it is difficult for me in this connection to write about Herr (HLENDORF. Nevertheless, I consider it my duty to describe truthfully his conduct and nature based on my acquaintanceship with him. It was never clear to me from the press, neither can I believe that a man who conducted himself so courageously and tolerantly could have committed such unworthy acts. Whatever may have induced him not to refuse to carry out orders of a questionable nature, whatever that might have been, his fate in my opinion is tragic." a result of the purest desires, and because of his constant struggle against power and despotism, has come to this stage of finding himself in the prisoner's dock. obtaining for himself a limited basis as manager of the Reich Group Trade for the execution of oppositional thinking against the system of a LEY, BORMANN, HIMMLER and HEYDRICH, must be done away with for that reason and falls victim to the diabolical rule of National Socialist rulers, what indeed is the reason for OHLENDORF's transfer to his assignment in the East? The somewhat more independent attitude which OHLENDORF had achieved through tenacious efforts presents an untenable situation which HEYDRICH and others cannot permit.
Therefore, OHLENDORF must leave Berlin. The reason for his assignment for the anthroposophies made it possible to punish him by transferring him and in this assignment either to crush him morally through his conduct and thus deprive him of any power to resist or in the event of open insubordination stand him before the firing-squad. result of the danger which arose in the East and the familure of all the to-level authorities and of the Whermacht to act against the National Socialist hierrachy, the only constructive opponent of the system of power which had arisen only had the opportunity during his period of assignment to restrict and limit the extent of the Fuehrer order through supplementary orders and to obviate atrocities and, insofar as it was possible, to act in a positive manner. OHLENDORF completely exhausted this possibility. East, who opposed KOCH's and THOMAS' policy of power in the Ukraine, be considered a criminal because he acted in this way during his activity as Chief of the Einsatzgruppen? your pronouncement of judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Gawlik.