The genius of true democratic government is that no one person is allowed to take the nation with its millions of people into the valley of decisive action without the advice, counsel and approval of those who are to be subjected to the hazards, hardships and potentially fatal consequences of that decision. cross-roads where and when there was still the opportunity to turn in the direction of the ideals which they had once known, but the wilful determination to follow the trail of blood prints of their voluntarily accepted leader could only take them to the goal they had never intended. It is possible that currently the defendants realize the mistake which h they made. Though most of them have sought to rationalize their deeds, though they attempted to explain that every executioner's rifle was aimed at a national peril, it is possible they now grasp the disservice they have done not only to humanity but to their own fatherland. It may even be that through this trial with its sobering revelations they will have demonstrated what are the inevitable consequences of any plan which stems from hatred and intolerance; and her they may have proved what has never been disproved: There is only one Fuehrer, and that is Truth. wrote on "The Myth of Blood":
"A new faith is arising today: They myth of the blood, of man.
The faith, embodied in clearest knowledge that placed and ever come the old sacraments."
What does this mean? No one has yet deciphered its cadenced incoherence, but as Rosenberg himself claimed in it conclusive proof of the master race, others were willing to assume in this torturing abstruseness the authority of a revealed writing.
Beneath the meaningless phrases Trent the subtle theme of a race of men so different from, and superior to, other men that it required an occult language, whose alphabet was understood only by the elect, to carry the wisdom of this ineffable superiority. From it could be proved everything and nothing. From it the Nazi hierarchists drew their meretricious inspiration which led to their licentious and profligate deeds. also have confirmed the rulers of nations, states and tribes in their superiority over other nations, states and tribes, but the results have invariably been the same. The theme of might against right has, through the centuries, led to consequences which were catastrophic to the assumed stronger. Through the pauseless sweep of the centuries, despots and tyrants have ever and again appealed to the weakness of their followers, the weakness of supposed strength, and have utilized their primitive vanity and arrogance of the little man in the accomplishment of their monumental horrors. Over and over, this monotonous and savage drama has appeared on the stage of history, but never was it played with such totality, fury and brutality as it was with the Nazia in the title role. tieth century, which could well have been the fruition of all the aspirations and hopes of the centuries which went before, makes the spectacle almost unsupportable in its unutterable tragedy and sadness. Amid the wreckage on the six continents, amid the shattered hearts of the world, amid the sufferings of those who have borne the cross of disillusionment and despair, mankind pleads for an understanding which will prevent anything like this happening again. That understanding goes back to the words spoken 1900 years ago, words which had they been honored in the observance rather than in the breach would have made the events narrated in this trial impossible -"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to then."
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 April 1948, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorables, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT (reading): attempt will be made to cite from all the testimony and documents introduced on both sides. Such a treatment would give to the overall Judgment a length out of all proportion to the nature of a final adjudication. Nor is it necessary. Although the Indictment has charged the several defendants with multiplicitous murders, the verdict of Guilty, where arrived at, does not need to be predicated on the total number contended for by the Prosecution. been on the subject of murder, the defendants are charged also in / Counts I and II with Crimes against Humanity and violations of Laws or Customs of War which include but are not limited to atrocities, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations. Thus, if and where a conclusion of guilt is reached, such conclusion is not based alone on the charge of murder but on all committed acts coming within the purview of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes. In each adjudication, without its being stated, the verdict is based upon the entire record. dorfs. There is the Ohlendorf represented as the student, lecturer, administrator, sociologist, scientific analyst, and humanitarian.
This Ohlendorf was born on a farm, studied law and political science at the universities of Leipzig and Goettingen, practiced as a barrister at the courts of Alfeld-Leine and Hildesheim, became deputy section chief in the Institute for World Economics in Kiel, then section chief at the Institute for Applied Economic Science in Berlin, and in 1936 became Economic Consultant in the SD. On behalf of this Ohlendorf, defense counsel has submitted several hundred pages of affidavits which speak of Ohlendorf's efforts to make the SD purely a fact-gathering organization, of his opposition to totalitarian and dictatorial tendencies in the cultural life of Germany, of his defense of the middle classes, and of his many clashes with Himmler, the SS Chief, and Mueller, the Chief of the Gestapo. One of these affidavits declares:
"Ohlendorf did not see superior and in ferior races in various peoples.
... He superior or inferior, but different.
The the laws of life.
For him, the goal to abilities.
Folk, in his view, also was not dependent on a state organization."
dorf who led Einsatzgruppe D into the Crimea on a race-extermination expedition. That Otto Ohlendorf is described by that same Ohlendorf. If the humanitarian and the Einsatz leader are merged into one person it could be assumed that we are here dealing with a character such as that described by Robert Louis Stevenson in his "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". As interesting as it would be to dwell on this possible dual nature, the Tribunal can only make its adjudication on the Ohlendorf who, by his own word, headed an organization which, according to its own reports, killed 90,000 people.
and testimony in this case that Einsatzgruppe D did kill 90,000 persons in violation of the laws and customs of war, of general international law, and of Control Council Law No. 10. need to plead guilty to evasiveness on the witness stand, which indeed cannot be said of all the defendants. With a forthrightness which one could well wish were in another file of activity, Otto Ohlendorf related how he received the Fuehrer Order and how he executed it. He never denied the facts of the killings and only seeks exculpation on the basis of the legal argument that he was acting under Superior Orders. Further, that, as he saw the situation, Germany was compelled to attack Russia as a defensive measure and that the security of the Army, to which his group was attached, called for the operations which he unhesitatingly admits. All these defenses have been treated in the General Opinion and need not be repeated here.
In addition to Ohlendorf's direct testimony in this present trial, he voluntarily appeared as a witness in the International Military Tribunal trial and there described under oath the entire einsatz program of extermination. With but a minor exception he confirmed in this trial the testimony presented before the IMT. Thus, that testimony, by reference, is incorporated into the record of the instant trial and forms further evidence in support of the findings reached in this Judgment. Even outside the Courtroom Ohlendorf admitted untrammeledly the activities of the Einsatzgruppe under his charge. In at least four affidavits he related how his command functioned. He told of the area covered by his Einsatzgruppe, the division of his group into smaller units, the manner and methods of execution, the collection of the valuables of the victims, and the writing and submitting of reports to Berlin.
RSHA and the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D, is complete. country and showed great promise in the field of learning, purposeful living and sociological advancement, will need to be made elsewhere. Unfortunately it cannot form part of this Judgment which can only dispose of the charges of criminality presented in the Indictment. Those charges against Otto Ohlendorf have been proved before this Tribunal beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal accordingly finds Otto Ohlendorf guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment.
It has been argued by Dr. Aschenauer that Ohlendorf was not a member of a criminal organization as determined by the International Military Tribunal decision and Control Council Law No. 10. In support of this argument it is asserted that Ohlendorf was ordered to Russia as an employee of the Reich Group Commerce. It is impossible that Ohlendorf, as the leader of Einsatzgruppe D, should have been functioning as a member of the Reich Group Commerce. He headed Office III of RSHA before he went to Russia, and he headed it when he returned. organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
JUDGE SPEIGHT (reading): specialized in law and economics when he studied at the universities of Giessen and Munich. He later worked in the District Court at Darmstadt. He joined the Nazi Party in February 1928 and subsequently became a member of the SA, the SS, and SD. He served as an SS officer in the Polish campaign. He headed Einsatzgruppe A in the Russian campaign. His attorney devoted many pages in his final plea to arguments on self defense, necessity and national emergency, confirming and emphasizing what was said at great length by Dr. Aschenauer on these subjects.
In the latter part of the plea, Defense Counsel insisted that his client in no way participated in the execution of the Fuehrer Order. If, as a matter of fact, the defendant committed or approved of no act which could be interpreted either as a War Crime or Crime against Humanity, the argument of self defense and necessity is entirely superfluous. gruppe A the defendant was aware of the criminal purpose to which that organization was put, and, as its commander, cannot escape responsibility for its acts. Jost outlined his activities outside of Germany in the following language:
"During my activity as Chief of the Einsatz Security Police and SD in Eastland (BdS Ostland).SD Eastland was located in Riga.
On the whole, of the Security Police and SD (KdS) the same as kommando, respectively."
to Army control, Jost as Chief of Einsatzgruppe A cooperated with the Army command. When the territory came under civilian administration, he, as Commander-in-Chief of Security Police and SD received his orders from the Higher SS and Police Leader or SS and Police Leader. Under this double designation he was responsible for all operations conducted in his territory.
Report No. 195, dated April 24, 1942, reporting on activities within the area under the command of Einsatzgruppe A, states:
"Within the period of the report a total of and crimes."
murders. The item itself does not carry the exact date of its happening, but the latest date revealed in the entire document is March 26. Thus the execution of the 1,272 persons mentioned the rein could not have occurred on a date subsequent to March 26. The defendant testified that he was in Smolensk when, on March 24 or 25, he received his orders to take over the command of Einsatzgruppe A and that he did not arrive in Riga, headquarters of the Einsatzgruppe, until March 28 and 29. thousand murders prior to March 29 and, as late as March 26, as indicated by the report above-mentioned, was still killing Jews, It would be extraordinary that it should suddenly cease this slaughter for no given reason and with the Fuehrer Order still in effect, three days before Jost arrived.
The Prosecution argues that it would not take an officer of Jost's rank (Major General of Police) four days to travel the 100 miles between Smolensk and Riga. But whether Jost arrived the day before or the day after is not controlling in the matter of responsibility for the program involved. The Fuehrer Order was in effect prior to Jost's arrival at Riga and he did not revoke it when he took over the Einsatzgruppe. The defendant does state that when in May 1942 he received an order from Heydrich to surrender Jews under 16 and over 32 for liquidation he placed the order in his safe and declined to transmit it.
Report No. 193, dated April 17, 1942, reports an execution in Kauen, as of April 7, 1942, of 22 persons "among them 14 Jews who had spread communist propaganda". The defendant was asked on the witness stand:
"Do you regard it proper, militarily proper, to propaganda?"
and he replied:
"According to my orders these measures had to be carried out.
In that far it was correct and justified."
victims had indulged in Communist propaganda "up to the last moment". But there is nothing in International Law which justifies or legalizes the sentence of death for political opinion or propaganda. reports about "mass executions" during his time. If there had been no such executions during his incumbency it is reasonable to suppose that Jost would have emphatically so declared. It cannot be assumed that so grave and solemn an event as a mass execution could fall into the realm of the forgettable. Thus the only possible conclusion is that here the defendant was equivocating. the area, one of his subordinates, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Truebe, wrote to the RSHA, requesting shipment of a gas van and gas hoses for three gas vans on hand. Jost denied any knowledge of this letter but admitted that the subordinate in question had the authority to order equipment. It is not reasonable to suppose that the ordering of such extraordinary equipment would not come to the attention of the leader of the organization and the fact that the ordered gas van was to go to White Ruthenia (where he was also in command) does not absolve the defendant from responsibility. alone with the crime of murder. The Indictment lists various offenses, including enslavement, imprisonment, and other inhumane acts against civilian populations. Thus the defendant cannot escape responsibility for a consenting part at least in the slave labor program instituted by Sauckel in his territory. Report No. 193, dated April 17, 1942, carried this item:
"On orders by the new Plenipotentiary for the Commissariate General 'White Ruthenia' has to muster about 100,000 workers.
But will be adopted."
order of May 19, 1942. He testified that he visited Heydrich and Himmler and urged his recall and even spoke to Rosenberg against the extermination program in principle. He asserted that later he was recalled and subjected to disciplinary action, Although he retained his general officer rank in the police he was sent to the front, as a sergeant in the Waffen SS. The credibility of this story depends entirely on Jost, since all the other alleged conferees are dead, and there were apparently no surviving witnesses that he could call to confirm his conversations. to do with the reversal in his military fortunes, it can be believed that illness alone could not have brought about such a drastic change in his situation. Nonetheless the evidence is irrefutable that he was a principal in and an accessory to the extermination program in his territory. He may have, after participation in this enterprise, at last relented, and this is to his credit, but this cannot wipe out the criminality which preceded his withdrawal from the field. defendant is guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
JUDGE DIXON (reading):
and obtained employment in a commercial firm in his home town of Meissen, Saxony. In 1933 he joined the SA in a full-time capacity and then became official and officer of police. He joined the SD in 1935. He was Chief of Einsatzgruppe B from November 1941 until February or March 1943. The Prosecution contends that he took over the command of this organization on November 1, 1941 and points to various pieces of evidence to confirm that contention:
(1) Neumann's personnel SS record, (2) Reports listing Naumann as being in Smolensk (Headquarters of Einsatzgruppe
B) on November 12, 1941, (3) Testimony of Steimle that he met Nau (4) Naumnann's note to the co-defendant fluence Klingelhoefer's testimony that Neumann's duties began on November Neumann's purpose in establishing the latter date of induction into the chiefship of Einsatzgruppe B is to refute the Prosecution's claim that he is responsible for executions committed by Einsatzgruppe B in the month of November.
One report, dated December 19, 1941, described v arious actions which resulted in the liquidation of several thousands of people. Another report carrying the date of December 22, 1941 told of the execution of 324 Jewish prisoners of war and 680 civilian Jews. executions, since the reports were published four to five weeks following the events described therein. This would date the indicated events as having occurred about the middle of November and consequently prior to the date he claims he took over the Einsatzgruppe command. It has not established as a fact that the Operational and Situation Reports always appeared four to five weeks subsequent to the chronicled events.
It was testified during the trial that this period of delay fluctuated and that sometimes the reports were published within two weeks after the happening of the events.
However, this discussion is more interesting than practical. Even if Naumann were to prove irrefutably and conclusively that the reports were delayed and that he did not arrive in Smolensk until November 30, this would still not exonerate him from the charges under Counts I and II, for there is existent the Operational Report of April 21, 1942, covering operations from March 6 to March 30, a period during which indubitably Naumann commanded the area under consideration. This report shows, inter alia, that the Einsatzkommando 9 killed 273 persons made up of 85 Russians "belonging to partisan groups", 18 "because of Communistic, seditious acts and criminal offenses" and 170 Jews. Sonderkommando 7a executed 1,657 persons, 27 of whom were partisans and former Communists,45 were Gypsies, and 1,585 were Jews, The same report shows that unit Einsatzkommando 8 killed 1,609 persons made up of 20 Russian Communist, 5 criminals, 33 Gypsies and 1,551 Jews. was not "derived from the actual observation of the author of the document". This indeed is equivocation. The Operational Report was made up from accounts sent in by Einsatzgruppe B, accounts controlled by Naumann himself. In his affidavit of June 27, 1947 Naumann declared:
"The Einsatzgruppe B reported regularly on the Office.
Written reports were sent to Berlin every by radio.
The reports were prepared by my staff and submitted to me as a matter of routine," states:
"It is in no way intended to disclaim the assertion while Naumann was Chief of Einsatzgruppe B." executions appeared "much too high". In other words Dr. Gawlik claims that the numbers are incredible.
To say that these figures are incredible is an entirely credible and sane observation. This whole case is incredible, This is a case where the incredible has become the norm. It is not necessary to look at the reports to be shocked with incredulity. Many of the defendants themselves made statements on the incredulous things which they did. that it was in effect when he arrived. From this he seems to argue an absence of guilt. But Naumann had the power of command:
"The law of war imposes on a military officer in violations of the Law of war."
(Judgment, Milita ry Tribunal I, Case No. I, the United States of America against Karl Brandt et al, page 70.)
Naumann met from time to time with his kommando leaders. He knew that they were giving full effect to the Fuehrer Order. He knew that executions were taking place and even stated that if any of his subordinates had refused to carry out the order he would have taken disciplinary action against them.
Then it is to be noted from Naumann's own testimony that he knew of the liquidation order even before he took command of the Einsatz gruppe. He testified:
"... I was ordered to Heydrich and I received clear orders from him for Russia.
Now, first officials.
...." that Naumann was aware of the Fuehrer Order and that he carried it into effect. The only defense left him is that of the so-called Superior Orders. Did he agree with the order or not? If he did not and thus was compelled by chain of command and fear of drastic consequences to kill innocent human beings, the avenue of mitigation is open for consideration.
If, however, he agreed with the order, he may not, as already demonstrated, in the General Opinion, plead Superior Orders, The answer to this question can be found in his own testimony. anything morally wrong about the Fuehrer Order, and he replied in the negative. He was asked again the same question, and he replied specifically:
"I considered the decree to be right because it was necessary."
inquired if Naumann intended by his answer to say that he "saw nothing wrong with the order, even though it did involve the killing of defenseless human beings", and he replied "yes". dant is guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. nal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Erwin Schulz.
SS-Brigadier General Erwin Schulz entered the Army in 1918. After the first World War he successively studied law at the University of Berlin, was employed on the staff of the Dresden Bank and joined the Security Police. In 1940 he became Commissioner Inspector of the Security Police and SD. He was serving as Commandant of the Fuehrerschule of the Security Police in Berlin-Charlottenburg when he was assigned to the command of Einsatzkommando 5 which formed part of Einsatzgruppe C. He left Pretzsch with his kommando on June 23, 1941 and arrived in Lemberg in the early part of July. Here he was told that, prior to the evacuation of Lemberg by the Russians, 5,000 of the inhabitants had been murdered, and reprisals were in order. 2,500 to 3,000 people were arrested and within several days executions began. Schulz's kommando was ordered to participate in the executions and, under his direction, shot from 90 to 100 people.
kommando had been thoroughly investigated and found guilty of participation in the massacre which preceded his arrival. He stated further that after the execution he observed that Wehrmacht members were abusing the other 2,000 detainees being hold in a stadium, and that he opened the gate and allowed these detainees to escape.
These Lemberg shootings, despite the defendant's explanation, still remain unexplained. Schulz states that 5,000 Ukrainians and Poles had been massacred by the Russians and that then the invading forces, which had already executed hundreds of thousands of Poles, took reprisals against the Jews for the murder of Poles. If the operation was a "reprisal" one, as the report states, the Einsatz leaders would not have conducted investigations. If these executed were actually guilty of murder then the measure was not a reprisal but an orderly juridical procedure. Defense Counsel argues that Einsatzkommando 5 really had nothing to do with this affair:
"....it was only to fire the shot, without having of the incidents which preceded the shootings."
proceeded with the execution. Schulz testified that German soldiers had also been murdered in the Lemberg affair, but he could not state how many. Hitler had ordered a reprisal measure and that seemed to suffice. The defendant admitted that he conducted the execution of those allotted to him without any report of their guilt. He was not even furnished with a list of the executees. and was successively at Zhitomir and Berditschew. On August 10, while at Zhitomir, Schulz was instructed by the Einsatzgruppen leader that Jewish women and children, as well as men, were to be executed. Schulz states that, in moral rebellion against the order, he left for Berlin on August 24, arriving there on August 27. He spoke with Streckenbach and asked to be relieved from his post, and he was assured that this would be done, He returned to the kommando on September 15, and turned over the unit to his successor on September 25.
against the execution order cannot be conclusively known, since the other participants in that discussion, assuming that it took place, are not available. It is true that he did give up his kommando in the latter part of September 1941. Whether this excluded him from responsibility for executions, however, remains to be seen.
Report No. 88 states that "between August 24 and August 30, Einsatzkommando 5 carried through 157 executions by shooting comprising Jews, officials and saboteurs." Schulz used his trip to Berlin which embraces the six days indicated in the report, as an alibi for this shooting. But if the operation was planned before he left, his absence would not exonerate him. The man who places a bomb, lights the fuse, and rapidly takes himself to other regions is certainly absent when the explosion occurs, but his responsibility is no less because of that prudent non-presence. kommando 5 even thought he knew he intended to be absent while on the trip to Berlin is established by the fact that on the actual date of his departure, August 24, he ordered the kommando to move on from Berditschew to Skwira, 100 kilometers east of Berditschew, which removal actually took place on August 26. Schulz's explanation for this removal is a laudable one, if true. He says that he wanted to avoid that his kommando should come in contact with Higher SS and Police Leader Jeckeln who was set on execution of all Jews, including women and children. In any event, the fact remains that Schulz retained control of the kommando until the actual arrival of his successor in the latter part of September.
that before leaving for Russia he heard Heydrich's speech in which Heydrich said:
"That every one should be sure to understand that, in this fight; Jews would definitely take their the one to be overcome.
For that reason, all mea cular.
The experience in Poland had shown this."
The expression "all measures" certainly put Schulz on notice as to what was expected of the Einsatz units. for the executions described in Reports Nos. 132 and 135. The former is dated November 12 and the latter November 19, so that if one allowed even the maximum of five weeks' delay in publication of the reports, these executions would still fall subsequent to the date Schulz admittedly left Russia.
However, Report No. 47, dated August 9, 1941 which describes the shooting of 400 Jews (mostly saboteurs and political functionaries) would be within the time Schulz was on duty in Russia. This report makes the further statement: "Einsatzkommando 5 shot an additional 74 Jews up to this date."
Report No. 94 definitely chronicling a period when Schulz was in command, even though absent on the Berlin trip, says: "Einsatzkommando 5 for the period between August 31 and September 6, 1941, reports the liquidation of 90 political officials, 72 saboteurs and looters and 161 Jews." cuted by his kommando were only those who had committed offenses entitling them to be shot and in this connection Dr. Durchholz said that the "perpetrators who were Jews, were designated only as 'Jews' in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe, upon orders from superior offices, that they were not to be listed as 'saboteurs, plunderers, etc.'".
whose handling of the truth was as careless as his review of the evidence in capital cases in Esthonia. The Tribunal now declares that the record is absolutely bare of credible evidence that those listed in the column headed "Jews" fell into any category other than those who were shot merely because they were Jews. The whole documentation in the case is directly to the contrary.
Dr. Durchholz claims of his client a liberal attitude towards the Jews, but he adds:
"It goes without saying that he wanted to reduce again to normal proportions," It was just this spirit of reduction to what the Nazis called "normal proportions" which brought about the excesses in Germany leading to disfranchisement, appropriation of property, concentration camp confinement and worse.
In his final plea, Dr. Durchholz devoted some 20 pages to Schulz's activities prior to his Russian venture. He says here that Schulz was a competent police officer, that he was considerate and polite and was regarded as an "exemplary, modest, plain person who looked after his officials like a father". That the defendant is a person of innate courtesy has been evidenced in the court room, but the issue in this case is whether he lived up to International Law. did not respond to the obligations imposed upon him not only by the International law but the concept of law itself, of which, as a long police official, he could not be ignorant. In spite of this, however, it can be said in his behalf that, confronted with an intolerable situation he did attempt to do something about it.