|
"The Einsatzgruppen
Case" Case No.9 The United States of America --against-- Otto Ohlendorf, Heinz Jost, Erich Naumann, Otto Rasch Part VII Earlier Testimony of Otto Ohlendorf Page 276 Q. You refused both the first and the second order? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. For two reasons. For one thing, because I had not been a soldier and did not have any interest in the military; secondly, Page 277 because I was not a policeman, and had no interest for police work, and police work was against my nature; and third, because I had a genuine job to do in Berlin which I knew would not be replaced once I left it, and I wanted to do a job to which I had the best ability.Q. How did you refuse the first time? Will you tell us the circumstances ? Heydrich was your military superior, was he not? A. Yes. Q. You were fully convinced that every order, every military order must be obeyed without a question? A. That is expressing it very generally. Q. It is quite general, but to be specific, you killed all these people you have told us because you were ordered to do it, not because you wished to do it? A. I said often enough that I personally did not kill any people. I would like you to remember that or to question me about this matter. Q. I’ll come to that in due time. I shall ask you now again how you refused the first Heydrich order to join the Einsatzgruppe? A. Because I wanted to explain why it was not expedient for me to leave Berlin, and I said in my direct examination I was indispensable to the Reich Trade Group, that is, I had a note in my military passport which obligated me to work for the Reich Trade Group, and, therefore, Heydrich first had to consult me and remove this note. Therefore I had the chance to discuss these matters with him. Q. And in your direct testimony you said: "Twice, I was directed to go to Russia, and twice I refused." A. Yes. Q. Did you go to Heydrich and say: "1 refuse to go to Russia"? A. Not in that form, of course, but we spoke about these matters, and I used the tact which is necessary when discussing such matters with a superior that is usually customary. Q. On the second occasion what happened? A. The same thing. Q. Heydrich had selected you to go with the Einsatzgruppen, and twice you were able to persuade him to relieve you of that assignment ? A. When the last order came I could not evade it. How strenu-ously he insisted on this could be seen from the fact that Mueller and Streckenbach, Chief of the Gestapo and Chief of personnel, were of the opinion that it would not be expedient to give me an Einsatzgruppe, and they also protested to Heydrich about giving me the command of an Einsatzgruppe, but since Page 278 Q. I didn’t follow you there. Who was it that insisted, Streckenbach ? A. Heydrich insisted on it against the vote of Streckenbach and Mueller. Q. Heydrich, of course, knew at that time what the Einsatz-gruppen were to do in Russia ? A. I don’t know. Q. I beg your pardon? A. I don’t know whether he did. Q. Is it your idea that he organized these units without having any idea of what they were to do? A. He had an idea, all right, for he wanted to take every security job away from the army, whereas, up to that time he had detailed personnel to the army, and the army worked without letting him in on this work; therefore, he expanded his domina-tion to include the operational areas. Q. This was a very secret preparatlon, was it not, of the Einsatzgruppen? A. Yes, of course, these were negotiations between Heydrich and the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the High Command of the Army, and representatives of Heydrich and of these two agencies. Q. Well, then, it is a fair assumption that when Heydrich selected you to go to Russia in command, he knew what work you were going to perform in Russia, did he not? A. Whether he already had the Fuehrer Order I don’t know. I only knew the fact that the Einsatzgruppen were being set up. Q. Now at Pretzsch, Streckenbach told you, for the first time, you say, what the Einsatzgruppen were to do? A. Yes. Q. Now he had a special order? A. Yes. Q. In your direct examination you stated that the order read "as follows". Did you see the order yourself? A. No, I did not say, it read "as follows". I merely gave the contents, for I always said there was no written order. Q. I misunderstood you ; the transcript said, "Read as follows." So your understanding of the purposes of the Einsatzgruppen came from Streckenbach orally at Pretzsch? A. Yes. That is correct. Q. And you protested? A. Not only myself, but as I said in direct examination, there was a
general protest. A. I pointed out that these were missions which could not possibly be accomplished. It is impossible to ask people to carry out such executions. Q. Why? A. Well, I believe there is no doubt that there is nothing worse for people spiritually than to have to shoot defenseless populations. Q. If I may be a little facetious in a grim matter, there is nothing worse than to be shot either, when you are defenseless? A. Since this is meant ironically by you, I can imagine worse things, for example, to starve. Q. It is not meant entirely ironically. I have read the whole of your testimony, and I am impressed by the fact that not once did you express any sympathy or regret. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO : Mr. Heath, I don’t think that that observation is in place Mr. HEATH: I withdraw it, your Honor. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: You are not to comment on the witness. Ask him questions, and he is to answer them. What you think about him is of no consequence. MR. HEATH : I know that, your Honor, and I ask the Court’s forgiveness for having put the question. MR. HEATH: Now I want to say this-you have told the Court repeatedly that to your knowledge there was absolutely no purpose to exterminate races. You are charged here, of course, with war crimes which is one kind of killing, and crimes against humanity which is another kind of killing. You have told the Court that you have no reason today to believe that these killings were part of an extermination program. I want to ask you further, you are aware of this speech which Hitler made in 1933 at the Party rally in Nuernberg, and I would like to ask you, when I have read you this quotation, to comment on it. "But long ago man has proceeded in the same way with his fellowmen. A higher race, at first higher in the sense of possessing a greater gift for organization, subjects to itself a lower race, and thus constitutes a relationship which now embraces races of unequal value. There thus results the subjection of a number of people under the will often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply on the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see it in nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right because founded on reason." Do you recall that or any of the similar outgivings of Adolf Hitler during the period from 1933 on? DEFENDANT OHLENDORF: I have read this remark repeatedly
Page 282 General was considered to be honorary, and even a Frank was not considered to be able to mess it up because he had no spiritual strength. Q. That is one of your protests against the course of National Socialism, is it not, that psychopaths and irresponsibles were given power in this personal staff? A. I don’t think that it is a single case, but this has happened time and again in politics. Q. I understood you to say to the Court that most of your difficulties in the Party came from your opposition to those men who advocated total destruction of the objective or institutional state, is that right? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. You had been convinced by a year’s study of Mussolini’s personal autocracy that Italian fascism was a bad thing? A. Yes. Q. And it was bad because Mussolini had completely destroyed institutional restraints on men who wielded power? A. I would rather express it positively, because this was an unrestricted dictatorship in the form of a totalitarian state. Q. Very well. I think we say the same thing in different words, do we not? A. Yes, from the positive side. Q. In 1933, when Hitler, after he was made chancellor, had legal power to legislate by himself without the restraint of any constitution, was he not in precisely the same situation and did he not have the same power to act that Mussolini had acquired, from the legal standpoint? A. Yes, I understand you completely. The difference is that the one was National Socialist and the other was Fascist. Hitler for himself did not make up a constitution for an absolute state, but because he had a different opinion of the state he had himself given power for a definite period of time. And this was nothing else but a constitutional means, which during the parliamentary period of the Weimar Constitution was also used then, especially in the years 1931 and 1932, when paragraph 48 of the Weimar Consti-tution was the basic support of the government. This law giving a government the power must not let one conclude that Hitler wanted to establish a dictatorship, but he took a constitutional means, and I know that during the entire time of the Hitler gov-ernment, even during the war, it was the idea to build a senate, a kind of parliamentary system ; and I know that several times Hitler complained to acquaintances that he still had not found any man who could rebuild the state for him and who could give Page 283
Q.Well, you went toPoland with Himmler in 1940? A. 1939. Q. 1939. All right. And Heydrich sent you along with Himmler, you say? Disputes arose between you and Himmler in 1939? A. They really were monologues because Himmler- Q. That’s all right, whether it was monologue or not. He reproached you that members of the SD in Poland had not been able to treat the Jews in a manner in which he had wanted, and that, you say "was a product of my education". What was it he wanted done to the Jews in Poland which he said you had failed to do? A. That is connected with the actions about which I have answered to the prosecutor on his previous questions. It was in the same city where differences between Streckenbach and Himmler occurred. It concerned the same actions. Q. You mean the actions under a Fuehrer Order, an order similar to the order which controlled you in Russia? A. Yes. During the direct examination I already answered the questions by the presiding judge, and today I answered your ques-tions, that the contents were not the same, but a directive which was only given once concerning certain definite single actions. Q. Tell us how orders that you operated under in 1941 in Russia differed from the order which controlled killing of Jews in Poland in 1939 ? A. In Poland individual actions had been ordered, while in Russia, during the entire time of the commitment, the killing of all Jews had been ordered. Special actions in Poland had been ordered, whose contents I do not know in detail. Q. You have told the Court that the army was perfectly aware of this decree, or this order to kill, and that it had the obligation also to execute the order within its ability? Is that right? A. Yes, but I do not know that in this order insane persons were mentioned ; but I would have considered the insane persons just like anybody else because they would have come under the order if they, owing to their condition, would have endangered security -but not only because they were insane-for that reason I rejected this request. Q. You don’t mean to say that the persons you killed had to endanger security in order to be killed, do you? A. In the sense of the Fuehrer Order, yes. Q. Well, let’s not say about the sense of the Fuehrer Order. Page 284
A. Even if you don’t want to discuss the Fuehrer Order it cannot be explained in any other way. There were two different categories; one, where those people who, through the Fuehrer Order, were considered to endanger the security were concerned and, therefore, had to be killed. The others, namely, the active Communists or other people were people whose endangering of security was established by us and they were only killed if they actually seemed to endanger the security. Q. Very well. I repeat my question. Apart from the Fuehrer Order, and not because the Fuehrer Order assumed that every man of Jewish blood endangered the security of the Wehrmacht, but from your own experience in Russia, from your own objective witnessing of the situation in Russia, did every Jew in Russia that you killed in fact endanger security, in your judgment? A. I cannot talk about this without mentioning the Fuehrer Order because this Fuehrer Order did not only try to fight tem-porary danger, but also danger which might arise in the future. Q. Well, let us get back to it immediately, and let us see if we can’t talk about it without the Fuehrer Order. I ask you the simple question * * *. From your own objective view of the situation in Russia, did the Jews whom you killed, and the gypsies, endanger the security of the German army in any way? A. I did not examine that in detail. I only know that many of the . Jews who were killed actually endangered the security by their conduct, because they were members of the partisan groups for example, or supported the partisans in some way, or sheltered agents, etc. Q. Let’s put the partisans or those who were aiding the partisans completely aside. A. I will assist you, Mr. Prosecutor. Of course, at a certain time there were persons of whom one could not have said at that moment that they were an immediate danger, but that does not change the fact that for us it meant a danger insofar as they were determined to be a danger, and none of us examined whether these persons at the moment, or in the future, would actually constitute danger, because this was outside our knowledge, and not part of our task. Q. Very well. You did not do it then because it was outside of your task. I want you to do it today for this Tribunal. Will you tell us then whether in your objective judgment, apart from the Fuehrer’s Decree, all of the Jews that you killed constituted any conceivable threat to the German Wehrmacht [armed forces]. A. For me, during my time in Russia there is no condition Page 285 which is not connected with the Fuehrer Order. Therefore, I cannot give you this answer which you would like to have. Q. You refuse to make the distinction, which any person can easily make-you need not answer that. Let me make it clear then, in the Crimea-no, I believe near Nikolaev, Himmler came to see you in the spring of 1942, did he not, or fall of 1941? A. Beginning of October 1941. Q. You had then been working in that area a considerable num-ber of Jewish farmers, is that right, and you had determined not to put them to death? A. Yes. Q. You made a determination then that those men did not then constitute any security threat whatever to the German armed forces? A. No; I did not make such a determination but, in the interest of the general situation, and of the army, I considered it more correct not to kill these Jews because the contrary would be achieved by this, namely, in the economic system of this country everything would be upset, which would have its effect on the operation of the Wehrmacht as well. Q. Then, I ask you the question again. Because these people were farmers, you concluded that it was wiser to get the grain they produced, than to put them to death? A. Also because of the danger that they might shelter parti-sans, yes ; I was conscious of this danger. Q. What danger, that they might shelter partisans in their houses ? A. That these Jews might have contact with the partisans. Q. So the only threat you saw to security was the possibility that the Jews would conceal partisans in their houses? A. No ; I only named this as an example. There might have been agents against us who could endanger us in every way. I only mentioned this as an example. Q. The same situation would exist in the case of the Krim-chaks, wouldn’t it, or what do you call them, Karaims. A. Karaims. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Heath, I must confess a confusion here. I understand the witness to say, or perhaps you said it, that the reason the Jewish farmers were not executed is that they were used to bring in the harvest. Then a discussion ensued as to the possible threat that these Jews could bring to the security because they could house partisans. There must be a contradiction there; in one instance, they were a threat and, therefore, were subject to executions. Were they saved, or were they not saved? If they were saved, why, and if they were killed, why? Page 286 MR. HEATH: As I understood the witness, your Honor, he said he was balancing the desirability of getting in the harvest as against a potential threat. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: I see. MR. HEATH : He exercised discretion. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: And came to the conclusion that there was more to be gained by not liquidating. MR. HEATH : Precisely, so I understand it. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: Is that correct? DEFENDANT OHLENDORF: I think it is even simpler. They were not farmers, they were craftsmen, who when there would be no longer work for them to do would endanger considerably the inter-ests of the Wehrmacht. I never considered this problem in discussion but now Himmler came to me and ordered that these Jews were to be treated according to the Fuehrer Order, without any further discussion, and without any further consideration of circumstances. MR. HEATH : What about the gypsies. I believe you have no idea whatever as to how many gypsies your Kommando killed; have you ? A. No. I don’t know. Q. On what basis did you kill gypsies, just because they were gypsies? Why were they a threat to the security of the Wehrmacht ? A. It is the same as for the Jews. . Q. Blood? A. I think I can add up from my own knowledge of European history that the Jews actually during wars regularly carried on espionage service on both sides. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: You were asked about gypsies. MR. HEATH : I was asking you about gypsies, as the Court points out, and not Jews. * * *. I would like to ask you now on what basis you determined that every gypsy found in Russia should be executed, because of the danger to the German Wehrmacht? A. There was no difference between gypsies and Jews. At the time the same order existed for the Jews. I added the explanation that it is known from European history that the Jews actually during all wars carried out espionage service on both sides. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: Well, now, what we are trying to do is to find out what you are going to say about the gypsies, but you still insist on going back to the Jews, and Mr. Heath is questioning about gypsies. Is it also in European history that gypsies always participated in political strategy and campaigns? DEFENDENT OHLENDORF : Espionage organizations during campaigns. Page 287 PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO : The gypsies did? A. The gypsies in particular. I want to draw your recollection to extensive descriptions of the Thirty Year War by Ricarda Huch and Schiller- Q. That is going back pretty far in order to justify the killing of gypsies in 1941, isn’t it? A. I added that as an explanation, as such motive might have played a part in this, to get at this decision. Q. Could you give us an illustration of any activity of a band of gypsies on behalf of Russia against Germany during this late war? A. Only the same claim that can be maintained as with regard to Jews, that they actually played a part in the partisan war. Q. You, yourself cannot give us any illustration of any gypsies being engaged in espionage or in any way sabotaging the German war effort? A. That is what I tried to say just now. I don’t know whether it came out correctly in the translation. For example, in the Yaila Mountains, such activity of gypsies has also been found. Q. Do you know that of your own personal knowledge? A. From my personal knowledge, of course, that is to say always from the reports which came up from the Yaila Mountains. Q. In an instance in which gypsies were included among those who were liquidated, could you find an objective reason for their liquidation ? A. From Russia I only knew of the gypsy problem from Sim-feropol. I do not know any other actions against gypsies, except from the one in Simferopol. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well. MR. HEATH: May I proceed, your Honor? PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes, please. MR. HEATH: Mr. Ohlendorf, you say the gypsies are notorious bearers of intelligence? Isn’t it a fact that the nationals of any invaded state are notorious bearers of intelligence. Didn’t the Americans bear intelligence, and the Germans bear intelligence, and the Russians bear intelligence for their countries when they were at war? A. But the difference is here that these populations, for example, the German population, or the American population have permanent homes, whereas gypsies being unsettled as people with-out permanent homes are more prepared to change their residence for a more favorable economic situation, which another place might promise them. I believe that a German, for example, is very unsuited for espionage. Page 288 Q. Mr. Ohlendorf, on the question of the order which you say you felt you had to honor and fulfill, the Fuehrer Order. It is a fact, is it not, that you could have failed in your duty as a soldier and escaped this without any penalty, in short, you could have played sick. A. I have already had this question addressed to me in the direct examination because I expected it. Q. Let’s see if you expect the next one-I suppose you do. At one juncture you were told by the Chief of Staff of the army above you, down there, in the south of Russia, that unless your collaboration with the army improved, he, Colonel Woehler-I forget his name-he would recommend your immediate dismissal in Berlin, so there was a way, was there not, where you could have avoided service merely by refusing to be agreeable with other military gentlemen. Is that right? A. This discussion with Woehler did not concern our debate but factual reproaches which were unfounded. And I did not do anything else than rectify untrue reproaches. Q. I am sorry, I didn’t understand that. Is it true that you were threatened with a recommendation for dismissal unless your collaboration with the army improved? A. No. It was the first word of the Chief of Staff, "If your cooperation with us does not improve, we will request that you be dismissed," and then a number of factual reproaches which were untrue, and I was merely given the chance by the Chief of Staff to reject these untrue charges. Nothing else was being discussed. I do not think that you expect that, in order to be relieved, I should have let myself and my men be wrongly accused. Q. No, no, I had no idea that you would do any such thing. I simply wanted to find out whether it was possible for you to win a dismissal from this job or task that you had by disagreeing with the military and you have said that it was. PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO : Witness, I understand that there was a conference at Pretzsch when you first learned of this mission. How many of the defendants were present at that conference ? DEFENDENT OHLENDORF: I cannot say that for certain. Q. At the conference in-I am sure I will mispronounce this word-Nikolaev-how many of the defendants were present if you recall ? A. Merely Seibert was present then. Q. Who? A. Only the defendant Seibert was present. MR. WALTON: General, did you ever have the feeling that the Page 289 Fuehrer Order, about which so much has been said here, was an illegal order ? DEFENDENT OHLENDORF : No. Q. Have you ever heard, during your career, of the recognized laws and customs of war? A. Of course. Q. Have you ever heard of the Geneva Convention? A. Of course. Q. And have you ever heard of the Hague Convention? A. Naturally. Q. From your study of law, and your high rank in an organization subject to military law, did you not know that the killing of civilians in occupied areas, without any trial, is considered by both international law and the laws and customs of war to be plain murder, and nothing else? A. Yes. Q. Who was it, in one of your Kommandos, who had the power and the authority to decide whether a person was a Jew, or gypsy, or a Communist, and to order his execution? A. That was up to the Kommandos. Q. By that am I to presume that it was the Kommando leader, the commanding officer of that unit ? A. He was responsible for what happened in his field. Q. Was there any one else in a Kommando, the second in command, or the leading noncommissioned officer-could he decide whether a man was a Jew or a gypsy and order his execution? A. Before answering this question concretely I wish to point out that in considering the question of discretion as to how to carry out the order-the entire situation should be considered. For example, concerning the Jews, it was usual that the Kommandos called the Jewish elders to determine who was Jewish and who was not. The possibility to go beyond this decision was not given to the Kommandos. Therefore, they had to accept the statements of the Jews themselves as a basis of their orders. The Kommando chief could not go beyond this and carry out the executions independently but he had to rely on his officers who were, for instance, chiefs of Teilkommandos for these assign-ments. As the Tribunal knows, this question had already been decided before the war by order of the Fuehrer, through Keitel, insofar as individual officers had the opportunity to arrive at a decision whether or not a person was suspicious, and whether he might endanger the security. In my direct examination I have already explained that this statement went too far, in my opinion, and therefore, I gave the order that the suspicion must be confirmed. But to ask for more, for example, concerning the Jews, Page 290 than, to believe the statements of the Jewish elders could not have been expected of the Kommandos because there was no possibility of doing more. Doing more would have meant questioning the task. |
Faculty of Economics and Social Science Home Page