. NMT04-T0222
Volume IV · Page 222
| police. The SD were represented by Amt III, the head office for SD activities inside Germany, by Amt VI, the head office for SD activities outside of Germany and by Amt VII, the office for ideological research. Shortly after the creation of the RSHA, in November 1939, the security police was ‘coordinated’ with the SS by taking all officials of the Gestapo and criminal police into the SS at ranks equivalent to their positions." |
| * * * * * * * * * * * |
| B. Selections from Evidence
and Argument of the Defense |
| I. INTRODUCTION |
| This section contains defense materials
which are mainly of a general nature. They have been arranged under two
headings — Extracts from the testimony of the defendants Ohlendorf,
Haensch, and Braune (pp. 223 to 328) — General defenses and special issues
(pp. — to — ). Ohlendorf's testimony represents the general view of the defendants who admitted knowledge and execution of the Hitler order. Haensch's testimony exemplifies the line of those who denied execution or even knowledge of the order. Braune's testimony illustrates the position of a number of defendants to the effect that many of the executions were carried out on direct orders of the army of occupation. Superior orders. All defendants argued that they acted under superior orders and had no means of opposing or refusing to execute them. An extract from the closing statement on behalf of the defendant Naumann, dealing with this defense, appears in pp. 329 to 339. Justification of the Hitler order. Several defendants further declared that they considered the order itself justified. The theory was that the Jews were bearers of bolshevism and enemies of National Socialism, and that it was, therefore, necessary to exterminate the Jews in Russia. An expert opinion by Dr. Reinhard Maurach, Professor of Criminal Law at Munich University, dealing primarily with these points, was submitted by the defense. Extracts from it are reprinted pp. 339 to 355. Justification because of killing of noncombatants by Allied bombing. It was further argued that in World War II, the Allies killed large numbers of the noncombatant German population by bombing, and that, therefore, the defendants could hardly be criminally charged with the killings, pursuant to superior orders, of noncombatants. An extract from the testimony of the defendant |
* Ibid., p. 263.
