. NMT04-T0371
Volume IV · Page 371
| the defendants did not know of both the order
and of the executions is so ridiculous that we have already dignified it
overmuch. But there are, however, four points made by the defendants at various times during the trial which deserve some comment. Some of the defendants have sought refuge in the contention that they as individuals did not take an active or direct part in the actual executions, but were primarily concerned with administrative matters or other phases of the operations of the Einsatzgruppen. Other defendants claim that the units under their command did not carry out the order for the killing of Jews and gypsies and government officials, and other undesirables. With respect to reports showing that their units did in fact execute large numbers of people, the excuse is given that the victims were either proven criminals or were all executed by way of reprisal in the course of the anti-partisan warfare being waged behind the front in Russia. And the third point — made by numerous defendants — is that they acted under the compulsion of "superior orders". We will, shortly, make a few observations on what effect, if any, a few of the defendants — most notably the defendant Ohlendorf — have advanced as a defense the very motives which led them to commit these murders; they have bluntly taken the position that under the circumstances which confronted them, the killing of all Jews — even Jewish children — was a necessary and proper part of warfare. This sinister doctrine we will deal with in conclusion. Now while these few matters deserve answers, the answers are readily available, conclusive, and susceptible of very brief statement. We do not propose now to examine the evidence, or the application of these arguments, with respect to each of the individual defendants; that has been done in the written briefs which we have filed or are filing with the Tribunal; we have no desire to protract the trial on this, its last day, by laboring the obvious or burdening the transcript with a detailed refutation of flimsy and desperate contentions. I will deal first with the question of participation. What we may call the defense of "lack of direct participation" has been made by two distinct groups of defendants. Some of them — for example, Jost, Naumann, and Blobel — were the commanders or deputy commanders of the Einsatzgruppen or their subordinate units the Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, with slightly greater plausibility. Thus the argument has also been put forth by the lower ranking defendants — such as Ruehl, Schubert, and Graf — who were officers and staff members, but not in command of these units. Now with respect to this contention that the defendants did |
