. NMT04-T0382
Volume IV · Page 382
| And so now this very circumstance is put
forth as justification for slaughtering them to the last man, woman, and child.
We could ask for no more exact a parallel to the burglar who shoots the
house-owner in self-defense. On this whole question we wish to make one final observation. The Einsatz massacres of Jews have been defended here as if it were sincerely believed that the killing of Jews was a military necessity in order to achieve military victory over the Russian Army. But in point of fact this argument is not sincerely made. Whatever anyone may think about atom bombs or ordinary bombs, they have not been dropping here in Germany since the capitulation. But will any defendant dare to suggest to us that the execution of the Jews in Russia would have stopped if Russian military resistance had collapsed? On the contrary, the evidence is compelling that a German victory would have enormously widened the scope of operations of the Einsatzgruppen and the holocaust would have been even more staggering. Ohlendorf's own testimony makes this clear beyond a doubt. When questioned as to the necessity for the killing of Jewish children by the Einsatzgruppen he replied — |
"I believe that it is very simple to explain if one starts from the fact that this order did not only try to achieve security but also permanent security because the children would grow up and surely, being the children of parents who had been killed, they would constitute a danger no smaller than that of the parents." (Tr. p. 662.) |
| In short, the crimes of the Einsatzgruppen were not, fundamentally, military crimes at all. They were not committed in order to make military victory possible. On the contrary, military victory was sought in order to put the victors in a position where these crimes could be committed. These crimes were a war objective, not a military means. |
| Conclusion |
| Now, may it please the Tribunal, I have made these observations not only because they deal with questions which are fundamental to the integrity of this proceeding, but also because they are fundamental to the very existence of the laws of war and international penal law. Not only is this Tribunal dedicated to the enforcement of international law; it owes its very existence to international law and agreements. Though constituted by the United States, its jurisdiction is established and defined by international agreements and declarations. One of the things for which we fought was to put an end to international anarchy, and |
