. NMT04-T0556
Volume IV · Page 556
| machinery and crops. The defendant's
explanation is in flat contradiction to the report which specifically states
that the 94 Jews were killed as a countermeasure. The phase "countermeasure"
carries no implication of guilt on the part of the victims and killing such
victims can only be a crime. The defendant said he did not learn of the execution until after it had taken place, but admits that it was done by members of his Kommando. He admitted further the possibility that the Fuehrer Order figured in the decision of the sub-Kommando leader to perform the execution. He asserts that his sub-Kommando leader conducted investigations before shooting the Jews, but he made no independent inquiries to determine whether the executions were warranted. Taking him at his word, his acceptance without inquiry of the killing of 94 persons was a demonstration of criminal and wanton indifference which might well have induced his men to further illegal and unjustified executions. The defendant spoke of a period when he was absent from the Kommando, but admitted that there were shootings under his authority even though he did not know the number. |
"Then comes the period of time from the end of August until October where the command of the Kommando was taken over by somebody else, and I am not at all certain about the figure of those shot, and I am not sure how many were shot on my responsibility during that time." |
| The defendant explained that in January and February 1942 the severe weather prevented any activities on the part of his Kommando. It is a fact that Report No. 178 said — |
"Kommando 12 had to limit its activities to the villages and closer vicinity of the branched-off sub-Kommando posts, because of extreme cold and snowstorms and impassable streets." |
| But it also said — |
"From 16 to 28 February 1942, 1,515 persons were shot, 729 of these were Jews, 271 Communists, 74 partisans, 421 gypsies, as asocials and saboteurs." |
| While all these killings are not to be charged to Sonderkommando 12, it does refute the statement that Sonderkommando 12 was entirely immobilized during the period in question. Nor was it immobilized, according to Report No. 165, which, covering events in January 1942, said — |
"Besides, 2 further Teilkommandos were established with the assistance of men of the Einsatzkommando 12 for the purpose of combing out the northern Crimea." |
| Then there was the episode of the Romanian Jews. The prosecution contended that the defendant was involved in a forced |
