objectively or subjectively. His Kommando did not exterminate but it carried out orders which, as they had been given, were given from a point of view of safeguarding the territory. He was not entitled to examine or even to decide upon what was a military necessity and what not. That was solely the task of the highest military authority. more than 2000 kilometers resulted from the situation reports and that these reports were sent to 60 different agencies, as is proven by the distributor, and situation reports were sent out in 100 copies to Reich Ministries, as for instance to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, v. RIBBENTROP, proves, that it wasout of the question for the defendant to doubt that this was anything but a Fuehrer order. Wehrmacht, as the executor of executive power and of the responsibility in the execution of the measures, participated to a very essential extent or that the Einsatzgruppen received any possible assistance in the execution of their tasks. Thus he soon received orders directly from the Army to take and execute measures in the sense of the Fuehrer orders, be it the assignment for the combing of Simferopol, in which it was expressly stated that they were to be on the lookout fur Jews, or the order given by the 11th Army, which in December 1941 ordered the execution of the measures against the Jews in Simferopol to be finished before Christmas. the fight was going on in the East may not be forgotten, and that one had to deal here with an opponent, who originally disregarded any International Law and fought a total war, in which He thought every means admissible. systematic way of the partisan warfare, which had already been well prepared by the Russians before the outbreak of hostilities and which was considered an especially effective means to decrease the strength of the enemy.
The manner of fighting in the Eastern campaign, for which the assignment of partisans behind the lines of the German Army had been considered as a well calculated means of fighting and which had been cultivated accordingly in an over increasing measure, has shown how far in modern total warfare the methods of fighting have come away from the ideologies of the Hague REgulations for Land Warfare, and how fluctuating had become the whole complex of the problems of "military necessity". That is also borne out by the manner in which the modern air warfare was conducted and the development of the atom bomb as the latest means of combat until its first employment in Japan. himself in the assignment in the East and make clear the situation concerning orders given him. The Prosecution has also acknowledged this situation concerning orders without any reservations, when they talk on pages 11/12 of the Opening Statement of an information given the commanders of the Wehrmacht by HITLER on the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen, and when they refer to HITLER's decree as shown in the verdict of the IMT, and mentions that detailed instructions were put into effect.
The defendant's conduct: The defendant BRAUNE saw to it that orders, issued long before this assumption of office, were carried out correctly and he took special care that no excesses or cruelties occurred. the defendant's examination in his own case, in no way conforms to the picture of my client which the Prosecution hasgiven in itsopening speech. The Defendant BRAUNE was not the man to take upon himself the right to decide the fate of men and to deal out death in a cold-blooded manner. To the contrary, he considered this, his task, his duty as a tremendous burden, carrying it out merely in realization of his war-time duty as a subject and soldier to abide by the orders and laws of the head of the State and his Supreme Military Commander true to his oath as Civil Servant and soldier.
consciousness of carrying out a Fuehrer order, thereby engaging in a legal activity. In harmony with his personality and position he could under no circumstances oppose this order. Much loss did it occur to bin that ho might possibly refuse to carry out the order, as he was aware of the consequences which such a refusal in the operational theater would mean to him. It would have meant his certain death. been expected. The judgment of the I.M.T. defines it as a question whether there actually existed a choice in accordance with ethical laws.
Court No. II answered this question in its judgment of Erhard MILCH (page 96 of the opinion) to the effect that it. did not intend to suggest to MILCH and had never' done so that he (MILCH) should have chosen any way cut which might have cost him his life. Life is a legal right the maintenance of which must above all be granted to man, but open resistance to HITLER's order would have brought it to a sudden end. The defendant BRAUNE was no more than a small cog in a largo machine and he would nave been removed by the force of authority and power and HITLER'S order would still have been carried out. ho wasappointed and he could not sabotage the orders for he was always under the control of his superiors and his subordinates who independently of him had for some time already acted on orders given them.
I shall describe BRAUNE's conduct when not under orders from his supreme commander. on that point.
He left the SD in April 1939 when transferred to Coblence. After the outbreak of war he did not belong to Amt III, Amt VI or Amt VII of the RSHA. does not provide the basis for a sentence, for BRAUNE was made to join the Gestapo by deception and coercion, he did net join by his own free will and it is this free will which is a condition for a sentence.
totally different light from that in which the Prosecution has tried to present him. The only possible answer to the Prosecution can be a verdict of "Not Guilty".
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you understand, Dr. Stuebinger, that there is no intention to slight you by nut calling you this afternoon. The confusion arose through the fact that you had appeared at the podium this morning, and apparently you were checked off, so now we certainly do have your opening statement, and now we will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 8 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal,
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants Rasch, Strauch, Blobel, and Blume are excused from attendance today in accordance with previous arrangements. Dr. Aschenauer, are you now ready to proceed with the defendant Ohlendorf?
DR. ASCHENAUER : I call the defendant Ohlendorf as a witness in his own case. as follows:
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SPEIGHT): Raise your right hand and repeat after me: speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SPEIGHT): You may be seated, BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q What is your name?
Q When and where were you born? District of Hannover.
Q What was the profession of your father?
Q Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Q What is the profession of your brothers and sisters?
A My oldest brother is a biologist; my second brother is a farmer; my sister has a business.
Q What was the political opinion in your parents' house? was a trustee of the German People's Party.
Q What was the religious attitude in your parents' homo?
Q Where did you spend your childhood and adolescence? and worked on the farm in my leisure hours. father's farm. Does that have any special significance in your development? of handling a farm and got to know the human conditions in a farm district, that is, the cooperation and living together of farmers, industrial workers, and peasants, merchants, tradesmen, and people of other trades. The rest of the time my professional development proceeded along with my political development, these conditions of administration, culture, religion, and education, as I got to know them in that village, always remained with me, and they became the leading motives for my own philosophy.
Q What kind of education did you have? I graduated from the Gymnasium.
Q Where and what did you study?
,8 October-M-IL-1-3-Caming (Int. Lea) were law and national economy, Later, after my graduation, I spent one year in Italy studying the fascist system and the fascist philosophy of international law.
Q Are you married?
Q Since when?
Q Do you have any children? ago.
Q When did you become a member of the Nazi Party?
Q How did you come to enter the Nazi Party? days on. When I was 16 years old, I was director of a youth group of the German National Party; but I was not sufficiently bourgois and involved in the class system not to turn my back very quickly from this People's Party. The interests of that party in the special political methods did not appeal to mo. However, on the other hand, I was too much involved with the religious and cultural philosophy of the traditional bourgeoisie to become a Marxist. But at that time I recognized that the social need was a truly national problem, a problem, that is to say, for the whole people, and I recognized that the national need was also a truly social problem. These two points of view seemed to have been expressed best in National Socialism in my opinion. In addition, I was attracted very much by the fact that active people count as valuable in building up a national state, symbolically expressed in the concept of the Worker's Party. Likewise the idea of national thought was attractive to me as well, that is, the doctrine that peoples are independent concepts which by themselves and in themselves have to solve their own problems.
Q What activity did you engage in in the Nazi Party? done in the relatively small organization at that time. I was director of a district group. I sold papers, I posted posters. I participated in discussions and spoke in gatherings. I went from house to house and from man to man.
Q Were you at that time a member of the SS too? that at that time those particular functions were not seperated as yet. There were no sub-organizations of the Party. Thus, the question of participating in the functions of the SS was not a question of becoming a member. Rather, together with four other members of the Party, I was detailed for service in the new SS functions, but since I left my home town shortly afterwards, I did not get to perform that service. I was merely crossed off the list and therefore never found out under what number I was registered.
Q. What was your activity in the Party after 1926?
A. In 1926 there were the first differences between myself and my superiors in the Party. I did not agree with my superiors' political and other philosophies. Therefore, from 1926 to 1933 I did not work within the official party. On the other hand, on my own, especially in the years 1929 to 1931 as a student in Goettingen, I was very actively engaged in spreading National Socialism by arranging for gatherings by myself, by arranging discussions, and especially conducted training courses. These courses were probably the first which were systematically started by the Party.
Q. Why do you emphasize these training courses especially?
A. Because in these courses my entire activity, even in later years, mirrors my activity later on. I was of the opinion that our time was spiritually a time of consciousness; that is to say, human beings did not want just to take what was given to them but they wanted to decide what they wanted by themselves and on their own free will. Therefore, I considered it correct, if one wanted to succeed in establishing an idea or a movement, to win over people consciously for this idea or for that movement. Thus, I started training courses in which I tried to discuss the political, social, and spiritual factors of the time in order to educate people to have their own opinions about these matters. Even though this was not recognized in this field in which I did this work, it was, nevertheless, successful, and the Party went through no crises in this field.
Q. Weren't there at that time already definite directives, and didn't you have to operate according to these directives?
A. Yes. The year 1930 was a very decisive year for the Party insofar as one considered the years 1925 to 1930 as the years of building an ideological basis for the Party. In 1930, on the other hand, the Party leadership decided to assume power in the country by means of a parliamentary mass party. According to this mission, the tactics and the strategy of the Party were laid down. Instead of the ideological basis, the mass propaganda was evolved.
In the leadership of the various agencies, regarding both the men who considered this propaganda as correct and who could carry it out, the ideological basis was simplified. An attempt was made to make the utterances of the Party systematic. But at the same time an opportunity to continue the ideological foundations was missed. At that time lists of speakers were made up and these speakers instructed about the subjects of their speeches and the way of handling them. I did not do any work in making out these lists, nor was I ever an official speaker of the Party. I rather objected to such a systematic laying down of principles; and thus it is understandable that until 1933 I was not active within the official framework of the Party any more.
Q. Until what time is your activity valid in the Party?
A. Until the spring of 1931. In the summer of 1931 I took my state examinations. After that I went to Italy for one year.
Q. Why did you go to Italy?
A. I went to Italy because, as a National Socialist who was conscious of the fact that his own opinion was not yet fit to develop a program for the people, I wanted to study the development of an apparently parallel, movement in order to see what that party which had already been in power for ten years was doing for its nation.
Q. What significance did your stay in Italy have for your further development?
A. I became an absolute anti-fascist in Italy and returned from Italy with the will to fight this fascism wherever and in whatever form I encountered it and to do everything to keep this development away from National Socialism and to find a basis for it which by its quality would not only put it in a position to avoid fascism but even to overcome it.
Q. Where did you see the dangers of fascism?
A. With the secularization of the religious values of Christianity and with the neglect of observing the Catholic laws. It went hand in hand with this dissolution of the communio fidelium, the community of the faithful.
The cessation of this community went hand in hand With the material values of society; that is to say, the ideas of enlightenment and of individualism made man independent and forced him to rely on himself. He no longer belonged to a natural community hut as a sum total represented his own interests. The cessation of this metaphysical relation between the individual people brought up questions of order which have not been solved up to this very day. At the same time it endangered the security of the larger states; and this problem has not yet been solved. As a gain of this time which has been achieved for humanity, they have acquired the consciousness of their own willpower and have established themselves as moral human beings. Fascism put itself beyond this gain of centuries. It merely recognized that there were no more natural communities. It opposed the traditional values of Rome to the dissolving tendencies of society, in the Roman Empire in the divine state and in the Roman Empire as an expression of a religious entity and its laws.
Of the first, the traditional value which founded the basis for the State as a final earthly value of the devine will. From the second, it developed humanism in order to add its one picture of individual application to the obligation of the State. A study of Fascist Doctrine, and of the Fascist legislation, especially of the constitution, showed clearly that this is an absolute State, whose efforts on a moral basis were camouflaged. The State was an entity in itself, and the only value to men, society and the people were only to arise as a value from this absolute value of the State. This State alone gave them the moral foundation and the social obligation.
Q As a National Socialist weren't you yourself in adherence of an absolute State - the total State, or of the Fuehrer State, as it said in the Nazi ideology? the Fascist State. National Socialism as such vent out from the recognition that the nature of the natural communities was dissolved by individualism, which also had recognized the idealization of the individual and the insecurity of the individual as regards his place in life. But contrary to Fascism, National Socialism made an attempt to consider human beings as realities, and as having their own value. It saw him as a member of a people. It found a new natural community, namely, the relationship of the citizen to the whole makeup of people in which this man was born as a member. Man was not merely an incidental citizen of it but a link within the people. Thus, man and the people had the primary value, and the State was merely an auxiliary means of caring for and developing these people and its culture.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you just a moment, please. Was this ideology expressed in the publications of the National Socialist Party, or is this your own individual interpretation, and your own individual philosophy?
this opinion unequivocally. This is the culture speech of 1935, and the speech on the front to the generals of the Eastern Front in the Spring of 1943 where Hitler expects considerable consequences as a result of this opinion, even for the German people insofar as he determined that it belonged to the makeup of the German people, that it is composed of various tribes of various races, and that it, therefore, is the mission of leadership of that State to care for and keep up the various qualities of these different tribes. He assigns the task to the State of uniting these various different characteristics of the different tribes in the German people, and he takes this as his basic conception. The regrettable feature is that these very two speeches by the possibility which was opened to Goebbels were withheld from the public; the culture speech of 1935 did not appear in the newspapers, but the speech of Goebbels appeared from the very beginning to the end. Furthermore, Your Honor, I believe it is hardly in optional Socialist literature which gives any systematic opinion in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand you to say that these two speeches were withheld from publication against the wishes of Hitler? much as it was the official speech before the Reichstag (Reich Party Assembly), but Goebbels, as the Propaganda Minister had the possibility of preventing a further dissemination, since he gave orders direct to the press as to which speech of the Party Assembly was to be published, and which was not. I don't know anything about whether Hitler opposed the dissemination of these speeches.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that Goebbels would have a superior authority to Hitler in the matter of propaganda, if Hitler was interested? one not living through these things. We had a State in which the commanding power of the Fuehrer could not be doubted, but even he had to give way occasionally to the hierarchy below him, Ley, Goebbels and Goering in particular, and, in fact, he had to give them a free hand in their own field as there were no cabinet sessions, there were no regular Fuehrer discussions, and, whatever was brought to him by and for his decision was incidental.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to say that Goebbels opposed the theories advanced by Hitler in these two speeches, and for that reason withhold public dissemination of them? BY DR. ASCHENAUER: doctrines? of the people, which National Socialists embraced, their idea of an authoritarian State, Fuehrer, had to be rejected, and was actually rejected. If this theory of absolute State was propaganda, of the National Socialist Party anyway, this on the one hand goes into the question which the presiding judge just asked; insofar as a man like Ley had an absolute interest to bring out that ultimate power of the Fuehrer and the State in order to be able to have his own absolute power in the State; and, on the other hand it brings with it the tragic moments of National Socialism, namely, because National Socialism up to 1933 had not developed its formuli sufficiently. After 1933 men flocked to it and were fully prepared for any devotion and to make everything available for a program of which they knew that those Fuehrers, who were right with them, were enthusiastic about it. Literature about the total State -- about the Fuehrer State is altogether written by such people, and not one National Socialist will be found among them. These are the same people whom today confess - I mean attempt to say justly that they were never National Socialists.
That is why I from the beginning opposed this type of literature, in student unions I treated the spiritual foundation of such literature, and, I would just like to name one person, the Jurist of Third Reich, Karl Schmidt, This Karl Schmidt as a basis for his political views had the doctrine of Friend and Foe. Nothing could contradict the views of National Socialism more than this doctrine for in a people all members are part of the people; even if they are opponents of a certain point of view, they, therefore, are not enemies who have to be exterminated but they are fellow countrymen who have to be won over. But this doctrine together with the National Bolshevist literature in the field of economics has built up the Total State as a basis of this idea. member of the people. Furthermore, one would have to discuss the difference between the Western Democracy and a Germanic State? philosophies conflicted here without having understood each other. In National Socialism, as an idea, the idea of absolute obedience was seen in this opposition. But the differences between Democracy and National Socialism lie somewhere else.
aim is the equality of its citizens, and the guarantee of their upmost liberty, but it leaves the human side of life, the culture, the economics, the education to the individual himself, that is to say, it makes a difference between the citizens and human beings. This philosophy is opposed to the Germanic tradition. For this tradition the State is a representative of the whole people; for the leadership organization to care for and develop the people and its members. To this extent the Germanic man wants and expects from his representative, namely, the State, the development of the entire human being, and on his part he is prepared to devote himself entirely to this representative. The strongest expression of this was the Germanic Community, which existed without constitution, without limitation of rights and duties, consisted of a community of volunteers who devoted themselves unconditionally to its community, but who expected that the officials of this community would fulfill their living conditions. It Is clear that such a philosophy bears within itself tremendous dangers. If this serving element of the State is not sufficiently regarded, and if the State becomes an entity in itself, and a value to itself, and this danger National Socialism did not evade, this danger for the reason which I mentioned above, a number of Fuehrers and theories developed just the opposite but the strange thing is, that theoretically speaking an absolute Fuehrerism existed, but in particular during the war, especially, a pluralistic anarchy developed. That is to say, below this Fuehrer there were independent power -politics, disobedience and treachery, the Fuehrer State was neither thought out all the way nor, even less, was it formulated all the way through. The Fuehrer did not only deny the State as a purpose in itself, but has destroyed it in an exaggerated form, so that it was no longer available to him as an instrument; in place of the State, the multiple wantonness of the various fuehrers took its place.
Q What wasyour activity in the Party after 1933? District Court in Hildesheim, and as such I lived in my own town once more, I lead my own district group in my own town only temporarily. I directed the legal matters in the District Court at Hildesheim, and, furthermore, within my official duties I conducted training courses. In the clear consciousness of the coning in of a let of non-National Socialists into the Party could no longer be prevented, which made a discussion of the Fascist and Nazi Doctrines in opposite views necessary, and during this tine this theme was the content of my speeches, and despite the efforts, I could not prevent this joining of many non-National Socialists to the Party. This activity lasted until October 1933.
Q Then did you join the Institute for World Economics in Kiel?
Q How did that come about? economics, but since I knew on how little National Socialism was actually based, I accepted an offer from professor Jessen to be able to combine politics and economics, and, he offered no a position at the Institute for World Economics in Kiel, where I became his personal assistant, and at the same time he offered mo the opportunity of building a department, or to setup a department for National Socialism and Fascism. Thus it was our common goal to examine Fascism scientifically, and at the same time to explain National Socialism. Personally, it was my intention to study philosophy and theoretical National Sociology and Economies.
Q How long were you active as a scientific assistant? without him I remained at Kiel until the Fall of 1934.
Q How was it that your activity terminated so shortly?
AAbout new year of 1933 and '34 Professor Jessen and I had objected very strenuously against National Bolshevistic tendencies of the Party at Kiel, especially, because this National Bolshevist circles had built up an organization in almost all Reich Ministries.
As the result of this fight on our part I was in February 1934 arrested at the request of the Party with several other students. Professor Jessen evaded this arrest because he was sich. He had to leave Kiel since his opponent and my opponent, especially in the Ministry of Culture actually held the power. After Professor Jessen left, the Ministry of Culture demanded in the Fall of 1934 that I be dismissed from Kiel, because I was a factor of political unrest there.
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
Q. What did this event mean for your scientific plans, for your scholastic plant?
A. Since the departments of the Culture Ministry were against me, my scholastic career was at an end.
Q. What activity did you decide to engage in now?
A. Jessen and I took up the fight against these people with other groups in the Party and formulated the plan to build the commercial high school in Berlin into an economics institute in order to fight these national Bolshevist forces which were especially active in economics, in order to oppose them with real representatives of National Socialism. Jessen was to be provost of this school, and I was to aid him in building up the school. For this purpose I went to Berlin in December, 1934, but these plant fell through also because of the Party, in this case on the part of Rosenberg. In the paper, the Voelkisch Beobachter, an article appeared against Jessen which called a book by Jessen anti-national. Rosenberg objected to Jessen. The Culture Minister, Rust, did not dare to make him director of the school. Thus my scholastic plans were definitely at an end, but simultaneously my political activity was also at an end, insofar as the director of the Reich School of National Socialist Economics, Dr. Wagner, warned me at the request of an organization in Munich and warned me about attacking National Socialist politics in my speeches, such speeches which were epecially directed against the policies of the Reich Food Office would no longer be tolerated.
Q. How long did you remain in the Institute for Applied Economic Sciences?
A. Now I was without any professional goal, directed a library in the Institute for Applied Economic Sciences and furthermore held meetings with students. I had already described them briefly, but those forcer also destroyed my student meetings so that I was definitely at an end in Berlin.
Q. Are you speaking of the time '35, '36?
A. Yes.
Q. In May, 1936, you entered into the service of the SD. How did that come about?
A. This same Professor Jessen who had called me to Kiel and Berlin now offered me a post in the SD, namely specialist on economics, a position which had been offered to him too. Until that time I was not familiar with the SD. Jessen arranged a meeting with the leader of the SD, at that time Professor Hoehn, and in this discussion I told him what my political opinions were, and to my surprise he answered that these very political critical opinions were just the very ideas on National Socialism were needed in the SD. Since there would be no more public criticism, this would be an organization which would have as its mission to inform the leading organizations of the state about National Socialist developments, and especially as regards wrong developments, wrong tendencies, etc.
Q. What was the concrete mission which SD was assigned?
A. I was told to build up an economic news service, to create an organization which would be in a position in the field of economics to give all the information which would tell about mistendencies and mistaken developments in the National Socialist philosophy. This was the motive which then induced me to enter the SD and thus into the SS in 1936.
Q. Now, before going into any more important questions concerning the charges of the Prosecution, I would like to finish the story of your professional career.