A I didn't quite understand your question?
Q I shall repeat it. "During my time in Russia. I sent a great number of reports in which I reported about the fine cooperation of the Russian population," do you remember that? said that you did not have the same fine cooperation in the Crimea, because there were so many Jews down there?
A No, I did not say that, but on the contrary. I even said that owing to the fact that I was able to remain very long in the Crimea and looked after the population there in a political respect very carefully the cooperation of the population in the Crimea and the Einsatzkommande became even closer than it was in the other areas.
Court No. IIA, Case No. IX.
Q Mr. Ohlendorf, what happened to the Jewish children, the gypsy children? parents.
Q Did you kill them just like their parents?
Q I don't understand your answer. Did your reports show the killing of children or did they show that children had been spared? to the security of the Wehrmacht a child constituted in your judgment? I did not have to determine the danger but the order contained that all Jews including the children ware considered to constitute a danger for the security of this area. for killing children except genocide and the killing of races? from the fact that this order did not only try to achieve a security but also a permanent security because for that reason the children were people who 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. tion of whole races in order to remove a real or fancied threat to the German people.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I did not see the execution of children myself although I attended three mass executions.
Q Are you saying they didn't kill children now?
A I did not say that. May I finish? I attended three mass executions and did not see any children and no command ever searched for children, but I have seen very many children killed in this war Court No. IIA, Case No. IX.
through air attacks, for the security of other nations, and orders were carried out to bomb, no matter whether many children ware killed or not,
Q Now, I think we are getting somewhere, Mr. Ohlendorf. You saw German children killed by Allied bombers and that is what you are referring to? bomber who drops bombs hoping that it will not kill children and yourself who shot children deliberately? Is that a fair moral comparison? covered a city that was a fortified city, square meter for square meter, with incendiaries and explosive bombs and again with phospherous bombs, and this done from block to block, and then as I have seen it in Dresden likewise the squares where the civilian population had fled to--that these men could possibly hope not to kill no civilian population and no children. And when you then read the announcements of the Allied leaders to this--and we are quite willing to submit them as document--you will read that these killings were accepted quite knowingly because one believed that only through this terror, as it was described, the people could be demoralized and under such blows the military power of the Germans would then also break down.
Q Very well, let's concede -- I think there is truth in what you say, though I never saw it. Does it occur to you that when the German Wehrmacht drove into Poland without provocation and when you drove into Norway and when you drove into the Low Countries and when you crushed France and when you destroyed Belgrade, Jugoslavia, Greece, when you put Roumania, Bulgaria under your heel, and then attempted to destroy the Russian State, does it occur to you that people resisting your tyranny stand on a higher moral level when they resort to the same horrible cruelties which you initiated in order to destroy your tyranny. Answer that, please.
Court No. IIA, Case No. IX.
which you referred to, in a different way than you do.
Q And that is also my opinion; on that we have a difference. events of the last weeks in particular even if the price of peace calls for force because there is a danger which, if it is not broken by force, will cause a battle of bloodshed, that we then as the ones who were closer to Bolshevism than you in the States, much sooner came to realize than you; and with this view I agree principally with your statesman in America at the moment, and I believe that among these statesmen hardly anyone does not hold the view that Roosevelt made a mistake when in 1942 he presumed that we were not in an emergency state concerning Russia, not in a German only, but also in an European state of emergency.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. This is a very interesting debate and if the Tribunal didn't have a very serious and solemn responsibility in passing upon the issue of guilt or innocence in the charges very solemnly drawn in the indictment, the Tribunal would be glad to listen to this debate which could go on for a very long time but since the issue is a very narrow one, Mr. Heath, let us try to adhere to the problem which is before the Tribunal, namely, is this defendant guilty of having perpetrated illegal killings.
MR. HEATH: Thank you for the admonition.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean by that that occasionally it is illuminating to get into these side issues but I am afraid this last exchange went beyond all bounds of normal discussion on a question of murder. BY MR. HEATH: the slaughtered in Russia. I think you have not yet answered my question. What conceivable threat to the Wehrmacht was offered by the children of gypsies and Jews, let's say under five years of age?
Court No. IIA, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the witness has stated that the reason these children under five, under four, under three, down to conception I imagine, were a possible threat to Germany in the future years. That is his answer and he stands on it.
MR. HEATH: Your Honor, I have no further questions. I trust I have not imposed too much on the patience of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You have not imposed on us. We have enjoyed your discussion very much.
A (BY THE WITNESS) Your Honor, may I say one thing. That was not for me the, reason for the killings, but merely to clarify the question of the Prosecutor I tried to give a possible motive for the Fuehrer Order, but not an argumentation of the conditions us they were with the Einsatz Commander in the East, because the Fuehrer Order also included the children, and I merely tried to give an answer to the question of the prosecutor but not my own personal view. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What the Prosecutor put to you Mr. Witness is a very fair question, namely, you are an individual of intelligence, a person of reflection and you don't do things blindly and dumbly and when an order comes to you to kill down and shoot down in cold blood children that you had to give an explanation to your brain as to why it was necessary to do away with these tots. That is the question he put to you and your answer is you had the order of the Fuehrer because it constituted a threat to the future of Germany. time when I received the order.
MR. HEATH: Your Honor, I am in the unhappy plight of having to ask permission to ask one more question. We of the Prosecution objected to the same thing on the part of the gentlemen for the defense this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Prosecution on occasions forgets too.
Court No. IIA, Case No. IX.
MR. HEATH: I did forget, your Honor. BY MR. HEATH:
Q Mr. Ohlendorf, on the question of the order which you say you felt you had to honor and fulfill, the Fuehrer Order. It is a fact, is it not, that you could have failed in your duty as a soldier and escaped this without any penalty, in short, you could have played sick. direct examination because I expected it.
Q Let's see if you expect the next one - I suppose you do. At one juncture you were told by the Chief of Staff of the Army above you down there, in the South of Russia, that unless your collaboration with the Army improved, he, Colonel Woehler - I forget his name - he would recommend your immediate dismissal in Berlin, so there was a way, was there not, where you could have avoided service merely by refusing to be agreeable with other military gentlemen. Is that right?
debate but factual reproaches which were not true. And did not do anything else than rectify untrue reproaches.
Q I am sorry, I didn't understand that. Is it true that you were threatened with a recommendation for dismissal unless your collaboration with the Army improved?
A No, it was the first word of the Chief of staff, "If your cooperation with us does not improve we will request that you be dismissed," and then a number of factual reproaches which were untrue, and I merely had the possibility with regard to the Chief of Staff, to reject these untrue reproaches. Nothing else was being discussed. I do not think that you expect that, in order to be relieved, I should have allowed these reproaches which were not true, to be put on to me and my men. thing, I simply wanted to find out whether it was possible for you to win a dismissal from this job or task that you had by disagreeing with the military and you have it was. BY THE PRESIDENT: at pretsch when you first learned of this mission. How many of the defendants were present at that conference? this word - Nikolajev how many of the defendants were present if you recall?
Q Who?
leaders were there, only I cannot remember the individuals. stated that valuables and clothing were not taken from the victims? Valuables were taken away and a part of the clothing was also taken, I merely prohibited that they had to undress. outer clothing, were they not?
THE PRESIDENT: They are scolding me from the interpreters' section here.
Q (By the President): Witness, do you stand on all the testimony which you gave before the International Military Tribunal, you approve of what you said before the IMT?
A I only want to add two things. The record I have seen about my statement is very incorrect and there are several mistakes of context which not only change the matter but also contain expressions which don't make sense. For example for "conference" they put "food stores" or something. Inasfar as these mistakes are removed I stand up for my statement before the IMT. This does not concern the interrogations in your records, I know from experience that they are full of mistakes, and not one of the records was corrected by me afterwards or signed, but I talk now about my statement before the IMT. in Court and the interrogation?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I presume that Mr. Walton wants to continue with the cross-examination. I want to point out the ruling that only one member of the Prosecution is allowed to conduct the cross-examination. In the case against the generals, against the Southeast generals, the Prosecution tried the same thing, to have one general questioned in cross-examination by two prosecutors. The Tribunal ruled that it is not permitted, according to the ruling which applies before this Court, and only one prosecutor has the right to conduct cross-examination. For that reason I object to the coming cross-examination by Mr. Walton.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you point to any actual ruling of this Tribunal which prohibits the Prosecution from questioning the defendant on all phases even if two attorneys are required to do that or more?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, it is a decision by the Tribunal here in Nuernberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Which Tribunal?
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is the Tribunal which is in session against General List and Field Marshal von Weichs the Southeast generals.
THE PRESIDENT: Are List and von Weichs in this box?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, but I presume that here the same ruling applies, and I also remember a written ruling where it says, "This ruling applies to all military Tribunals in Nuernberg."
THE PRESIDENT: Who said that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: That only one prosecutor is entitled to do the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Who said that it applied to all tribunal
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is my opinion it is a fixed jurisdictional ruling and that one Tribunal admits a decision and the other permits the reverse. The usual thing is that one ruling applies always and that one ruling of the various military tribunals also applies for this tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer you very well know that cases differ from Court to Court There undoubtedly was a good reason for the ruling in that particular case, just as there is a good reason for the ruling in this case, and the ruling in this case is that your objection is overruled.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Then I can't add anything.
THE PRESIDENT: I will say naturally, Mr. Walton, that you will not go over the same field covered by Mr. Heath.
MR. WALTON: It is not the intention of the Prosecutor at this time to encroach on the field covered by Mr. Heath. However, they do overlap.
THE PRESIDENT: Wall, of course that would happen.
MR. WALTON: If I go too far afield the Tribunal will call my attention no it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. WALTON: examination that you were conscripted or drafted for the campaign in the East as a high-ranking member of the SS and the SD? examination that you were conscripted or drafted for the campaign in the East as a high-ranking member of the SS and S the Eastern campaign.
At the time I did not consider myself a high-ranking member of the SS and actually I was no such think. For that reason I could not say it.
Q Well, what was your rank at that time?
Q That is equivalent to a full colonel, is it not?
A I don't know the American army, but about the rank conditions I have already mode a statement in detail in my direct examination. Do not forget that I was a political SS leader and not a military SS leader and that the unit which I had to lead actually had the strength of a battalion and not that of a regiment with a colonel over it. campaign with the SS and SD units if you had not been a member of these organizations before the war? would have had or got the possibility to give me orders, I certainly would have evaded this fate. of the SS and SD before the war you would have been conscripted for service in some branch of the Armed Forces as distinct and seperate from the SS and SD? because as I said, I was considered indispensable for the Reich groups Trade (Handel). On the other hand, many people were drafted for this effort who were not members of the SS and had no connection with the SS or SD, and just for that reason they could be drafted because until then they were in a position which the Wehrmacht could not approach until then, for example, in plants which were considered essential for the war effort.
time, just now, that no SS and SD men were drafted by the Wehrmacht at the time of the campaign against Russia?
A No, that is incorrect. Many SS leaders were also in the Army. Himmler tried, of course, to stop SS leaders from joining the Wehrmacht because he himself did not have sufficient personnel. He continously got new orders to set up new divisions, and in '43 at least, he did not have sufficient officers and men who could be a basis for this new division. were not put in the Wehrmacht but retained in the SS and SD units? general way what the armament of an Einsatzgruppe was and more specifically Einsatzgruppe D? gruppe D had 180 vehicles. These trucks had two drivers each, and this figure is contained in the entire total of 500. This fact shows the limited number of actual experts because from the very beginning 200 drivers were deducted from the 500 men. This large number of vehicles shows that the Einsatzgruppe was fully motorized. The Waffen-SS, another 80 to 100 men, was particularly given for armed protection. They were equipped with automatic rifles. The others either had rifles or automatic rifles. I believe that is about the total equipment.
Q There was no light or heavy artillery, of course?
and the gypsies who were not partisans?
A Their equipment? gypsies who were not members of partisan bands. What was that? civilian population, had just as many and just as little weapons as it was usually the case. roundups or these assemblies came to them with their arms in their hands? similar occurrences, which you have submitted yourself.
Q Answer my question, General. Was it reported to you that Jews and gypsies who were required to register by your orders, passed through their own council of Elders, came to register with their arms in their hands?
Q only now do I understand you. I believe this is only a rhetorical question. If the Jews at the order of the SS police, had to be registered surely they would not appear with weapons, and I think I can guarantee that they did not appear with, weapons. say that the Jewish population, exclusive of partisan bands, had now arms, whatsoever, isn't it? already in a organized unit while, of course, there were a lot of passive partisans, that is to say groups who had weapons or poison and which only later would be organized and used by larger units.
Q I will state it differently. Then those Jews who did not belong to any active resistance movement, is it a general fact to say that they were unarmed members of the civil population?
A Certainly. Some of them did not have any weapons, of course. way you so desire the methods generally used by these Jews?
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, I cannot hear the translation.
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, the translation is interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. generally used by the Jews and gypsies to carry out their resistance to the armed forces if they were not members of partisan bands?
DR. ASCHENAUER: A similar question has alreday been asked by Mr. Heath, and I object to it it is really a repetition of what Mr. Heath said and it is one of the overlapping cases to which your Honor has indicated.
THE PRESIDENT: The question was very similar to it.
MR. WALTON: Very good, sir, I will withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Mr. Walton) General, can you give us a few examples of acts of sabotage which these people commited against your Einsatzgruppen or the German Armed Forces?
THE INTERPRETER: I am sorry, the channel is out. I can't hear.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. It seems as if it will take a little while to repair the channel so the Court will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 October 1947 at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II-S.
Military Tribunal No. II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. WISMARCK (for the defendant Jost): Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Jost, to prepare his examination on the witness stand, be excused this afternoon and tomorrow from presence in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The request is granted, and the defendant Jost will be excused from attendance today and tomorrow.
DR. DURCHHOLZ (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I would like to make the same request and ask that the defendant Schulz be excused for this afternoon to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The same approval is granted, and the defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance at the time indicated.
DR. LUMMERT (for defendant Blume): Your Honor, I have the same request for defendant Blume, for today.
THE PRESIDENT: And the request is also granted, for defendant Blume.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I only want to correct one translation mistake. Defendant Ohlendorf was asked yesterday about the speech of the Reichsfuehrer-SS in Poland. He replied to this, he had "heard about this speech hero." This "here" means here, in Nurnberg. That was not translated. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I wish to point this out.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the defendant Ohlendorf indicated that he did not hear the speech at the point where it was delivered, but only heared of it here, in Nurnberg?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show, as so indicated.
MR. WALTON: With the permission of the Tribunal I shall proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Walton. BY MR. WALTON: about which so much has been said here, was an illegal order? and customs of war?
Q Have you ever heard of the Geneva Convention?
Q And have you ever heard of the Hague Convention? subject to military law, did you not know that the killing of civilians in occupied areas, without any trial, is considered by both international law and the laws and customs of war to be plain murder, and nothing else? the authority to decide whether a person was a Jew, or Gypsy, or a Communist, and to order his execution? commanding officer of that unit?
man was a Jew or a Gypsy and order his execution?
A I cannot answer to this question in a concrete manner; but before I do so I wish to point out that the question of discretion what could be done to carry out the order, - the entire situation should be considered. For example, concerning the Jews. It was usual that the Commandos called the Jewish Elders to determine who was Jewish and who was not. The possiblility to go beyond this decision was not given to the Commandos. Therefore, they had to accept the determination of the Jews themselves as a basis of their orders. The actual carrying out could not be done by the Commando leader himself, of course, but he had to rely on his officers who were commanders of part of the command as well. As the Tribunal knows, this question had already been decided before the war by order of the Fuehrer, through Keitel, insofar as individual officers had the opportunity to arrive at a decision whether or not the person was suspicious, and whether they might endanger the security. In my direct examination I already explained that this statement went too far in my opinion, and, therefore, I gave the order that the suspicion be confirmed. But to ask for more, - for example, concerning the Jews, than, to believe the determination of the Jewish Elders could not have been expected of the Commandos because there was no possibility of doing more. Doing more would have questioned the task. Commando leader by the Jewish Council of Elders was sufficient to denominate those named as Jews? Jewish Elders themselves took the Jews to the registration place or the collection place. identification that could cause his execution by Einsatzgruppe D?
A No; I remember cases in Sinferopol where, to identify Gypsies, the certification of two witnesses, at least, was used and required by the command there.
of the area in which this man was arrested?
Q And these witnesses claimed to have known it?
A Yes. That was the difficulty, because some of the Gypsies - if not all of them - were Moslems, and for that reason we attached a great mount of importance to the fact that there were no disprepancies in the procedure, and on this question in particular local Tartars took part. there was in the case of a Jew, is that right? Jews - and as I said yesterday already, I only remember the great action in Sinferopol. that you personally never issued execution orders. Am I correct? order for execution as such had been given from the start in Pretsch, or rather, later by the Reichsfuehrer. But the Commandos took it for granted that when they came to a larger city the solution of the Jewish question would be the first problem to be solved, and, therefore, the execution developed - not from one order, but followed a number of occurrences - such as asking for a Council of Elders, or rather, nominating a Counsel of Elders registering etc., until the final action was the result. The same during the executions themselves, where a number of organizational occurrences took place one after the other, a definite order was only given, really, at the moment when an officer stood before a military unit and gave the order to shoot. Everything else develops - one occurrence following another. examination, reference was made quite frequently to, and I quote, "the Army". To what Army, or Army Group were you referring?
A In my case, to Group 11. Eleventh Army.
Einsatzgruppe D?
A First, General Ritter von Schobert; he was killed. After that, there was a temporary assignment; end then later, Field Marshal von Manstein. Army Group Wouth during your career as commander of Einsatzgruppe D?
A With the Army Group South itself, no; only with the Army. The reason was that the Eleventh Army was independent, relatively. That had been intended as a nucleus for a new army group which was to operate in the Caucasus Mountains. These army units at that time were still in the Baltics and were ready there.
Q How often were you in contact with General von Schobert? And later General von Manstein? the 12th of June; then I saw him again in the Army casino once or twice. And von Manstein, I mostly saw in the Crimea on duty, as well as privately; for example, privately - he put me in charge of recruiting Tartars. I also had personal discussions with him about the question of military commitments of my unit. Contact with the Army became closer in time because the difficulties of the first month put some officers at such a disadvantage that they had to beg my pardon. And now the other officers tried to eliminate these former differences. It took longest with Manstein. Not before the Spring, 1942 was I invited by him personally, for the first time, to his castle on the South coast, which he had set up for recuperation. There I was, together with my successor von Albensleben, and another officer, and three or four officers of the Army. I was invited to his place one evening. I stayed there the night. The next morning I had breadfast with him, and then I travelled on. The second time I was privately invited during the celebration when Sevastopol fell. Apart from that, there was a constant contact with the Army, of course, owing to the fact a liaison officer was with the Army to share the billets with the one I C.A.O.; and beyond that, Herr Seibert, at least one week visited the Chief of Staff of IA or IIA, or the Chief for Partisan Combatting, and arrangements were made.