How naive can we get? Try this on:
- 91 -
One may accuse the Nazi military hierarchy of cruelty, even sadism, if one will. But it may not be lightly charged with inefficiency. If any of these kommando leaders had stated that they were constitutionally unable to perform this cold-blooded slaughter of human beings, it is not unreasonable to assume that they would have been assigned to other duties, not out of sympathy or for humanitarian reasons, but for efficiency's sake alone. In fact Ohlendorf himself declared on this very subject:
"In two and a half years I had sufficient occasion to see how many of my Gruppe did not agree to this order in their inner opinion. Thus, I forbade the participation in these executions on the part of some of these men, and I sent some back to Germany."
Ohlendorf himself could have got out of his execution assignment by refusing cooperation with the Army. He testified that the Chief of Staff in the field said to him that if he, Ohlendorf, did not cooperate, he would ask for his dismissal in Berlin.
The witness Hartl testified that Thomas, Chief of Einsatzgruppe B, declared that all those who could not reconcile their conscience to the Fuehrer-Order, that is, people who were too soft, as he said, would be sent back to Germany or assigned to other tasks, and that, in fact, he did send a number of people including commanders back to the Reich.
This might not have been true in all Einsatzgruppen, as the witness pointed out, but it is not enough for a defendant to say, as did Braune and Klingelhoefer, that it was pointless to ask to be released and, therefore did not even try. Exculpation is not so easy as that. No one can shrug off so appalling a moral responsibility with the statement that there was no point in trying. The failure to attempt disengagement from so catastrophic an assignment might well spell the conclusion that the defendant involved had no deep-seated desire to be released.
He may have thought the
- 92 -
work unpleasant but did it nonetheless. Even a professional murderer may not relish killing his victim, but he does it with no misgivings. A defendant's willingness may have been predicated on the premise that he personally opposed Jews or that he wished to stand well in the eyes of his comrades, or by doing the job well he might earn rapid promotion. The motive is unimportant if he killed willingly.
The witness Hartl also related how one day as he and Blobel were driving through the country, Blobel pointed out to him a long grave and said: "Here my Jews are buried." One can only conclude that Blobel was proud of what he had done. "Here my Jews are buried." Just as one might speak of the game he had bagged in a jungle.
Despite the sustained assertion on the part of the defendants that they were straight-jacketed in their obedience to Superior Orders, the majority of them have, with testimony and affidavits, demonstrated how on numerous occasions they opposed decrees and orders handed down by their superiors. In an effort to show that they were not really Nazis at heart, defendant after defendant related his dramatic clashed with his superiors.
If one concentrated only on this latter phase of the defense on would conclude that these defendants were all ardent rebels against National Socialism and valiantly fought against the inhuman proposals put to them. Thus, one affiant says of the defendant Willy Seibert that he "was strongly opposed to measures taken by the Party and the government."
Of Steimle an affiant said: "Many a time he opposed the Party agencies and so-called superior leaders." Another affidavit not only states that Steimle opposed violence but that in his zeal for justice he shrewdly joined the SD in order to be able "to criticize the shortcomings of the party." Again it was stated that "repeatedly his sense of justice led him to oppose excesses, corruptions and symptoms of depravity by party-officers."
Of Braune an affiant states, "over and over again Dr. Braune
- 93 -
criticized severely our policy in the occupied territories (especially in the East, Ukraine and Baltic states)."
During the time he served in Norway Braune was a flaming sword of opposition to tyranny and injustice in his own camp. He bitterly opposed the Reich Kommissar Terboven, cancelled his orders, condemned large-scale operations, released hostages and freed the Norwegian State Minister Gerhardsen. One affidavit said that in these actions "Braune nearly always went beyond his authority." And yet in spite of this open rebellion Braune was not shot or even disciplined. Why is it that in Norway he acted so differently from the manner in which he performed in Russia? Was he more the humanitarian in Norway? The answer is not difficult to find. One of the affiants very specifically states:
"Right from the beginning of our conferences, Braune opposed the large-scale operations which Terboven and Fehlis continually carried out. He did not expect the slightest success from such measures, and saw in them only the danger of antagonizing the Norwegian population more and more against German policy and the danger of increasing their spirit of resistance." Thus, the defendants could and did oppose orders when they did not agree with them. But when they ideologically espoused an order such as the Fuehrer-Order they had no interest in opposing it.
- 94 -
Extract of Opinion by Musmanno, Michael A., U.S.N.R, Presiding Judge, Military Tribunal II, Case 9 (Einsatzgruppe Trial): Opinion and Judgment of the Tribunal. Nuremberg: Palace of Justice. 8 April 1948. pp. 91 - 94 (original mimeographed copy) at
http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/trials/duress.html
If you have a look at the references I gave in my post to Browning's "Ordinary Men," you will see that on just one day -- 12 Jul 1942 -- well over 17 soldiers from the 101st Police Reserve Battalion refused to execute illegal orders to shoot the Jews of Jozefow, Poland, and were assigned to other duties.
"The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders" (ed. Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, & Volker Riess, 1988), pp. 70-86, has statements from another 14 persons, ranging in rank from minor police officials to an SS-Oberfuehrer (Dr. Franz Six). The statements were all given in West Germany between 1958 and 1963. None of these individuals served with the 101st Police Reserve Battalion. All recount their refusals to participate in illegal executions of civilians or their requests for transfer which had no serious repercussions. SS-Oberfuehrer Dr. Six says that he never even heard of anyone being executed for refusing to obey orders to shoot Jewish civilians.
How naive can we get indeed.
Andy from the Shire
