Document Analyst's Report

During October I completed the analysis of the Gestapo’s defense documents, plus a “bonus” group of English-language prosecution documents in the French prosecutor’s file for cross-examination of the Gestapo defense.

The legality argument: As expected given the documents in the Gestapo’s first document book, the defense relied on the force’s legal status as a government police force. As one affidavit stated, “The tasks of the Gestapo were determined by law. . . . [Its] activities were clearly defined by instructions and decrees.” One official described the officers accordingly: “They were professional Civil Service, did their duty and no more.” Noting the abundant evidence of the crimes that Gestapo officers had participated in, especially the Einsatzgruppen mass-killing operation in the East, the defense attorney pushed the logic one step further, claiming that since these actions fell beyond the Gestapo’s legal mandate, the officers involved would be guilty of a crime, but the organization as such was not. The IMT judges did not accept the argument and concluded that the Gestapo was a criminal organization.

The reputation problem: In his final argument, the first issue the defense attorney addressed was the Gestapo’s reputation: “The demon like character of the Gestapo.” He attributed this mostly to the uses that demonic leaders (Hitler) had made of the Gestapo. (He did not note that the Gestapo’s creators, Goering and Himmler, had designed the force to be intimidating.) The public assumed that all of the regime’s severest measures were Gestapo operations. A German prosecutor noted that “the very word Gestapo brought fear to the minds of everyone in Germany.” (This included some of the Nuremberg defendants, who believed they had been targets.) Criminal gangs had sometimes taken advantage, disguising themselves as Gestapo officers to provide a cover for their violence.

Dealing with the politicians: The party chancellery’s admonitions to party leaders to refrain from interfering in police matters were matched by Gestapo officers’ reports of interference, evidence that aimed to separate the Gestapo from the party’s excesses. Officers reported that in the 1930s regional party leaders tried to control who was arrested or released from custody. Some had set up their own concentration camps, in one case targeting men who refused to pay bribes; the Gestapo closed these camps. In November 1938 Gestapo officers in Nuremberg tried to prevent the burning of a Jewish synagogue by party members and the SA (the Storm Troops). A party leader objected, saying “the Gestapo had no business here and had no right to give him any orders.” (In fact, senior officials had instructed the police to stand aside during the anti-Jewish “demonstrations,” an order that did not reach all the departments and was not always followed.)

Matt Seccombe, 4 November 2024