MR. HEATH:If your Honor please, my connection is broken here now. Will you speak please?
(The interpreters tested the channel).
Q (By Mr. Heath) Let us go to Gottfried Feder. When was his influence ended in Germany?
AAlready before Hitler assumed power, because when he became undersecretary in the Ministry of Agriculture in 33, this was the last honor which one gave him. Actually he didn't have anything to say in the Agricultural Ministry after 1933, nor did he have any political significance at all.
QVery well. He was free of political pressure, and it was he who said that the master race dogma was the emotional foundation of the Nazi movement. Do you care to comment on that, do you care to comment on the Herrenvolk, the importance of it to the Nazi movement?
AIf you were to know Gottfried Feder you would assume that he arrived at the idea of the master race from his own vanity. Outside of him and Ley and two other people there was certainly no logic in the leadership for raising this nonsense of the master race. The office for racial politics dealing with such racial problems never represented this theory.
QLet us move then to some other representatives and at later dates. In August, 1942, we find Rosenberg, spokesman, saying "The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we do not need them they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and Germanic health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undersirable." Now, Rosenberg, would you classify him as the spokesman for the National Socialist State?
ACertainly, but I don't believe that he expressed this in this form for I know him personally. He was anything but a man who would even say such a thing;certainly not act accordingly. I never could consider him an enemy of the Slavs.
QVery well. He himself, I "believe, came from Russia, did he not?
AYes, he was Baltic.
QWall, let's see about Hans Frank. How do you place him in the Nazi hierarchy in 1941 at the time you were in Russia?
AFrank is a pathological case and no one who knew the conditions in the Reich considered him anything else, not even Hitler.
QWell, for what it is worth - I beg your pardon.
AThe same thing would go for Frank as what I said before. You might quote from him about the legal state as it could not have been formulated any better by the best Democrat, and you could list him as the greatest enemy of the SS and of the police, but he was taken seriously neither as the one nor as the other, and the fact that he came to the General Government was the result of the fact that Hitler did not want to make him Minister of Justice, even though the Minister of Justice was deceased and no one had been found to replace him. The General Government was not considered to be a permanent organization and therefore the Governor General, the title of the Governor General was considered to be honorary, and even a Frank was not considered to be able to spoil it, because he had a "spiritual strength". (Tuhalt")
QThat is one of your protests against the course of National Socialism, is it not, that psychopaths and irresponsibles were given power in a personal state?
AI don't think that it is a single case, but this has happened time and again in politics.
QI understood you to say to the court that you - most of your difficulties in the Party came from your opposition to those men who advocated total destruction of the objective or instituional state, is that right?
AYes, that is correct.
QYou had been convinced by a year's study of Mussolini's personal autocracy that Italian Fascism was a bad thing?
AYes.
QAnd it was bad because Mussolini had completely destroyed institutional restraints on men who weilded power?
AI would rather express it positively, because this was an unrestricted dictatorship in the form of a totalitarian state.
QVery well, I think we say the same thing in different words, do we not?
AYes, from the positive side.
QIn 1933 when Hitler, after he was made chancellor, had legal power to legislate by himself without the restraint of any constitution, was he not in precisely the same situation and did he not have the same power to act that Mussolini had acquired, from the legal standpoint?
AYes, I understand you completely. The difference is that the one was National Socialist and the other was FAscist. Hitler did not for himself, did not make up a constitution for an ah solute; stats, but because he had a different opinion of the state he had himself given power for a definite period of time. And this was nothing else but a constitutional means, which during the parliamentary period of the Weimar Constitution was also used then, especially in the years '31 and '32, when Paragraph 48 of the Weimar Constitution was the basic support of the government. This law giving a government the power must not let one conclude that Hitler wanted to establish a dictatorships, but he took a constitutional means, and I know that during the entire time of the Hitler Government, even during the wars it was the idea to build a senate, a kind of parliamentary system, and I know, that several times Hitler complained to acquaintances that he still had not found any man who could rebuild the state for him and who could give the state the appropriate legal form. I don't believe that Hitler wanted a dictatorship.
QInunderstood you to say in your direct examination, in your mind Hitler wanted something other than a personal dictatorship.
AYes.
QIn your mind, he wanted restraints of institutions upon his power?
AYes.
QIn your mind, he wanted restraints of institutions upon his power?
AYes.
QWas that idea of yours -- I withdraw that -- That idea, which you entertained, you have told the Court, was shared by a number of intellectuals who gathered around you in the SD -
AFor example -
QAnd through all of the Nazi dictatorship, the Hitler dictatorship, you persevered in the hope that some day your view would succeed and the absolute dictatorship would be limited by institutions or by law?
AYes, that is right, I was convinced of this fact for two reasons: especially because it was known that after the war Hitler wanted to lay down the affairs of state and merely wanted to remain head of the State and thus I understood from his misgivings and from his contempt toward very many people, it was his interest to establish certain safeguards for the new political forces.
And the second reason was the knowledge of the front generation. In the SD we had knowledge of a great number of letters, for example, of Hitler Youth Leaders, who severely objected to functions of the leader corps of the Nazi Party that is to say to the absolute power of the Party. Therefore, I was firmly convinced that the front generation after the war would start to have other conditions in German -- other than those which now existed as a result of a five-year war.
QI understood you to qualify all of Hitler's hopes and expectations for limiting his absolute paver with this statement, "He hoped after the war to do that."
AYes.
Q was it apparent to you that there was no such hope during the war or until the war was finished?
AI could only have wished that there would have been the same strict kind of leadership in Germany as existing in other states during the war; because of the fact that Hitler formally held the entire power, which actually was being distributed among the hierarchs below him -there was no genuine leadership in Germany during the war.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, I think we are drifting very far afield here, but you just made one observation which has aroused a question in me. You stated that you would have wished that in Germany during the war there might have been leadership such as existed in other nations. Do you want to give an example?
THE WITNESS:For example, America.
THE PRESIDENT:If you would have had this kind of leadership in Germany there would have been no need for Hitler or for a war, don't you think?
THE WITNESS:I spoke of leadership during the war, Your Honor. I believe the leadership in America during the war was slightly different than the one during peace. The war legislation gave the President extraordinary powers and he then found organs who supplied him with extraordinary powers during war time, whereas in Germany, the means of power were actually already used up during the war because a Bormann and a Ley had spent these forcible measures too early; for psychologically seen, the subordinate will adapt himself to the measures of the superiors and the method uses itself up, but I am convinced that in America war was directed more strictly and organically than in Germany,
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed, Mr. Heath.
QNow, in the German hierarchy you spent most of your official time under Himmler, did you not?
ANo, one couldn't say that. This was only a little side activity. The main time of my activity was spent in economics, from 1938 to 1943 as a private man and from November 1943 to the end of the war as an official of the Reich Economics Ministry.
QHimmler and Heydrich were your superiors from what date until the end of the war?
AFrom 1936 on, my military superiors.
QYes. Now I want to question you about your relationship with Himmler, briefly. I understand you to say in your direct examination that in - Let's begin at the beginning. May I recite briefly: In 1926 you joined the NSDAP.
A 1925.
Q 1925. Then you distributed booklets from house to house according to your word you did everything that was to be done in the small party membership at that time. Then you went to Italy, I believe, and when you came back you conducted a Party training course.
AThe dates seem to have been mixed up a little bit.
QWell, those dates are not important. Let us begin in 1933. Your first official position was referendar in Hildesheim.
AIn Alfeld on the Leine River at the Local Court.
QFrom there you went
ATo the District Court in Hildesheim.
QAll right, and from there you went to the Institute for World Economy in Kiel?
AYes, that's right.
QYou were there with Professor Jansen from October 1933 to March, 1934?
AFrom October 1933.
Q 1933.
AUntil March 1934.
QIn 1934 you got into difficulties, I take it, because you opposed the Roehm action in the Party, also the Bolshevist tendencies?
AThat would be very nice for you, but it wasn't that way, unfortunately. These were National Bolshevist circles and not Roehm circles. I could give you the names, but I do not think they will interest you.
QNo, they don't. I wasn't clear. I didn't know what you meant precisely because I find this -
AIt was a mistake in the translation. These were National Bolchevist circles.
QYou were arrested in 1934 at the request of the Party?
AYes.
QThat is the NSDAP?
AYes, that is right.
QYour job failed in 1934 after your arrest, but you were dismissed from Kiel?
AKiel was forced to dismissme, yes.
QAt the request of the Party?
AYes, and the Minister of Culture.
QRosenberg?
AThat again was somewhat later. That was during the activity in Berlin.
QWho was the Minister of Culture in the NSDAP who dismissed you in 1934?
ABernhard Rust.
QYou then went to Berlin?
AIn December 1934.
QAnd you considered plans for opening a school.
AI am sorry I didn't get it in the German.
(The interpreter repeated the question.)
AThe setting up of a school, making a trade high school in Berlin school into an economic school.
QAnd that was to be a school where you would preach your views of National Socialism?
AYes.
QAnd Rosenberg then killed that plan for you?
AYes.
QBut you would - I beg your pardon - you said on direct examination "Thus my scholastic plans were definitely at an end, but simultaneously my political activity was also at an end. Dr. Wagner warned me about attacking National Socialist politics in my speeches." Is that right? So thus far you were in opposition to the ruling Party authority?
AYes.
QNow, you were out of work in 1935 and 1936, or weren't you?
AI was not without work. I said in already the direct examination that I did earn my living, but I bad no great future plans. I also stated that I directed a library in the Institute for Applied Sciences.
QAll right. In May you entered the SD, May, 1936?
AYes.
QYou produced reports which satisfied or pleased someone in the SD?
AYes.
QWho was that?
AProfessor Hoehn, the Chief of the SD at that time.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Heath, do you want to suspend now for the afternoon recess?
MR. HEATH:I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT:Suspend now for the afternoon recess?
MR. HEATH:Whatever time suits Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HEATH:May I proceed your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed, Mr. Heath. BY MR. HEATH:
QMr. Ohlendorf, at length I was attempting, before the recess, to show what I will now summarize.
You were in constant conflict with Party leadership on matters of ideology and practice, were you not?
AI want to intervene here. During the time the Prosecution refers to the Party had very little to do with ideologies; but my interventions were mostly concerned with practical politics - that is, in particular against the policy of the food Ministry Reichsnaehrstand.
QLet me rephrase the question. Prom time to time, from 1936 until the end, you found yourself in opposition to so powerful leaders of the State as Goebbels, Bormann, Ley---is that right?
AYes.
QAt one time Ley threatened that unless you mended your ways in writing your reports he would speak to the Fuehrer about you and have put where you belonged, and your subordinates put where they could do more useful labor?
ADid you say Himmler?
QNo, I said Ley.
AI can't remember that.
QWell, I will refresh-Was it someone else---Was it not Ley on the occasion?
ANo, Himmler -- the case you just referred to-it was Himmler I believe.
QVery well, it was Himmler who threatened to put you where you belonged.
Soon after that you went with Himmler on a official trip to Warsaw, did you not?
AThere is an error concerning the years. The occurrence you described as a Himmler occurrence when he threatened to send me to a concentration camp and to dissolve my office was in the year 1943.
My official trip with Himmler--when I was one among fifty--was at the beginning of November 1939.
QI see. I think I have made the error; all right. Well, you went to Poland with Himmler in 1940?
A 1939.
Q 1939. All right. And Heydrich sent you along with Himmler, you say? Disputes arose between you and Himmler in 1939?
AThey really were monologues because Himmler -
QThat's all right, whether it was monoloque or not. He reproached you that members of the SD in Poland had not been able to treat the Jews in a manner in which he wanted, and that you say, "was a product of my education."
What was it he wanted done to the Jews in Poland which he said you had failed to do?
AThat is connected with the actions which I have answered to the prosecutor or his previous questions.
It was in the same city, where differences between Streckenbach and Himmler occured. It concern ed the same actions.
QYou mean the actions under a Fuehrer Order, an order similar to the order which controlled you in Russia?
AYes. During the direct examination I already answered the questions, but the President, and today I answered your questions, that the contents was not the same, but a directive which was only given once concerning certain definite single actions.
QTell us how orders that you operated under in 1941 in Russia differed from the order which controlled killing of Jews in Poland in 1939?
AIn Poland individual actions had been ordered, while in Russia, during the entire time of the committment, the killing of all Jews had been ordered. Special actions in Poland had been ordered, whose contents I do not know in detail.
QWell, if Himmler repraoched you for failure of the SD properly to treat or to dispose of Jews in Poland, did he not specify, beyond what you have just told the Court?
ANo. He attacked me in a public place, where the people accompanying him were together with some officers, and shouted at me across the table that this man was the product of my education. He wanted to express by this that he had behaved in an unsoldierly manner and that instead of acting he had examined questions which might result from such connections. It was not even a monologue in this sense, but merely shouting at me when I was sitting at the table. No actual discussion took place.
QDid you know what it was that Himmler was rebuking you for?
AHe had asked this certain SD man what he had done. He met him in the street and this man replied to him that he had studied the Jewish question in that territory, and the expression "studied" annoyed him so much.
QBecause an SD man in Poland told Himmler that he had "studied" the Jewish question, Himmler was impatient and rebuked you because a man had used the word "study"?
AYes.
QIs that all that you know about Himmler's disaproval of the SD in Poland in relation to the Jews?
AYes, this was a unique occurrence.
QWell, that may mean a number of things. What did it mean to you?
AFor me it meant that the next day in Warsaw the Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf, at that time chief adjutant of Himmler's ordered me to come, and revealed to me that Himmler wanted me to leave this service because agreement between him and myself was not possible, but there were other causes for this as well--not only this one.
QWith respect to this one cause, is that all that you can tell us about it?
AYes, that is all.
QIs it fair to say that -- Did you draw the inference that the use of the word "study" - Himmler was impatient, because no study necessary about what was known the Jewish problem in Poland, but acting without study. Is that what he meant?
ANo, it was much simpler. He merely accused the man that instead of helping to act, he merely occupied himself with obtaining information.
QSo it was a lack of action that irritated Himmler, is that right?
AYes.
QNow, may we move back into the Russian land, and may I ask you further who ordered you to instigate pogroms in Russia?
AThat had been ordered when the Fuehrer Order had been announced in Pretsch.
QStreckenbach had told you should accomplish those killings by instigating pogroms, is that correct?
AI cannot say any more whether Strechenbach or Mueller said this, who was also present during this discussion.
QBut it was a part of the old giving of the Fuehrer Order to you?
AYes.
QYou refused in Russia and forbade your command to instigate pogroms, did you not?
AYes.
QYou reported falsely to the Berlin office that you could not achieve pogroms?
AIf this report actually oroginates from me, it was a tactical report.
In all these reports which were submitted as documents, Einsatzgruppe D in this report is only mentioned in one line with respect to pogroms.
QVery well, in any event you took it upon yourself to refuse to execute a part of the order which had been given you?
AI think on the contrary -- not to carry it out. Part of the order about the manner of killing was not carried out by me.
QPart of the order about the manner of killing.... You also were called upon by the Army to kill insane people in Russia?
AYes.
QWere you ordered by the Army to do that?
ASince the Army know that they could give me such an order this was addressed to me as a request. It suggested to me as I would express it best.
QFrom what officer did the request to kill the insane come to you?
AI cannot say that any more now. It might have been Central Organs of the Army, or, generally, it would have been suggestions of local headquaters to local agencies of one of my commands. With such matters one did not come to me in my central position.
QYou have told the Court that the Army was perfectly aware of this decree, or this order to kill, and that it had the obligation also to execute the order within its ability? Is that right?
AYes; but I do not know that in this order insane persons were mentioned; but I would have considered the insane persons kust like anybody else because they would have come under the order if they owing to their condition, would have endangered security - but not because they were insane alone, and for that reason I rejected this request.
QYou don't mean to say that the persons you killed had to endager security in order to be killed, do you?
AIn the sense of the Fuehrer Order, yes.
QWell, let's not say about the sense of the Fuehrer Order. Let's talk about reality. Did the people you killed in fact endager security in any conceivable way?
AEven if you don't want to discuss the Fuehrer Order it cannot be explained in any other way. There were two different regions one, where those people who, through the Fuehrer Order, were considered to endanger the security and, therefore, had to be killed. The others, namely, the active Communists or other people were people whose endangering of security was established by us and they were only killed if they seemed to endanger the security.
QVery well. I repeat my question. Apart from the Fuehrer Order, and not because the Fuehrer Order assumed that every man with Jewish blood endangered the security of the Wehrmacht ... but from your own experience in Russia, from your own objective witnessing of the situation in Russia, did every Jew in Russia that you killed in fact endanger security, in your judgment?
AI cannot talk about this without mentioning the Fuehrer Order because this Fuehrer Order did not try to evade temporary danger, but also danger which might arise in the future.
QFrom -- Well, let us get back to it immediately, and let us see if we can't talk about it without the Fuehrer Order. I ask you the simple question... From your own objective view of the situation in Russia, did the Jews whom you killed, and the Gypsies, endanger the security of the German Army in any way?
I did not examine that in detail. I only know that many of the Jews who were killed actually endangered the security by their conduct, because they were members of the partisans, for example, or supporting the partisans in any way, or housing agents, etc.
QLet's put the partisans or those who were aiding the partisans completely aside?
AI will assist you, Mr. Prosecuter. Of course, at a certain time there were persons when one could not have said that at that moment they were an immediate danger, but that does not change the fact that for us it meant a danger insofar as they were determined to be a danger, and none of us examined whether these persons at the moment, or in the future, would actually constitute danger, because this was outside our knowledge, and not part of our task.
QVery well. You did not do it then because it was outside of your task. I want you to do it today for this Tribunal. Will you tell us then whether in your objective judgment apart from the Fuehrer's Decree, all of the Jews that you killed constituted any conceivable threat to the German Wehrmacht.
AFor me, during my time in Russia there is no condition which is not connected with the Fuehrer's Order. Therefore, I can not give you this answer which you would like to have.
QYou refuse to make the distinction, which any person can easily make - - you need not answer that. Let me make it clear then, in the Crimea - - No, I believe near Nilelajew, Himmler came to see you in the Spring of 1942, did he not, or Fall of 1941?
ABeginning of October 1941.
QYou had then working in that area a considerable number of Jewish farmers is that right, and you had determined not to put them to death?
AYes.
QYou made a determination then that those men did not than constitute any security threat whatever to the German Wehrmacht?
ANo, I did not make such a determination but, in the interest of the general situation, and of the Army. I considered it more correct not to kill these Jews because the opposite would be achieved by this, namely, in the economical system of this country everything would be upset, which would be of importance to the operation of the Wehrmacht as well.
QThen, I ask you the question again. Because these people were farmers, you concluded that it was wiser to get grain they produces, than to put them to death?
AAlso because of the danger that they might house partisans, yes, I was conscious of this danger.
QOf the danger, that they might house partisans in their houses?
AYes, that these Jews might get connections with the partisans.
QSo the only threat you saw to security was the possibility that the Jews would conceal partisans in their houses?
ANo, I only named this as an example. There might have been agents against us who could endanger us in any way. I only mentioned this as an example.
QThe same situation would exist in the case of the Krimschacks, wouldn't it, or what do you call them, Karaimians.
AKaraimians.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Heath, I must confess a confusion here. I understand the witness to say, or perhaps you said it, that the reason the Jewish farmers were not executed is that they were used to bring in the harvest. Then a discussion ensued as to the possible threat that these Jews could bring to the security because they could house partisans. There must be a contraciction there; in one instance, there was no need to kill them, and the other instance, they were a threat and therefore were subject to executions. Were they saved, or were they not saved. If they were saved, why, and if they were killed, why?
MR. HEATH:As I understood the witness, Your Honor, he said he was balancing the desirability of getting in the harvest as against a potential threat.
THE PRESIDENT:I see.
MR. HEATH:He exercised discretion.
THE PRESIDENT:And came to the conclusion that there was more to be gained not liquidating.
MR HEATH:Precisely, I understand it.
THE PRESIDENT:Is that correct?
THE WITNESS:I think it is even simpler. They were not farmers, they were craftsmen, who when there would be no longer work for them to do would endanger considerably the interests of the Wehrmacht. I never considered this problem in discussion but now Himmler came to me and ordered that without consideration to any other circumstances these Jews were to be treated according to the Fuehrer Order, without any further discussion, and without any further considering, of circumstances. BY MR HEATH:
QWhat about the gypsies. I believe you have no idea whatever as to how many gypsies your command killed, have you?
ANo, I don't know.
QOn what basis did you kill gypsies, just because they were gypsies? Why were they a threat to the security of the Whermacht?
AIt is the same as for the Jews.
QBlood?
AI think I can add up from my own knowledge of European History that the Jews actually during wars regularly carried on espienage service on both sides.
THE PRESIDENT:You were asked about gypsies.
QI was asking you about gypsies, as the court points out, and not Jews?
AYes.
QI beg your pardon?
AMy statement concerned gypsies - -
QI think I best repeat the question. I would like to ask you now on what basis you conceived or determined that every gypsy found in Russia should be executed, because of the danger to the German Wehrmacht?
AThere was no difference between gypsies and Jews. At the time the same order existed for the Jews. I added the explanation that it is known from European history that the Jews actually during all wars carried out espionage service on both sides.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, now, what we are trying to do is to find out what you are going to say about the gypsies, but you still insist on going back to the Jews, and Mr Heath is questioning about gypsies. Is it also in European history that gypsies always participated in political strategy and campaigns?
THE WITNESS:Espionage organisations during campaigns.
THE PRESIDENT:The gypsies did?
THE WITNESS:The gypsies in particular. I want to draw your recollection to extensive descriptions of the Thirty-year War by Richardo, Huch and Schiller -
THE PRESIDENT:That is going back pretty far in order to justify the killing of gypsies in 1941, isn't it?
AI added that as an explanation, as such motive might have played a part in this, to get at this decision.
THE PRESIDENT:Could you give us an illustration of any activity of a band of gypsies on behalf of Russia against Germany during this late war?
AOnly the same claim that can be maintained with regard to Jews, that they actually played a part in the partisan war.
THE PRESIDENT:You, yourself can not give us any illustration of any gypsies being engaged in espionage or in any way sabetaging the German War effort?
AThat is what I tried to say just now. I don't know whether it came out correctly in the translation.
For example, in the Gilay Mountains, such activity of gypsies have also been found.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you know that of your own personal knowledge?
AFrom my personal knowledge, of course, that is to say always from the reports which came up from the Gilay Mountains.
THE PRESIDENT:In an instance in which gypsies were included among these who were liquidated, could you find an objective reason for their liquidation?
AFrom Russia I only knew of the gypsy problem from Sinferopel. I do not know any other actions against gypsies, except from the one in Sinferopol.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR HEATH:May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, please, BY MR HEATH:
QMr Ohlendorf, you say the gypsies are notorious bearers of intelligence? Isn't is a fact that the nationals of any invaded state are notorious bearers of intelligence. Don't the Americans bear intelligence, and the Germans bear intelligence, and the Russians bear intelligence for their countries when they were at war?
AI don't think so, But the difference is here that these populations for example, the German population, or the American population have permanent homes, whereas gypsies being unsettled as people without permanent homes are more prepared to change their residence for a more favourable economical situation, which another place may promise them. I believe that a German, for example, is very unsuited for espionage.
QWell, let's not get into that. I understand you to say on direct examination that you took positive measures, to pacify the conquered territory, and you found that in reality the positive measures which you took as against these killings was about all that was necessary, except in the Crimea, is that right?