I appreciate that the speed of communication in 1945 was not as fast as it is now—but the Wehrmacht soldiers in Amsterdam on May 7, 1945, would definitely have heard that on May 4, 1945, Field Marshal Montgomery accepted the official surrender of the German army in Northwest Europe at his headquarters on Lüneburger Heath in Germany. Then, on May 5, 1945, while Germany had already officially surrendered, General Blaskowitz in Hotel de Wereld in Wageningen signed the capitulation.
However, as thousands of people gathered to celebrate the end of the war and the arrival of Allied forces, German soldiers suddenly began firing into the crowd from nearby buildings. The exact reasons for the shooting remain somewhat unclear—but it’s believed that the German troops, who had not yet formally surrendered, fired in response to the jubilant atmosphere and possibly out of frustration or defiance.
While the local citizens celebrated on Dam Square, German soldiers of the Kriegsmarine were trapped inside the Groote Club (Grand Club) building, a large building at the corner of the Dam and Kalverstraat. In the nearby Paleisstraat, local forces arrested two German soldiers. One of them refused to surrender his weapon and fired a shot. German soldiers then appeared in the windows, on the balcony and on the roof of the Groote Club and started firing into the crowd with machine guns.[4]
Large-scale panic broke out in Dam Square and most of the crowd dispersed via the Nieuwendijk, Rokin and Damrak. Some people sought cover behind street lights and other objects, including a small truck and a barrel organ known as ‘t Snotneusje.[2][3]
After the initial shots, the Germans and resistance forces began to exchange fire. In total, the shooting lasted about two hours, until about 5pm. Members of the Scouts, Red Cross and nurses attempted to aid the victims.
The shooting lasted for two hours and ended around 5pm that day. The shooting resulted in numerous casualties, including deaths and injuries among civilians who had come to Dam Square to rejoice in the liberation of their city. The incident marred what should have been a moment of joy and marked the last violent act of the German occupiers in Amsterdam before their complete surrender.
It still remains unclear exactly how the shooting stopped.
According to some sources, Major Overhoff, commander of the local forces, convinced German Captain Bergmann to accompany him to the Groote Club and order the Germans to cease fire. Other sources say that the incident had ended earlier, once local forces fired bazookas at the building (or at least threatened to fire them).
The shooting was never fully investigated. After the event, local newspapers reported between 19 and 22 fatalities, but no official list of casualties was ever released. Stichting Memorial voor Damslachtoffers 7 mei 1945, an organisation founded to commemorate the event, has since identified a total of 32 people who died as a result of the event, not including German casualties. Twenty-six died immediately while five more died later of gunshot wounds. The last known victim died on June 22. The actual number of fatalities may be higher; in some cases, it had not yet been determined whether the death was related to the Dam Square shootout. The full number of wounded is also unknown; newspaper reports gave between 100 and 120 wounded.
In the photograph above you see a little girl walking away from some people that were trying to take cover. That little girl is Tiny van der Hoek. This is her recollection of that dreadful day.
‘My name is Tiny van der Hoek. I was 2 and a half years old and I was standing at the ice cream cart on the corner of Nieuwendijk Street and Dam Square, where I had just got an ice cream.
Immediately the ice cream fell on the ground to my great disappointment… People ran or stood behind something. I saw that from the ‘Groote Club’ (Grand Club). At the time this was the place where German flags were hanging and German soldiers were sitting. They were to blame for not having ice cream anymore so I went there. My mother was left with the ice cream cart.
Walking on Dam Square, towards the Groote Club, between running people, but exactly against the direction that they went, I was already on my way when I was suddenly picked up by a gentleman. He took me in his arms, put his jacket around me, and ran towards Nieuwendijk where I lived, at the time.
My mother came back—but nowhere inside was there shelter, everything was full, and we were refused entry. That gentleman saw that there was still room under the billiards in that shop. He kicked in a window, my mother crawled inside and took me in and we had shelter under the billiards. That gentleman disappeared towards Dam Square. Was he going to provide more help or find shelter himself? I do not know.
In my memory, there were always “slashes”. Later, in an amateur video recording made by Bert Haanstra, I understood that those “slash people” behind the lampposts were looking for cover behind each other. During my “mission”—complaining about having no more ice cream—I was focused on the corner window of the “Groote Club.”
It’s the window I still look at when I am in Amsterdam, where in my memory people on the street were resting. I didn’t realize then that I was walking past injured or dead people, so mesmerized I was to tell those evil people how mean I found them. Fortunately, I was picked up and brought to safety. This event on May 7th 1945 is still on my mind and of course, it was only later that I understood what was really going on.”
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
++++++++++++WARNING: CONTAINS A GRAPHIC IMAGE++++++++++++
I am always surprised by why some well-educated people are capable of the most heinous acts.
Otto Ohlendorf came from humble beginnings but showed academic aptitude. He attended the Gymnasium in Hildesheim, which meant an excellent opportunity in education, preparing him for university. Otto then studied law at two fine institutions, the Universities of Leipzig and Göttingen and the University of Pavia in northern Italy. He graduated in July 1933 with a Ph.D. in jurisprudence.
[Like me, I presume most will not know what jurisprudence is. It is the philosophy and theory of law. The primary concern is what the law is and what it ought to be. That includes questions of how persons and social relations are understood in legal terms and the values in and of law. Work counted as jurisprudence is philosophical, but it includes work that belongs to other disciplines, such as sociology, history, politics and economics.]
Afterwards, Ohlendorf secured a position as Director of Research at the Institute for World Economy and Maritime Transport in Kiel. This deep interest in economics carried over into work for the Reich Trade Group, where he quickly ascended the ladder.
Despite having this education and privilege, where he could have used his knowledge for good, he decided to go a different way.
Ohlendorf joined the SD in 1936 and became an economic consultant of the organisation. Like other talented academics, he had been recruited by SD talent scouts. Attached to the SS with the rank of SS-Hauptsturmführer, by 1939, he had obtained the rank SS-Standartenführer and was appointed as head of Amt III (SD-Inland) of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA),
In June 1941, he was named commander of Einsatzgruppe D. In that capacity, he was responsible for the murder of at least 90,000 people.
By June 1942, Ohlendorf’s unit had rampaged through the Crimea and Ciscaucasia, exterminating Jews and other Soviet citizens. This brutal behaviour won Ohlendorf a Military Service Cross.
Transnistria was conquered by the Germans and Romanians in the summer of 1941. Before the war, some 300,000 Jews lived in the region. Tens of thousands were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen D, commanded by Otto Ohlendorf, and by German and Romanian soldiers. After the occupation, Transnistria became a concentration point for deported Jews [at the command of Ion Antonescu] from Bessarabia and Bukovina. The few survivors of the mass murders in Bessarabia and northern Bukovina were mostly deported and concentrated in ghettos and camps in Northern and Central Transnistria.
After the war, Ohlendorf was the main defendant in the Einsatzgruppen D case at the Nuremberg trials. He openly and unabashedly admitted his murderous actions during the war and explained why he thought his actions were justified. He was sentenced to death and hanged in 1951.
It’s vital to listen to or read the accounts of the survivors of the Holocaust, but just as essential is to read the testimonies of the perpetrators—just to see how warped their ideology was. Below is a part of the transcript of Ohlendorf’s testimony.
International Military Tribunal
January 3, 1946
COLONEL JOHN HARLAN AMEN (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to call as a witness for the Prosecution, Mr. Otto Ohlendorf …
[Witness Otto Ohlendorf took the stand]
THE PRESIDENT: Otto Ohlendorf, will you repeat this oath after me” “I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.”
[The witness repeated the oath]
COL. AMEN: Will you try to speak slowly and pause between each question and answer.
OTTO OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Where were you born?
OHLENDORF: In Hohen-Egelsen.
COL. AMEN: How old are you?
OHLENDORF: Thirty-eight years old.
COL. AMEN: When, if ever, did you become a member of the National Socialist Party?
OHLENDORF: 1925.
COL. AMEN: When, if ever, did you become a member of the SA?
OHLENDORF: For the first time in 1926.
COL. AMEN: When, if ever, did you become a member of the SS?
OHLENDORF: I must correct my answer to the previous question. I thought you were asking about my membership in the SS.
COL. AMEN: When did you become a member of the SA?
OHLENDORF: In the year 1925.
COL. AMEN: When, if ever, did you join the SD?
OHLENDORF: In 1936.
COL. AMEN: What was your last position in the SD?
OHLENDORF: Chief of Amt III in the RSHA….
COL. AMEN: Did you tell us for what period of time you continued as chief of Amt III?
OHLENDORF: I was part-time chief of Amt III from 1939 to 1945.
COL. AMEN: Turning now to the designation “Mobile Units” with the army shown in the lower right hand corner of the chaart, please explain to the Tribunal the significance of the terms “Einsatzgruppe” and “Einsatzkommando.”
OHLENDORF: The concept “Einsatzgruppe” was established after an agreement between the chiefs of the RSHA, OKW,(High Command of the Armed Forces) and OKH(Upper Command of the Arm), on the seperate use of Sipo(security police) units in the operational areas. The concept of “Einsatzgruppe” first appeared during the Polish campaign.
The agreement with the OKH and OKW however, was arrived at only before the beginning of the Russian campaign. This agreement specified that a representative of the chief of the Sipo and the SD would be assigned to the army groups, or armies, and that this official would have at his disposal mobile units of the Sipo and the SD in the form of an Einsatzgruppe, subdivided into Einsatzkommandos. The Einsatzkommandos would, on orders from the army group or army, be assigned to the individual army units as needed.
COL. AMEN: State, if you know, whether prior to the campaign against Soviet Russia, any agreement was entered into between the OKW, OKH, and RHSA?
OHLENDORF: Yes, the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos, as I have just described them, were used on the basis of a written agreement between the OKW, OKH, and RHSA.
COL. AMEN: How do you know that there was such a written agreement?
OHLENDORF: I was repeatedly present during the negotiations which Albrecht and Schellenberg conducted with the OKH and OKW; and I also had a written copy of this agreement which was the outcome of these negotiations, in my own hands when I took over the Einsatzgruppe.
COL. AMEN: Explain to the Tribunal who Schellenberg was. What position, if any, did he occupy?
OHLENDORF: Schellenberg was, at the end, chief of Amt VI in the RHSA; at the time when he was conducting as the representative of Heydrich, he nelonged to the Amt VI.
COL. AMEN: On approximately what date did these negotiations take place?
OHLENDORF: The negotiations lasted several weeks. The agreement must have been reached one or two weeks before the beginning of the campaign.
COL. AMEN: Did you yourself ever see a copy of this written agreement?
OHLENDORF: Yes!
COL. AMEN: Did you ever have occasion to work with this written agreement?
OHLENDORF: Yes!
COL. AMEN: On more than one occasion?
OHLENDORF: Yes; in all questions arising out of the relationship between the Einsatzgruppen and the army.
COL. AMEN: Do you know where the original or any copy of that agreement is located today?
OHLENDORF: No.
COL. AMEN: To the best of your knowledge and recollection, please explain to the Tribunal the entire substance of this written agreement.
OHLENDORF: First of all, the agreement stated that Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos would be set up and used in the operational areas. This created a precedent, because until that time the army had, on its own responsibility, discharged the tasks which would now fall soley to the Sipo. The second was the regulations as to competence.
COL. AMEN: You’re going too fast. What is it that you say the Einsatzkommandos did under the agreement?
OHLENDORF: I said this was the relationship between the army and the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos. The agreement specified that the army groups or armies would be responsible for the movement and the supply of Einsatzgruppen, but that instructions for their activities would come from the chief of Sipo and the SD.
COL. AMEN: Let us understand. It is correct that an Einsatz group was to be attached to each army group or army?
OHLENDORF: Every army group was to have an Einsatzgruppe attached to it. The army group in its turn would then attach the Einsatzkommandos to th armies of the army group.
COL. AMEN: And was the army command to determine the area within which the Einsatz group was to operate?
OHLENDORF: The operational area of the Einsatzgruppe was already determined by the fact that it was attached to a specific army group and therefore moved with it, whereas the operational areas of the Einsatzkommandos were fixed by the army group or army.
COL. AMEN: Did the agreement also provide that the army command was to direct the time during which they were to operate?
OHLENDORF: That was included under the heading “movement.”
COL. AMEN: And, also, to direct any additional tasks that they were to operate?
OHLENDORF: Yes. Even though the chiefs of Sipo and SD had the right to issue instructions to them on their work, there existed a general agreement that the army was also entitled to issue orders to the Einsatzgruppen if the operational situation made it necessary.
COL. AMEN: What did the agreement provide with respect to the attachment of the Einsatz group command to this army command?
OHLENDORF: I can’t remember whether anything specific was contained in the agreement about that. At any rate a liason man between the army command and the SD was appointed.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall any other provisions of this written agreement?
OHLENDORF: I believe I can state the main contents of that agreement.
COL. AMEN: What position did you occupy with respect to this agreement?
OHLENDORF: From June 1941 to the death of Heydrich in June 1942, I led Einsatzgruppe D, and was the representative of the chief of the Sipo and the SD with the 11th Army.
COL. AMEN: And when was Heydrich’s death?
OHLENDORF: Heydrich was wounded at the end of May 1942, and died on 4 June 1942.
COL. AMEN: How much advance notice, if any, did you have of the campaign against Soviet Russia?
OHLENDORF: About four weeks.
COL. AMEN: How many Einsatz groups were there, and who were their respective leaders?
OHLENDORF: There were four Einsatzgruppen, Groups A, B, C, and D. Chief of Einsatzgruppe A was Stahlecker; chief of Einsatzgruppe B was Nebe; chief of Einsatzgruppe C, Dr. Rasche, and later, Dr.Thomas; chief of Einsatzgruppe D I myself, and later Bierkamp.
COL. AMEN: To which army was Group D attached?
OHLENDORF: Group D was not attached to any army group but was attached directly to the 11th Army.
COL. AMEN: Where did Group D operate?
OHLENDORF: Group D operated in the southern Ukraine.
COL. AMEN: Will you describe in more detail the nature and extent of the area in which Group D originally operated, naming the cities or territories?
OHLENDORF: The northernmost city was Cernauti; then southward through Mohilev-Podolsk, Yampol, then eastward Zuvalje, Czervind, Melitopol, Mariopol, Taganrog, Rostov, and the Crimea.
COL. AMEN: What was the ultimate objective of Group D?
OHLENDORF: Group D was held in reserve for the Caucasus, for an army group which was to operate in the Caucasus.
COL. AMEN: When did Grooup D commence to move into Soviet Russia?
OHLENDORF: Group D left Duegen on 21 June and reached Pietra Namsk in Romania in three days. There the first Einsatzkommandos were already being demanded by the army, and they immediately set off for the destinations named by the army. The entire Einsatzgruppe was put into operation at the beginning of July.
COL. AMEN: You are referring to the 11th Army?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: In what respects, if any, were the official duties of the Einsatz groups concerned with Jews and Communist commissars?
OHLENDORF: The instructions were that in the Russian operational areas of the Einsatzgruppen the Jews, as well as the Soviet political commissars, were to be liquidated.
COL. AMEN: And when you say “liquidated” do you mean “killed”?
OHLENDORF: Yes, I mean “killed”.
COL. AMEN: Prior to the opening of the Soviet campaign, did you attend a conference at Pretz?
OHLENDORF: Yes, it was a conference at which the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos were informed of their tasks and were given the necessary orders.
COL. AMEN: Who was present at that conference?
OHLENDORF: The cjiefs of the Einsatzgruppen and the commanders of the Einsatzkommandos and Streckenbach of the RHSA who transmitted the orders of Heydrich and Himmler.
COL. AMEN: What were those orders?
OHLENDORF: Those were the general orders of the normal work of the Sipo and the SD, and in addition the liquidation order which I have already mentioned.
COL. AMEN: And that conference took place on approximately what date?
OHLENDORF: About three or four days before the mission.
COL. AMEN: So that before you commenced to march into Soviet Russia you received orders at this conference to exterminate the Jews and Communist functionaries in addition to the regular professional work of the Security Police and SD; is that correct?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Did you, personally, have any conversation with Himmler respecting any communication from Himmler to the chiefs of army groups and armies concerning this mission?
OHLENDORF: Yes. Himmler told me that before the beginning of the Russian campaign Hitler had spoken of this mission to a conference of the army groups and the army chiefs – no, not the army chiefs but the commanding generals – and had instructed the commanding generals to provide the necessary support.
COL. AMEN: So that you can testify that the chiefs of the army groups and the armies had been similarly informed of these orders for the liquidation of the Jews and Soviet functionaries?
OHLENDORF: I don’t think it is quite correct to put it in that form. They had no orders for liquidation; the order for the liquidation was given to Himmler to carry out, but since this liquidation took place in the operational area of the army group or the armies, they had to be ordered to provide support. Moreover, without such instructions to the army, the activities of the Einsatzgruppen would not have been possible.
COL. AMEN: Did you have any other conversation with Himmler concerning this order?
OHLENDORF: Yes, in late summer of 1941 Himmler was in Nikolaiev. He assembled the leaders and men of the Einsatzkommanos, repeated to them the liquidation order, and pointed out that the leaders and men who were taking part in the liquidation bore no personal responsibility for the execution of this order. The responsibility was his, alone, and the Führer’s.
COL. AMEN: And you yourself heard that said?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Do you know whether this mission of the Einsatz group was known to the army group commanders?
OHLENDORF: This order and the execution of these orders were known to the commanding general of the army.
COL. AMEN: How do you know that?
OHLENDORF: Through conferences with the army and through instructions that were given by the army on the execution of the order.
COL. AMEN: Was the mission of the Einsatz groups and the agreement between OKW, OKH, and RSHA known to the other leaders in the RSHA?
OHLENDORF: At least some of them knew it, since some of the leaders were also active in the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos in the course of time. Furthermore, the leaders who were dealing with the organization and legal aspects of the Einsatzgruppen also knew of it.
COL. AMEN: Most of the leaders came from the RSHA, did they not?
OHLENDORF: Which leaders?
COL. AMEN: Of the Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: No, one can’t say that. The leaders of in the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos came from all over the Reich.
COL. AMEN: Do you know whether the mission and the agreement were known to Kaltenbrunner?
OHLENDORF: After his assumption of office Kaltenbrunner had to deal with these questions and consequently must have known details of the Einsatzgruppen which were offices of his.
COL. AMEN: Who was the commanding officer of the 11th Army?
OHLENDORF: At first, Riter von Schober; later Von Manstein.
COL. AMEN: Will you tell the Tribunal in what way or ways the command officer of the 11th Army directed or supervised Einsatz Group D in carrying out its liquidation activities?
OHLENDORF: An order from the 11th Army was sent to Nikolaiev that liquidations were to take place only at a distance of not less than two hundred kilometeres from the headquarters of the commanding general.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall any other occasions?
OHLENDORF: In Simferopol the army command requested the Einsatzkommandos in its area to hasten liquidations, because famine was threatening and there was a great housing shortage.
COL. AMEN: Do you know how many persons were liquidated by Einsatz Group D under your command?
OHLENDORF: In the year between June 1941 to June 1942 the Einsatzkommandos reported ninety thousand people liquidated.
COL. AMEN: Did that include men, women, and children?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: On what do you base those figures?
OHLENDORF: On reports sent by the Einsatzkommandos to the Einsatzgruppen.
COL. AMEN: Were those reports submitted to you?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And you saw them and read them?
OHLENDORF: I beg your pardon?
COL. AMEN: And you saw and read those reports personally?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And it is on those reports that you base the figures you have given the Tribunal?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Do you know how those figures compare with the number of persons liquidated by other Einsatzgruppen?
OHLENDORF: The figures which I saw of other Einsatzgruppen are considerably larger.
COL. AMEN: That was due to what factor?
OHLENDORF: I believe that to a large extent the figures submitted by the other Einsatzgruppen were exaggerated.
COL. AMEN: Did you see reports of liquidations from the other Einsatz units from time to time?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And those reports showed liquidations exceeding those of Group D; is that correct?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Did you personally supervise mass executions of these individuals?
OHLENDORF: I was present at two mass executions for purposes of inspection.
COL. AMEN: Will you explain in detail to the Tribunal how an individual mass execution was carried out?
OHLENDORF: A local Einsatzkommando attempted to collect all the Jews in its area by registering them. This registration was performed by the jews themselves.
COL. AMEN: On what pretext, if any, were they rounded up?
OHLENDORF: On the pretext that they were to be resettled.
COL. AMEN: Will you continue?
OHLENDORF: After the registration the Jews were collected at one place; and from there they were later transported to the place of execution, which was, as a rule, an antitank ditch or a natural excavation. The executions were carried out in a military manner, bu firing squads under command.
COL. AMEN: In what way were they transported to the place of execution?
OHLENDORF: They were transported to the place of execution in trucks, always only as many as could be executed immediately. In this way it was attempted to keep the span of time from the moment in which the victims knew what was about to happen to them until the time of their actual execution as short as possible.
COL. AMEN: Was that your idea?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And after they were shot what was done with the bodies?
OHLENDORF: The bodies were buried in the antitank ditch or excavation.
COL. AMEN: What determination, if any, was made as to whether the persons were actually dead?
OHLENDORF: The unit leaders or the firing-squad commanders had orders to see to this and, if need be, finish them off themselves.
COL. AMEN: And who would do that?
OHLENDORF: Either the unit leader himself or somebody designated by him.
COL. AMEN: In what positions were the victims shot?
OHLENDORF: Standing or kneeling.
COL. AMEN: What was done with the personal property of the persons executed?
OHLENDORF: All valuables were confiscated at the time of the registration or the rounding up and handed over to the Finance Ministry, either through the RSHA or directly. At first the clothing was given to the population, but in the winter of 1941-42 it was collected and disposed of by the NSV.
COL. AMEN: All their personal property was registered at that time?
OHLENDORF: No, not all of it, only valuables were registered.
COL. AMEN: What happened to the garments which the victims were wearing when they went to the place of execution?
OHLENDORF: They were obliged to take off their outer garments immediately before the execution.
COL. AMEN: All of them?
OHLENDORF: The outer garments, yes.
COL. AMEN: How about the rest of the garments they were wearing?
OHLENDORF: The other garments remained on the bodies.
COL. AMEN: Was that true of not only your group but of the other Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: That was the order in my Einsatzgruppe. I don’t know how it was done in other Einsatzgruppen.
COL. AMEN: In what way did they handle it.
OHLENDORF: Some of the unit leaders did not carry out liquidations in the military manner, but killed the victims singly by shooting them in the back of the neck.
COL. AMEN: And you objected to that procedure?
OHLENDORF: I was against that procedure, yes.
COL. AMEN: For what reason?
OHLENDORF: Because, both for the victims and for those who carried out the executions, it was, psychologically, an immense burden to bear.
COL. AMEN: Now, what was done with the property collected from the Einsatzkommandos from these victims?
OHLENDORF: All valuables were sent to Berlin, to the RSHA or to the Reich Ministy of Finance. The articles which could not be used in the operational area, were disposed of there.
COL. AMEN: For exemple, what happened to gold and silver taken from the victims?
OHLENDORF: That was, as I have just said, turned over to Berlin, to the Reich Ministry of Finance.
COL. AMEN: How do you know that?
OHLENDORF: I can remember that it was actually handled in that way from Simferopol.
COL. AMEN: How about watches, for example, taken from the victims?
OHLENDORF: At the request of the army, watches were made available to the forces at the front.
COL. AMEN: Were all victims, including the men, women, and children executed in the same manner?
OHLENDORF: Until the spring of 1942, yes. Then an order came from Himmler that in the future women and children were to be killed only in gas vans.
COL. AMEN: How had women and children been killed previously?
OHLENDORF: In the same was as the men – by shooting.
COL. AMEN: What, if anything, was done about burying the victims after they had been executed?
OHLENDORF: The kommandos filled the graves to efface the signs of execution, and then labor units of the population leveled them.
COL. AMEN: Referring to the gas vans that you said you received in the spring of 1942, what order did you receive in respect to the use of these vans?
OHLENDORF: These vans were in the future to be used for killing of women and children.
COL. AMEN: Will you explain to the Tribunal the construction of these vans and their appearance?
OHLENDORF: The actual purpose of these vans could not be seen from the outside. They looked like closed trucks, and were so constructed that at the start of the motor, gas was conducted into the van causing death in ten to fifteen minutes.
COL. AMEN: Explain in detail just how one of these vans was used for an execution.
OHLENDORF: The vans were loaded with the victims and driven to the place of burial, which was usually the same as that used for the mass executions. The time needed for transportation was sufficient to insure the death of the victims.
COL. AMEN: How were the victims induced to enter the vans?
OHLENDORF: They were told that they were to be transported to another locality.
COL. AMEN: How was the gas turned on?
OHLENDORF: I am not familiar with technical details.
COL. AMEN: How long did it take to kill the victims ordinarily?
OHLENDORF: About ten to fifteen minutes; the victims were not conscious of what was happening to them.
COL. AMEN: How many people could be killed simultaneously?
OHLENDORF: About fifteen to twenty-five persons. The vans varied in size.
COL. AMEN: Did you revceive reports from those persons operating the vans from time to time?
OHLENDORF: I didn’t understand the question.
COL. AMEN: Did you receive reports from those who were working on the vans?
OHLENDORF: I received the report that the Einsatzkommandos did not willingly use the vans.
COL. AMEN: Why not?
OHLENDORF: Because the burial of the victims was a great ordeal for the members of the Einsatzkommandos.
COL. AMEN: Now, will you tell the Tribunal who furnished these vans to the Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: The gas vans did not belong to the motor pool of the Einsatzgruppen but were assigned to the Einsatzgruppe as a special unit, headed by the man who had constructed the vans. The vans were assigned to the Einsatzgruppen by the RSHA.
COL. AMEN: Were the vans supplied to all of the different Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: I am not certain. I know only in the case of Einsatzgruppe D, and indirectly that Einsatzgruppe C also made use of these vans…
COL. AMEN: …Referring to your previous testimony, will you explain to the Tribunal why you believe that the type of execution ordered by you, namely, military, was preferable to the shooting-in-the-neck procedure adopted by the other Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: On the one hand, the aim was that the individual leaders and men should be able to carry out the executions in a military manner acting on orders and should not have to make a decision of their own; it was, to all intents and purposes, an order which they were to carry out. On the other hand, it was known to me that through the emotional excitement of the executions ill treatment could not be avoided, since the victims discovered too soon that they were to be executed and could not therefore endure prolonged servous strain. And it seemed intolerable to me that individual leaders and men should in consequence be forced to kill a large number of people on their own decision.
COL. AMEN: In what manner did you determine which were the Jews to be executed?
OHLENDORF: That was not part of my task; but the identification of the Jews was carried out by the Jews themselves, since the registration was handled by a Jewish Council of Elders.
COL. AMEN: Did the amount of Jewish blood have anything to do with it?
OHLENDORF: I can’t remember the details, but I believe that half-Jews were also considered as Jews.
COL. AMEN: What organization furnished most off the officer personnel of the Einsatz groups and Einsatzkommandos?
OHLENDORF: I did not understand the question.
COL. AMEN: What organization furnished most of the officer personnel of the Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: The officer personnel was furnished by the State Police, the Kripo, and, to a lesser extent by the SD.
COL. AMEN: Kripo?
OHLENDORF: Yes, the State Police, the Criminal Police and, to a lesser extent, the SD.
COL. AMEN: Were there any other sources of personnel?
OHLENDORF: Yes, most of the men by the Waffen SS and the Ordnungspolizie. The State Police and the Kripo furnished most of the experts and the troops were firnished by the Waffen SS and the Ordungspolzei.
COL. AMEN: How about the Waffen SS.
OHLENDORF: The Waffen SS and the Ordungspolzei were each supposed to supply the Einsatzgruppen with one company.
COL. AMEN: How about the Order Police.
OHLENDORF: The Ordnungspolzei also furnished the Einsatzgruppen with one company.
COL. AMEN: What was the size of Einsatz Group D and its operating area as compared with other Einsatz groups?
OHLENDORF: I estimate that Einsatzgruppen D was one-half or two-thirds as large as the other Einsatzgruppen. That changed in the course of time since some of the Einsatzgruppen were greatly enlarged.
COL. AMEN: May it please the Tribunal, relating to organizational matters which I think would clarify some of the evidence which has already been in part received by the Tribunal. But I don’t want to take the time of the Tribunal unless they feel that they want any more such testimony. I thought perhaps if any members of the Tribunal had any questions they would ask the witness directly because he is the best informed on these organizational matters of anyone who will be presented in court…
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, the Tribunal does not think that it is necessary to go further into the organizational questions at this stage, but it is a matter that must be really decided by you because you know what nature of the evidence which you are considering is.
So far as the Tribunal is concerned, they are satified at the present stage to leave the matter where it stands, but there is one aspect of the witness’s evidence which the Tribunal would like you to investigate, and that is whether the practices by which he has been speaking continued after 1942, and for how long.
COL. AMEN: [To the witness] Can you state whether the liquidation practices that you have described continued after 1942 and, if so, for how long a period oftime thereafter?
OHLENDORF: I don’t think that the basic order was ever revoked. But I cannot remember the details- at least not with regard to Russia – which would enable me to make concrete statements on this subject. The retreat began very shortly thereafter, so that the operational region of the Einsatzgruppen became ever smaller. I do know, however, that other Einsatzgruppen with similiar orders had been envisaged for other areas.
COL. AMEN: Your personal knowledge extends up to what date?
OHLENDORF: I know that the liquidation of Jews was prohibited about six months before the end of the war. I also saw a document terminating the liquidation of Soviet commissary but I cannot recall a specific date.
COL. AMEN: Do you know whether in fact it was so terminated?
OHLENDORF: Yes, I believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know the number of men in your Einsatz group.
OHLENDORF: There were about five hundredmen in my Einsatzgruppe, excluding those who were added to the goup as assistants from the country itself…
COL. AMEN: May it please the Tribunal. The witness is now available to other counsel. I understand that Colonel Pokrovsky has some questions that he wished to ask on behalf of the Soviets.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the USSR): The testimony of the witness is important for the clarification of questions in a report on which the Soviet delegation is at present working. Therefore, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to put a number of questions to the witness.
[Turning to the witness]
Witness, you said that you were present twice at a mass executions. On whose orders were you an inspector at the executions?
OHLENDORF: I was present at the executions on my own iniative.
COL. POKROVSKY: But you said you attended as inspector.
OHLENDORF: I said that I attended for inspection purposes.
COL. POKROVSKY: On your own initiative?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did one of your chiefs always attend the executions for purposes of inspection?
OHLENDORF: Whenever possible I sent a member of the staff of the Einsatzgruppen towitness the executions but this was not always feasible since the Einsatzgruppen had to operate over great distances.
COL. POKROVSKY: Why was some person sent for purposes of inspection?
OHLENDORF: Would you please repeat the question?
COL. POKROVSKY: For what purpose was an inspector sent?
OHLENDORF: To determine whether or not my instructions regarding the manner of the execution were actually carried out.
COL. POKROVSKY: Am I to understand that the inspector was to make certain that the execution had actually been carried out?
OHLENDORF: No, it would not be correct to say that. He was to acertain whether the conditions which I had set for the execution were actually being carried out.
COL. POKROVSKY: What manner of conditions had you in mind?
OHLENDORF: One: exclusion of the public; two: military execution by a firing-squad; three: arrival of transports and carrying out of the liquidation in a smooth manner to avoid unnecessary excitment; four: supervision of the property to prevent looting. There may have been other details that I no longer remember. At any rate, all ill-treatment, whether pysical or mental, was to be prevented through these measures.
COL. POKROVSKY: You wished to make sure that what you considered to be an equitable distribution of this property was effected, or did you aspire to complete acquisition of the valuables?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: You spoke of ill-treatment. What did you mean by ill-treatment at the executions?
OHLENDORF: If, for instance, the manner in which the executions were carried out caused excitement and disobedience among the victims, so that the kommandos were forced to restore by means of violence.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you mean by “restore order by means of violence”? What do you mean by supression of the excitement amongst the victims by means of violence?
OHLENDORF: If, as I have already said, in order to carry out the liquidation in an orderly fashion it was necessary, for example, to resort to beating.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was it absolutely necessary to beat the victims?
OHLENDORF: I myself never witnessed it, but I heard of it.
COL. POKROVSKY: From whom?
OHLENDORF: In conversations with members of other kommandos.
COL. POKROVSKY: You said that cars, autocars, were used for the executions?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know where, and with whose assistance, the inventor, Becker, was able to put his invention into practice?
OHLENDORF: I remember only that it was done through Amt II of the RSHA; but I can no longer say that with certainty.
COL. POKROVSKY: How many persons were executed in these cars?
OHLENDORF: I did not understand the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: How many persons were executed by means of these cars?
OHLENDORF: I cannot give precise figures, but the number was comparatively small – perhaps a few hundred.
COL. POKROVSKY: You said that mostly women and children were executed in these vans. For what reason?
OHLENDORF: That was a special order from Himmler to the effect that women and children were not to be exposed to the mental strain of the executions; and thus the men of the kommandos, mostly married men, should not be compelled to aim at women and children.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did anybody observe the behavior of the persons executed in these vans?
OHLENDORF: Yes, the doctor.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you know that Becker had reported that death in these vans was particularly agonizing?
OHLENDORF: No. I learned of Becker’s reports for the first time from the letter to Rauff, which was shown to me here. On the contrary, I know from the doctor’s reports that the victims were not conscious of their impending death.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did any military units – I mean, army units – take part in these mass executions?
OHLENDORF: As a rule, no.
COL. POKROVSKY: And as an exception?
OHLENDORF: I think I remember that in Nikolaiev and in Simferopol a spectator from the Army High Command was present for a short time.
COL. POKROVSKY: For what purpose?
OHLENDORF: I don’t know, probably to obtain information personally.
COL. POKROVSKY: Were military units assigned to carry out the executions in these towns?
OHLENDORF: Officially, the army did not assign any units for this pupose; the army as such was actually opposed to the liquidations.
COL. POKROVSKY: But in practice?
OHLENDORF: Individual units occasionally volunteered. However, at the moment I know of no such case among the army itself, but only among units attached to the army (Heeresgefolge).
COL. POKROVSKY: You were the man by whose orders people were sent to their death. Were Jews only handed over for execution by the Einsatzgruppe or were Communists – “Communist officials” you call them in your instructions – handed over for execution along with the Jews?
OHLENDORF: Yes, activists and political commissars. Mere membership in the Communist Party was not sufficient to persecute or kill a man.
COL. POKROVSKY: Were any special investigations made concerning the part played by persons in the Communist Party?
OHLENDORF: No, I said on the contrary that mere membership of the Communist Party was not, in itself, a determining factor in persecuting or executing a man; he had to have a special political function.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you have any discussions on the murder vans sent from Berlin and on their use?
OHLENDORF: I did not understand the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: Had you occasion to discuss, with your chiefs and your collegues, the fact that motor vans had been sent to your own particular Einsatzgruppe from Berlin for carrying out the executions? Do you remember any such discussion?
OHLENDORF: I do not remember any specific discussion.
COL. POKROVSKY: Had you any information concerning the fact that members of the execution squad in charge of the executions were unwilling to use the vans?
OHLENDORF: I knew that the Einsatzkommandos were using the vans.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I had something else in mind. I wanted to know whether you received reports that members of the execution squads were unwilling to use the vans and preferred other means of execution?
OHLENDORF: That they would rather kill by means of the gas vans than by shooting?
COL. POKROVSKY: On the contrary, that they preferred execution by shooting to killing by means of the gas vans.
OHLENDORF: You have already said the gas van…
COL. POKROVSKY: And why did they prefer execution by shooting to killing in the gas vans?
OHLENDORF: Because, as I have already said, in the opinion of the leader of the Einsatzkommandos, the unloading of the corpses was an unnecessary mental strain.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you mean by “an unnecessary mental strain”?
OHLENDORF: As far as I can remember the conditions at that time – the picture presented by the corpses and probably because certain functions of the body had taken place leaving the corpses lying in filth.
COL. POKROVSKY: You mean to say that the sufferings endured prior to death were clearly visible on the victims? Did I understand you correctly?
OHLENDORF: I don’t understand the question; do you mean during the killing in the van?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes.
OHLENDORF: I can only repeat what the doctor told me, that the victims were not conscious of their death in the van.
COL. POKROVSKY: In that case, your reply to my previous question, that the unloading of the bodies made a very terrible impression on the members of the execution squad, becomes entirely incomprehensible.
OHLENDORF: And, as I said, the terrible impression created by the position of corpses themselves, and probably by the state of the vans which had probably been dirtied and so on.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have no further questions to put to this witness at the present stage of the trial…
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): In your testimony you said that the Einsatz group had the object of annihilating the Jews and the commissars, is that correct?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): And in what category did you consider the children? For what reason were the children massacred?
OHLENDORF: The order was that the Jewish population should be totally exterminated.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Including the children?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Were all the Jewish children murdered?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): But the children of those whom you considered as belonging to the catagory of commissars, were they also killed?
OHLENDORF: I am not aware that inquiries were ever made after the families of Soviet commmissars.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Did you send anywhere reports on the executions that the group carried out?
OHLENDORF: Reports on the executions were regularly submitted to the RSHA.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): No, did you personally send any reports on the annihilation of thousands of people which you effected? Did you personally submit any report?
OHLENDORF: The reports came from the Einsatzkommandos who carried out the actions, to the Einsatzgruppe and the Einsatzgruppe informed the RHSA.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Whom?
OHLENDORF: The reports went to the chief of Sipo personally.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Personally?
OHLENDORF: Yes, personally.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): What was the name of this police officer? Can you give his name?
OHLENDORF: At that time, Heydrich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): After Heydrich?
OHLENDORF: I was no longer there then, but that was the standing order.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): I am asking you whether you continued to submit reports after Heydrich’s death or not?
OHLENDORF: After Heydrich’s death I was no longer in the Einsatz, but the reports were, of course, continued.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Do you know whether the reports continued to be submitted after Heydrich’s death or not?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Yes?
OHLENDORF: No, the reports…
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): Was the order concerning the annihilation of the Soviet people in conformity with the policy of the German government or the Nazi Party or was it against it? Do you understand the question?
OHLENDORF: Yes. One must distinguish here: the order for the liquidation came from the Führer of the Reich, and it was to be carried out by the Reichführer SS Himmler.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): But was it in conformity with the policy conducted by the Nazi Party and the German government, or was it in contradiction to it?
OHLENDORF: A policy amounts to a practice so that in this respect it was laid down by the Führer. If you were to ask whether this activity was in conformity with the idea of National Socialism, then I would say “no”.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Niktchenko): I am talking about the practice.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say that objects of value were taken from the Jewish victims by the Jewish Council of Elders?
OHLENDORF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Jewish Council of Elders settle who were to be killed?
OHLENDORF: That was done in various ways. As far as I remember, the Council of Elders was given the order to collect valuables at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the Jewish Council of Elders would not know whether or not they were to be killed?
OHLENDORF: Yes…
THE PRESIDENT: Now, a question concerning you personally. From whom did you receive your orders for the liquidation of the Jews and so forth? And in what form?
OHLENDORF: My duty was not the task of liquidation, but I did head the staff which directed the Einsatzkommandos in the field, and the Einsatzkommandos themselves had already received this order in Berlin on the instructions of Streckenbach, Himmler, and Heydrich. This order was renewed by Himmler at Nikolaiev.
HERR BABEL: You personally were not concerned with the execution of these orders?
OHLENDORF: I led the Einsatzgruppe, and therefore I had the task of seeing how the Einsatzkommandos executed the orders received.
HERR BABEL: But did you have no scruples in regard to the execution of these orders?
OHLENDORF: Yes, of course.
HERR BABEL: And how is it that they were carried out regardless of these scruples?
OHLENDORF: Because to me it is inconceivable that a subordinate leader should not carry out orders given by the leaders of the state.
HERR BABEL: This is your opinion. But this must have been not only your point of view but also the point of view of the majority of the people involved. Didn’t some of the men appointed to execute these orders ask you to be relieved of such tasks?
OHLENDORF: I cannot remember any one concrete case. I excluded some whom I did not consider emotionally suitable for executing these tasks and I sent some of them home.
HERR BABEL: Was the legality of the orders explained to those people under false pretenses?
OHLENDORF: I do not understand your question; since the order was issued by the superior authorities, the question of legality could not arise in the minds of these individuals, for they had sworn obedience to the people who had issued the orders.
HERR BABEL: Could any individual expect to succeed in evading the execution of these orders?
OHLENDORF: No, the result would have been a court martial with a corresponding sentence.
These are testimonies of two men, one a low-ranking SS Infantry soldier, the other a member of the Hlinka Guard. The most disturbing aspect of the testimonies is not the description of the crimes committed, but the casual way of describing them.
Hans Friedrich was a member of the 1st Infantry Brigade. He claimed not to recall exactly the actions in which he took part in June 1941 in the Soviet Union, but he did admit that he participated in the killing of Jews.
“Hans Friedrich: Try to imagine there is a ditch, with people on one side, and behind them soldiers. That was us and we were shooting. And those who were hit fell down into the ditch…
They were so utterly shocked and frightened, you could do with them what you wanted.
Interviewer: Could you tell me what you were thinking and feeling when you were shooting?
Hans Friedrich: Nothing. I only thought, ‘Aim carefully’ so that you hit properly. That was my thought.
Interviewer: This was your only thought? During all that time you had no feelings for the people, the Jewish civilians that you shot?
Hans Friedrich: No.
Interviewer: And why not?
Hans Friedrich: Because my hatred towards the Jews is too great. … And I admit my thinking on this point is unjust, I admit this. But what I experienced from my earliest youth when I was living on a farm, what the Jews were doing to us—well that will never change. That is my unshakeable conviction.
Interviewer: What in God’s name did the people you shot have to do with those people who supposedly treated you badly at home? They simply belonged to the same group! What else? What else did they have to do with it?
Hans Friedrich: Nothing, but to us they were Jews!”
Slovakia signed an agreement with Nazi Germany in March 1942. Between March and October of that year, approximately 60,000 Slovakian Jews were sent to their deaths
The Slovakian Jews were under the control of the Hlinka Guard, Slovakia’s pro-Nazi militia. Michal Kabác belonged to this unit.
“Michal Kabác: A Jew would never go to work. None of them work; they only wanted to have an easy life. Our people were happy to receive their stores. We called it aryan-ising them. And that’s how they become rich…
Later when the Jews were coming to the camps, we used to take their belongings and clothes.
The deputy commander came and said to us to go and choose from the clothes. I took some clothes, others did as well. Then I took 3 pairs of shoes. Everyone took what he could. I wrapped it all with a rope and brought it back home.
We, the guards, were doing quite well.
Interviewer: How could you personally participate in the deportation knowing those people were certainly going to die?
Michal Kabác: What could I have done? I was thinking both ways. I thought it will be peace and quiet here, you deserved it. But on the other hand, there were innocent people among them as well.
Max Heiliger did a lot more than just launder money for the Nazis. Stolen banknotes and jewellery along with Holocaust victims’ dental gold, wedding rings, and even scrap gold melted down from spectacles-frames flooded into the Max Heiliger accounts, filling several bank vaults by 1942.
So who was this Max Heiliger? Basically, he was a nobody, and this is meant literally. He was a nobody, Max Heiliger was a fictional name created during the Nazi era under the authority of Reichsbank president Walther Funk in a secret arrangement with the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.
Using the name “Heiliger” was a cynical Nazi joke, the word means Saint, from the word Heilig. The Nazis often used these cynical or rather sick jokes. For example, the one-way path to the gas chamber at the Sobibor extermination camp was called Himmelstrasse, meaning “Heaven Street.”
The valuables, processed through the Max Heiliger accounts, were stolen from Holocaust victims before and after transportation by train to Nazi concentration camps. The items were carefully weighed, evaluated, and inventoried by SS accountants before transfer to the Reichsbank accounts in Berlin. Furniture and artwork left in vacated apartments and houses were collected in a separate operation and auctioned to the German population, after which the generated funds were transferred to the accounts. What the Nazis considered “degenerate art” was often sent to Geneva for auction, although some art was retained by Hitler’s art dealers, including Hildebrand Gurlitt. Stocks, bonds, and shares were transferred to the state in the same way, and companies were purchased for less than their true worth through Aryanization. The potential for corruption of such assets was substantial and an unknown amount of stolen wealth ended up in private pockets, notably with the Gurlitt Collection. Heiliger accounts were also sometimes used to fence valuables at Berlin’s municipal pawn shops.
All of this was done in secrecy, clearly, that is an indication that the Nazis knew what they were doing was criminal.
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
No one can deny that the Nazis committed unspeakable atrocities during World War 2,against civilians. But the Nazis were not the only ones.
On October 21, 1944, the Soviet Red Army was steamrolling the German army on the Eastern Front, reaching the town of Nemmersdorf, at the time it was a German rural town in East Prussia, though today the town finds is part of Russia and is called Mayakovskoye.
The 2nd Battalion, 25th Guards Tank Brigade, belonging to the 2nd Guards Tank Corps of the 11th Guards Army, crossed the Angerapp bridge and established a bridgehead on the western bank of the Rominte river on 21 October 1944. The German forces tried to retake the bridge, but several attacks were repelled by the Soviet tanks and the supporting infantry. During an air attack, a number of Soviet soldiers took shelter in an improvised bunker that was already occupied by 14 local men and women. According to the testimony of a seriously-injured woman, Gerda Meczulat, when a Soviet officer arrived and ordered everybody out, the Soviets shot and killed the German civilians at close range. During the night, the Soviet 25th Tank Brigade was ordered to retreat back across the river and take defensive positions along the Rominte. The Wehrmacht regained control of Nemmersdorf and discovered the massacre.
A Soviet officer had ordered the civilians to be killed. There were some conflicting reports in relation to the age and gender of the victims , as well as the number of victims, with both sides trying to spin the incident to their respective advantage.
Nazi German authorities organized an international commission to investigate, headed by the Estonian Hjalmar Mäe and other representatives of neutral countries, such as Francoist Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It heard the report from a medical commission, which reported that all of the dead females had been raped (they ranged in age from 8 to 84). The Nazi Propaganda Ministry (separately) used the Völkischer Beobachter and the cinema news series Wochenschau to accuse the Soviet Army of having killed dozens of civilians at Nemmersdorf and having summarily executed about 50 French and Belgian noncombatant prisoners-of-war, who had been ordered to take care of thoroughbred horses but had been blocked by the bridge.
After the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, new sources became available and the dominant view among scholars became that the massacre had been embellished and actually exploited by Goebbels in an attempt to stir up civilian resistance to the advancing Soviet Army.
The former chief of staff of the German Fourth Army, Major General Erich Dethleffsen, testified on 5 July 1946 before an American tribunal in Neu-Ulm:
“When in October, 1944, Russian units temporarily entered Nemmersdorf, they tortured the civilians, specifically they nailed them to barn doors, and then shot them. A large number of women were raped and then shot. During this massacre, the Russian soldiers also shot some fifty French prisoners of war. Within forty-eight hours the Germans re-occupied the area.”
Karl Potrek of Königsberg, the leader of a Volkssturm company present when the German Army took back the village, testified in a 1953 report:
“In the farmyard stood a cart, to which more naked women were nailed through their hands in a cruciform position … Near a large inn, the ‘Roter Krug’, stood a barn and to each of its two doors a naked woman was nailed through the hands, in a crucified posture…. In the dwellings we found a total of 72 women, including children, and one old man, 74, all dead…. Some babies had their heads bashed in.”
While the Germans claimed that most of the 653 residents of Nemmersdorf were killed, Soviet records showed only 20 to 30 killed. It was generally believed that the Germans had inflated the number of deaths, grouped evidence of other isolated atrocities to embellish the size of this massacre, and might even had created the situations where civilians would be killed by the Soviets (for example, some accused the German military of using civilians to shield one of the attacks on the Angrapa bridge). The Soviet claim of only 20 to 30 killed was equally fantastic, as the Soviet Union was also known to take great liberties with numbers even with its official state records. The actual number of deaths was likely somewhere in-between.
Regardless what the numbers were, it was nonetheless a massacre on civilians which never should have happened.
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
Following the Hiroshima bombing on August 6, the Soviet declaration of war and the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, the Emperor’s speech was broadcast at noon Japan Standard Time on August 15, 1945, and did reference the atomic bombs as a reason for the surrender.
The broadcast was recorded a day earlier but was broadcast on August 15 at noon. Below is the translated transcript of the broadcast.
“After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.
We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.
To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which lies close to our heart.
Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers. We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire towards the emancipation of East Asia.
The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met with untimely death and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day. The welfare of the wounded and the war-sufferers, and of those who have lost their homes and livelihood, are the objects of our profound solicitude.
The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. Having been able to safeguard and maintain the Kokutai,(basically the emperors position) We are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.
Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion which may engender needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife which may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world. Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith in the imperishability of its sacred land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibility, and of the long road before it.
Unite your total strength, to be devoted to construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, foster nobility of spirit, and work with resolution – so that you may enhance the innate glory of the imperial state and keep pace with the progress of the world.”
Although the Emperor did not mention the word ‘surrender’ once, there could be no doubt about it, this speech was the surrender of Japan.
Despite this some Japanese officers still felt compelled to execute a British Pilot, even after the surrender.
Sub-Lieutenant Frederick (Fred) Hockley was an English Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm fighter pilot who was shot down over Japan while taking part in the last combat mission flown by British aircraft in the Second World War.
Hockley was born in 1923,in Littleport near Ely in Cambridgeshire. His father was a foreman for the water board and a bell ringer in the parish church. Fred attended Soham Grammar School and was a keen swimmer.
Commissioned in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve he was posted as a Supermarine Seafire pilot to HMS Indefatigable.
On the 15th of August 1945 he took off leading five Seafires of 894 Squadron to escort Firefly and Avenger fighter bombers attacking airfields in Tokyo Bay. They were diverted to a chemicals factory in Odaki Bay.
The 15 aircraft diverted to the alternate target which was a chemicals factory in Odaki Bay. Hockley’s radio was not functioning and he bailed out of his aircraft after it was attacked by Mitsubishi Zero fighters, parachuting to the ground near the village of Higashimura (now Chōnan). The formation, now led by Victor Lowden, bombed the target and completed their mission.
Hockley surrendered to an air raid warden who took him to the local civil defence HQ. The commander there handed him over to the 426th Infantry Regiment, stationed in Ichinomiya.
At regimental headquarters the commanding officer, Colonel Tamura Tei’ichi, having heard Emperor Hirohito announce the Japanese surrender at 12 noon, called divisional headquarters for advice on what to do with the prisoner. The 147th Division’s intelligence officer, Major Hirano Nobou, responded with words to the effect that he was to shochi-se (finish him off) in the mountains that night, despite the fact that Tamura had sought no authority to do so.
Tamura claimed that he was shocked by the order, which he felt was “unkind”, but he could not ignore an order from divisional command. He therefore told his adjutant, Captain Fujino Masazo, that Hockley had to be executed, adding that Fujino should do it so that no one could witness it. Fujino then ordered Sergeant Major Hitomi Tadao to move Hockley to regimental headquarters. There Hitomi was ordered by another officer to take six soldiers into the mountains to dig a grave with pickaxes and shovels. At about nine o’clock at night, nine hours after the Emperor had announced the surrender, Hockley was taken to the grave blindfolded, his hands were tied and he was told to stand with his back to the hole. He was then shot twice and rolled into the hole, where Fujino stabbed him in the back with a sword to ensure that he was dead. His body was later exhumed and cremated after Colonel Tamura began to fear that it might be found.
Hockley’s fate was revealed when Allied Occupation forces investigated and Fujino told the truth about what had happened, though Tamura had implored not to do so. Tamura, Hirano and Fujino were transferred to British custody and put on trial as war criminals in Hong Kong between 30 May and 13 June 1947. Tamura and Fujino cited superior orders in their defence, and Hirano maintained that he had ordered that Hockley be dealt with in accordance with intelligence service regulations and claimed that he had not anticipated that Hockley would be killed. Following differing accounts of the precise wording of the orders, Tamura and Hirano were convicted, sentenced to death and hanged on 16 September 1947, and Fujino was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
I think Takuma’s claim that he was shocked was quite a hollow statement. His supreme superior ,the Emperor, had clearly indicated that all hostilities were to cease on noon that day. Also exhuming the body and then cremating it, is a clear sign he knew that the execution was the wrong thing to do.
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
Josef Mengele was born in Günzburg on 16 March 1911, the oldest of three sons of Walburga (née Hupfauer) and Karl Mengele. His two younger brothers were Karl Jr. and Alois.
There is an eerie coincidence here, Alois was also the name of the Father of the man he came to admire and serve, Adolf Hitler.
I will not go too deep into the crimes of Josef Mengele as such, because so much has already been written about him, even I have done several pieces in the past. His Father Karl Mengele, a prosperous manufacturer of farming implements. In 1935 Josef got a PhD in physical anthropology at the University of Munich. He also held a doctoral degree in genetic medicine.
A privileged and educated man and yet he could not see how inhumane he was. Or maybe he didn’t want to see. With a slight flick of the finger he would decide who would live or die. Even those who initially were selected to live were subjected to medical experiments or slave labour, eventually often resulting in death.
The most disturbing fact about Mengele is that he died a free man. I have no doubt that he was helped escape Germany after the war and not necessarily only by fellow Nazis. It would not surprise me if he actual had surrendered to the allies, he would have been part of Operation Paperclip, the operation which ensured that many of the Nazi scientists got jobs in the USA and other countries, and not just mediocre positions but highly paid jobs within the scientific fraternity.
But the fact that many of his crimes were well documented and used as evidence during the International Military Tribunal, probably meant that the allies could not be seen endorsing this Angel of Death. Having that said if they would have been serious in capturing him, it would have been very easy to do so because he wasn’t really that hard to find.
Today marks the 74th anniversary of the sentencing at the main Nuremberg trials.The sentencing took two days, with the individual sentences read out on the afternoon of 1 October.
The Nuremberg trials were never really meant to serve justice. In one way I can understand it but on the other hand looking at the sentences handed out ,one can not escape the fact that it was really a window dressing exercise.
Of the 24 defendants the international tribunal found all but three of the defendants guilty. Twelve were sentenced to death, one in absentia,Martin Borman, and the rest were given prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life behind bars.
The fact that 3 of them got acquitted speaks volumes, Each one of those 24 men were involved in horrendous war crimes and genocide in one way or another, be it in actively participating or by facilitating No one should have walked out of that court a free man.
Those who did not get the death sentence were given very lenient sentences.
Albert Speer was pivotal in the Nazi crimes but he was very manipulative. His lies were believed and he was sentenced to 20 years. After his release he lived a wealthy life mainly from proceeds of stolen art.
Because the accused men and judges spoke four different languages, the trial saw the introduction of a technological innovation taken for granted today: instantaneous translation. IBM provided the technology and recruited men and women from international telephone exchanges to provide on-the-spot translations through headphones in English, French, German and Russian.
Strangely enough not one staff member of IBM were in the docks with the defendants. IBM played a crucial role in the Holocaust at all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, recently discovered documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.
There were subsequent trials but if you look at the amount of sentences it is absolutely shocking how so many got away with murder. Many of them got high positions in government bodies in Germany and the USSR,USA and the UK.
Donation
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
In 1943 a law was passed in Germany which gave all foreign Waffen SS members the German nationality by default.
This law still prevents extradition of WWII War criminals to be extradited to their native countries, because these men have the German nationality , and Germany does not extradite it’s own citizens.
These are just 2 examples of Dutch war criminals who received no or very little punishment for the crimes they committed during WWII.
Herbertus Bikker AKA The Butcher of Ommen
Herbertus Bikker was a Dutch war criminal. He was a member of the Waffen-SS. He served as a guard at the concentration Erika near Ommen, in the Netherlands. His brutal treatment of the prisoners earned him his nickname ‘the Butcher of Ommen’
Bikker is the alleged murderer of Dutch resistance fighter Jan Houtman [nl] who was killed, twenty-seven years old, on 17 November 1944.
Following the end of World War II, he was sentenced to death by a Dutch court. he managed to escape from prison in Breda on 26 December 1952 and fled to Germany, crossing the border at Ubbergen near Cleves. He settledd down in the city of Hagen, where he livedundetected until 1995. Following the law from 1943, foreign members of the Waffen-SS automatically received German nationality. Germany does not extradite its own nationals.
Although he was not extradited he was taken to court in Germany, . Bikker’s managed to evade any jail time to claim diminished responsibility due to illness.Following a breakdown and fainting in court, neurologists advised against Bikker standing trial tHE Court was adjourned on 2 February 2004.
Bikker lived in Hagen as a pensioner until his death on 1 November 2008 which was only announced in 2009.
Siert Bruns AKA the Beast of Appingedam.
Siert Bruins was a a member of the Dutch Nazi party NSB. During the war he and his brother both joined the Waffen SS and fought at the eastern front.
Siert got wounded at the front and returned to the Netherlands where he became a member of the SD. He was active around Delfzijl hunting members of the resistance.
He was sentenced to death in absentia by a Dutch court in 1949 for the murder of Dutch farmer and resistance member Aldert Klaas Dijkema. The German government refused to extradite him to the Netherlands. The death sentence was later revised to a life sentence.
In 1978, Bruins was tracked down by Simon Wiesenthal in the German town Altenbreckerfeld. He was arrested and put on trial in Germany, in 1980, where he was found guilty for the murder of two Jewish brothers, Meijer en Lazarus Sleutelberg.He spent 5 years in jail for those murders.
In 2003, the Dutch minister Donner tried to convince the German authorities to send Bruins to the Netherlands, but without success
He went on trial again, in the western city of Hagen in September 2013 for the murder of Aldert Klaas Dijkema, in September 1944 in Appingedam near the German-Dutch border.However, the case was dropped when judges said there was insufficient evidence to proceed, partly because there were no witnesses left alive.
Bruins died on September 28,2015 aged 94.
These were only 2 examples but there are still dozens of so called German citizens who are walking around as free men.
Donation
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
I was in two minds on how to do this blog. Initially I was considering adding graphic pictures to accompany the text , but then I thought that the pictures may just be too horrific and it would turn people away from reading the text. Additionally there would be a chance that this blog would be deleted on social media outlet, and there would be a chance that I’d get banned again.
Therefore on this occasion I believe the text will be more then sufficient to give an understanding how the conditions were in Bergen Belsen.
It was originally established as a prisoner of war camp, in 1940. However in 1943, parts of it became a concentration camp. The camp was liberated on April 15,1945.
Below are 2 testimonies of witnesses, describing the horrors of the camp. The first account is a part of a description of conditions at the camp on 16 April, 1945, taken from file WO 235/19/76008 at the National Archives UK. The author’s name is not mentioned.
The second account is from survivor Dora Almaleh, prepared for British War Crimes Tribunal, 13 June 1945 .
Men’s Compounds.
No.1.
Typhus was on the wane and reached its peak in March. It is understood that it commenced early in February.
No. 2
This was the largest men’s compound and contained approx 8,000. Typhus had commenced here at a later date than in Compound 1 and had now reached its peak. There were 266 cases and new cases were still occurring, but the medical members considered the worst was over. It was in this Compound that the story of cannibalism was reported to me by one of the doctors. There had been none for the last 2 days but before that there had been many cases.
Transcript
IN THE MATTER OF WAR CRIMES
AND
ATTROCITIES AT BELSEN
DEPOSITION OF DORA ALMALEH (Female) late of 19B Othos Peve Ganna, Salonika, Greece, sworn before Major SAVILE GEOFFREY CHAMPION, Royal Artillery, Legal Staff, No. 1 War Crimes Investigation Team.
1. I am 21 years of age and because I am a Jewess I was arrested on 1st April 1942 and taken to Auschwitz Concentration Camp where I remained until I was transferred to Belsen in November 1944.
2. I recognize No. 2 on photograph 22 as an S.S. woman at Belsen. I knew here by the name of HILDE and I have now been told that her full name is HILDE LISIEWITZ. One day in April 1945 whilst at Belsen I was one of a working party detailed to carry vegetables from the store to the kitchen by means of a hand card. In charge of this working party was LISIEWITZ. Whilst I was on this job I allowed two male prisoners, whose names I do not know, to take two turnips off the cart. LISIEWITZ saw me do this and she pushed the men, who were very weak to the ground and then beat them on their heads with a thick stick which she always carried. She then stamped on their chests in the region of the heart with her jack-boots. The men lay still clutching the turnips. LISIEWITZ then got hold of me and shook me until I started to cry. She the said ‘Don’t cry or I’ll kill you too’.
(In the picture below)Hilde Lisiewitz is second from the left)
She then went away and after 15 minutes I went up to the men and touched them to see if they were still alive. I formed the opinion that they were dead. I felt their hearts and could feel nothing. They were cold to the touch like dead men. I then went away leaving the bodies lying there and I do not know what happened to them.
3. I recognize No. 1 on photograph No. 5 as an S.S. man at Belsen who was in charge of the bread store. I have now been told that his name is KARL EGERSDORF. One day in April 1945 whilst at Belsen I was working in the vegetable store when I saw a Hungarian girl, whose name I do not know, come out of the bread store nearby carrying a loaf of bread. At this moment EGERSDORF appeared in the street and at a distance of about 6 meters from the girl shouted ‘What are you doing here?’. The girl replied ‘I am hungry’ and then started to run away. EGERSDORF immediately pulled out his pistol and shot the girl. She fell down and lay still bleeding from the back of the head where the bullet had penetrated. EGERSDORF then went away and a few minutes later I went and looked at the girl. I am sure she was dead and men who were passing by looked at her and were of the same opinion. The bullet had entered in the centre of the back of the head.
(In the picture below,Karl Egersdorf is first on the left. )
I do not know what happened to her body.
SWORN BY THE SAID DEPONENT DORA ALMALEH AT BELSEN THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE 1945, BEFORE ME
S.G. Champion [Signed]
Major R.A.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, the said Deponent not understanding English, this Affidavit was translated in my presence to the said Deponent before swearing and I am satisfied that its contents were fully understood by the said Deponent.
Dated this 13th day of JUNE 1945. S.G.Champion[signed] Major R.A. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have accurately translated this Affidavit to the said Deponent. Dated this 13th day of JUNE 1945. [signed] It appears to be a matter for medical evidence as to whether it is possible for a human body to have lost its warmth by death within 15 minutes, even where the man was in a weak state and had been savagely assaulted.
S.G.Champion
Major R.A.
Donation
I am passionate about my site and I know you all like reading my blogs. I have been doing this at no cost and will continue to do so. All I ask is for a voluntary donation of $2, however if you are not in a position to do so I can fully understand, maybe next time then. Thank you.
To donate click on the credit/debit card icon of the card you will use. If you want to donate more then $2 just add a higher number in the box left from the PayPal link. Many thanks.
History of Sorts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.