Facing History & Ourselves
  • Facing History
  • Tour Request Form
  • Educator Resources
Home
  • Home
  • About
    • Choosing To Participate
    • About Facing History
  • The Exhibit
    • Sign Up For a Tour
    • Chicago, IL
    • Exhibition Resources
    • Exhibition Tour Schedule
    • Exhibit History
  • Explore and Learn
    • Stories from the Exhibit
    • Resources
    • Upstanders
    • Student Corner
    • Student Artwork
    • Be the Change
    • Not In Our Town
    • Reflections
  • Get Involved
    • Share Your Story
    • Spread the Word
    • Community Service
  • News and Events
    • Latest News
    • Community Events
    • Events for Educators
    • Press Kit
  • Video
Home ›
  • Print version

"We Were Not Supposed to Think"

in
  • Holocaust and Human Behavior
  • Judgment, Memory & Legacy

From Facing History and Ourselves:
Holocaust and Human Behavior, Chapter 9



After the first set of trials ended, the United States held twelve others at Nuremberg. These trials were authorized by multinational agreements and based on international law. Telford Taylor, who served in the United States Army Intelligence during the war and was transferred to Justice Jackson’s staff during the first trials, supervised the new proceedings. He said of them, “The judgments of these subsequent trials added enormously to the body and the living reality of international penal law. No principle deserves to be called such unless men are willing to stake their consciences on its enforcement. That is the way law comes into being, and that is what was done at Nuremberg.” Among those brought to trial were:

  • 26 military leaders, including five field marshals;
  • 56 high-ranking SS and other police officers, including leaders in the Einsatzgvuppen and key officials in Heinrich Himmler’s central office which supervised the concentration camps and the extermination program,
  • 14 officials of other SS organizations that engaged in racial persecution.

The defendants did not deny the accusations against them. Often their own testimony was used to convict them. Otto Ohlendorf, the former Chief of one of the Einsatzgruppen, was sentenced to death for the murder of about ninety thousand Jews and “Gypsies” after admitting that he ordered his men to kill children as well as adults.

At the trial, Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant at Auschwitz, was asked if he had considered whether the Jews he murdered deserved such a fate. He responded:

Don’t you see, we SS men were not supposed to think about these things: it never even occurred to us. – And besides, it was something already taken for granted that the Jews were to blame for everything... We just never heard anything else. It was not just newspapers like Der Stuermer but it was everything we ever heard. Even our military and ideological training took for granted that we had to protect Germany from the Jews... It only started to occur to me after the collapse that maybe it was not quite right, after I had heard what everybody was saying... We were all so trained to obey orders without even thinking that the thought of disobeying an order would simply never have occurred to anybody and somebody else would have done just as well if I hadn’t... You can be sure that it was not always a pleasure to see those mountains of corpses and smell the continual burning. – But Himmler had ordered it and had even explained the necessity and I really never gave much thought to whether it was wrong. It just seemed a necessity.

Connections: 
  • Why does Taylor argue that passing laws is not enough? What part does enforcement play in creating laws? Find examples in American history or your own experience that shows how enforcement helps to create laws.
  • How did the individuals charged at this new trial differ from those charged at the earlier Nuremberg trial? As the power of Nazi officials diminishes does their guilt also diminish?
  • According to the superior order principle, a person who commits a crime is not automatically excused by the fact that he obeyed a law, a decree, or an order from a superior. He is only excused if he did not have a moral choice to act differently. The Nuremberg judges did not define moral choice as requiring that one obey a criminal order at the cost of one’s own life. Review Christopher Browning’s description of the Einsatzgruppen in Chapter 7, Reading 3. How were the officers and their men initiated into violence? Did Ohlendorf have a moral choice? What about the other officers? The soldiers?
  • Review Hannah Arendt’s comments on thinking in the overview to this chapter. How often does Hoess use some form of the word think? What is the relationship between thoughtlessness and evil-doing?
Related Facing History Resources: 
Judgment
AttachmentSize
We_Were_Not_Supposed_Glossary.pdf49.13 KB
Choosing to Participate

Download the revised Choosing to Participate
Resource Book


Now in Spanish

 

Spread the Word:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Think
  • C
  • YouTube

WalmartThe Walmart Foundation is proud
to be the national sponsor of
Choosing to Participate

  • Home
  • Terms of Use
  • Credits
  • Contact

Copyright 2009 Facing History and Ourselves