Login
новая подлость эстонии
1682 просмотров
Перейти к просмотру всей ветки
diggers старожил
in Antwort witalik2003 27.04.05 23:38
аткрываем "дисяточку" и шо видим ?? ткните пальцем ... в статью в смысле
шо то я недобачаю
10
Col. Neave Rep.
The Defense furthermore contended that it was the policy of the GESTAPO and other security organizations to conceal their activities from the public. They make this claim particularly in respect of the alleged crimes by the GESTAPO, the EICHMANN Group, the SD and the Einsatzgruppen. The implication is that these groups consisted of a small number of elite and specially trained people who were sworn to secrecy. For special tasks like the fabrication of frontier incidents on the Polish Border in 1939, HEYDRICH employed special SD men whom he considered reliable. These so-called SD men, claimed the Defense, were not actually members of the SD but merely those whom HEYDRICH or HIMMLER trusted. It is the main contention of the Defense that the so-called "dirty jobs" were carried out by a few selected gangsters who formed a minority in the organization.
This suppression of information by the GESTAPO and other organizations played some part in the evidence regarding the extermination of the Jews. Where it could be shown that the GESTAPO deliberately prevented information from reaching any large number of members of the population this was considered relevant. A mere statement, however, by a witness who asked the GESTAPO for information as to whether the atrocities alleged in Auschwitz were actually occurring and received a negative answer, was declared inadmissible. There appeared to be no evidence that this information was passed on to the public as a whole, nor in this particular case, did it appear to relate to the organization (the SS) for which he had sworn an affidavit.
For the same reason evidence by a witness that his own brother had been an inmate of Belsen concentration camp and told him that there were no atrocities going on, was declared irrelevant to the question of whether the atrocities were generally known to the SS Similarly, evidence was also declared irrelevant which relates only to the guilt or innocence of a particular person.
The summary of evidence which follows will perhaps serve to illustrate further problems concerning the Order of March 13th that have arisen during the hearings.
NOTE BY THE COMMISSIONER:
The report on the evidence heard on Commission which follows has been compiled from the official transcripts and from summaries made of the testimony of individual witnesses.
It is primarily intended to be an account of evidence given for the Defense. It does not purport to be more than an attempt to set down the main points which it would appear that the Defense wish to establish.
"сами мы не местные, голодаем и скитаемся"



10
Col. Neave Rep.
The Defense furthermore contended that it was the policy of the GESTAPO and other security organizations to conceal their activities from the public. They make this claim particularly in respect of the alleged crimes by the GESTAPO, the EICHMANN Group, the SD and the Einsatzgruppen. The implication is that these groups consisted of a small number of elite and specially trained people who were sworn to secrecy. For special tasks like the fabrication of frontier incidents on the Polish Border in 1939, HEYDRICH employed special SD men whom he considered reliable. These so-called SD men, claimed the Defense, were not actually members of the SD but merely those whom HEYDRICH or HIMMLER trusted. It is the main contention of the Defense that the so-called "dirty jobs" were carried out by a few selected gangsters who formed a minority in the organization.
This suppression of information by the GESTAPO and other organizations played some part in the evidence regarding the extermination of the Jews. Where it could be shown that the GESTAPO deliberately prevented information from reaching any large number of members of the population this was considered relevant. A mere statement, however, by a witness who asked the GESTAPO for information as to whether the atrocities alleged in Auschwitz were actually occurring and received a negative answer, was declared inadmissible. There appeared to be no evidence that this information was passed on to the public as a whole, nor in this particular case, did it appear to relate to the organization (the SS) for which he had sworn an affidavit.
For the same reason evidence by a witness that his own brother had been an inmate of Belsen concentration camp and told him that there were no atrocities going on, was declared irrelevant to the question of whether the atrocities were generally known to the SS Similarly, evidence was also declared irrelevant which relates only to the guilt or innocence of a particular person.
The summary of evidence which follows will perhaps serve to illustrate further problems concerning the Order of March 13th that have arisen during the hearings.
NOTE BY THE COMMISSIONER:
The report on the evidence heard on Commission which follows has been compiled from the official transcripts and from summaries made of the testimony of individual witnesses.
It is primarily intended to be an account of evidence given for the Defense. It does not purport to be more than an attempt to set down the main points which it would appear that the Defense wish to establish.
"сами мы не местные, голодаем и скитаемся"