The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 225
“knowledge” the witnesses claimed to have had about those vehicles
might actually stem from prior interrogations and trials, as was stated in
a trial held three years earlier against another German defendant involved
in the same activities of Einsatzkommando 8 (see chapter
3.7.4.4.).
About the defendants’ attitude during the trial the verdict states (p.
41):
“While the defendant Ha. admitted this – his – participation at
the extermination actions against Jews ordered from Mogilev,
claiming to have received orders for this from the defendant
Ric.[chter], the latter denied to have been involved in any way in the
extermination measures of Einsatzkommando 8 against Jews.”
Richter’s categorical denial of involvement did not include his contesting
that the extermination took place, though. He merely claimed to
have steadfastly refused to follow orders about it as received from higher
up after he had been forced once to attend a gas van execution (ibid.).
As to mass shootings, he claimed to have attended only one of them
where merely partisans had been shot (p. 42). He even claimed to have
known about the actions against Jews only because the other defendant
had told him on occasion that a “Jew action” would take place the next
day (p. 44).
It is worthwhile reminding the reader that Richter had claimed during
the above mentioned earlier trial to have found out only during postwar
interrogations that there was a gas van in his detachment (see chapter
3.7.4.4.).
It goes without saying that, in view of the preordained “self-evident”
nature of such mass executions, the numerous witness statements to the
contrary, the Einsatzgruppen reports sent to Berlin, Richter’s leadership
position within Einsatzkommando 8, and internal inconsistencies in
Richter’s various trial and pre-trial statements, the court could not believe
him. In fact, a large section of the verdict is dedicated to refuting
Ric’s claims (pp. 43-62).
Within this lengthy refutation one can also find a brief, yet incomplete
list of reasons for the potential inaccuracy of witness testimony (p.
57). It is incomplete because it does not include the possibility that
many witnesses subjected to massive prosecutorial as well as societal
pressure are perfectly capable of inventing very detailed, superficially
plausible stories in order to yield to that pressure, as I have described in
chapter 3.4.