KITTEL: When HIMMLER formed his state within the state, the Security Service was founded like this: they took 50% good police officials who were not politically tainted, and added to them 50% criminals. That’s how the Security Service arose. (Laughter.) There’s one man in the criminal department in BERLIN, in that famous “Z” section, whom I frequently used when espionage cases were being held by us in the Ordinance French; and the question then arose of nationality and of whether they had not already got a file, whether the man had not cropped up somewhere before. There is the so-called “Z” section “K.” After 1933 he said to me: “We have been sifted through now. The politically tainted officials of the State Police have been got rid of and have either been pensioned off or put into positions where they can no longer do any harm. The sound nucleus of police officials, which every State needs, is now intermingled with people from the underworld of BERLIN, who, however, made themselves prominent in the Movement at the right time. They have now been put to work with the others.” He said straight out: “50% of us are decent people and 50% are criminals.”
SCHAEFER: I think, if such conditions are permitted in a modern State, one can only say that the sooner this pack of swine disappear, the better.
KITTEL: We fools have just watched all these things going on.202
Here the group identifies the guilty parties and offers an explanation in the form of the latter’s background. The semi-criminal milieu of the SS Security Service, according to the POWs’ logic, is the source of the problems that have emerged, although it remains unclear whether the interlocutors consider the Holocaust or its insufficient organization to be the main problem. It is remarkable how quickly the group switches from outrage to more relaxed and seemingly cheerful topics. The “swine” of which Schaefer speaks are definitely the Security Service, and Kittel is at pains to point out that the Wehrmacht’s only failing is that they sat back and watched, instead of intervening.
This excerpt is a perfect example of any number of conversations the POWs had about the Holocaust. One of the interlocutors serves as the expert, while his partner(s) play the role of the inquisitive audience, who themselves possess a degree of background knowledge. Their comments about events are frequently, if not exclusively, negative, but the basis of their criticism is often not what we would expect. In the end, the speakers usually claim the role of passive onlookers who failed to take sufficient notice that atrocities were occurring.
Another interesting aspect of this discussion is that it was quoted in another conversation. A few weeks later, Major General Bruhn passed on to others what Kittel had reported:
