## Facts

- The United States tried Ulrich Greifelt and other senior officials connected to Nazi racial and population-policy bodies, including the SS Race and Settlement Main Office (RuSHA) and related resettlement agencies.
- Greifelt was a civilian official who worked within the Nazi racial-policy apparatus and participated in programs aimed at identifying “German blood,” increasing births among “desirable” groups, repatriating ethnic Germans, and removing or suppressing groups labeled “inferior.”
- The prosecution charged that these agencies planned and carried out population measures in occupied Europe tied to Nazi racial ideology, including forced resettlement, deportation, and other coercive measures against civilians.
- The case concerned the use of administrative offices to implement racial persecution through official processes—such as classification, registration, property measures, and coordination with police and SS units—that enabled removals and resettlement.
- Evidence addressed the taking of children from occupied territories for placement in German institutions or families when officials deemed them “racially valuable,” along with measures designed to break family and national ties.
- Greifelt argued that he was performing his job as an administrator, acting under superior orders and under the domestic law of Nazi Germany rather than committing personal violence.
- Greifelt was indicted under Allied Control Council Law No. 10 for war crimes and crimes against humanity (and, for certain defendants, membership in organizations previously declared criminal).

## Issues

1. Whether a civilian administrator who helps plan, direct, or carry out Nazi racial and resettlement policies can be convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity without personally committing the physical acts of deportation or abuse.
2. Whether implementing racial persecution through forced population transfers and related coercive measures in occupied territories constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity under Control Council Law No. 10.
3. Whether following superior orders or acting under Nazi domestic law excuses criminal responsibility for internationally unlawful acts.
4. What must be shown to convict a defendant for membership in a criminal organization, such as the SS, beyond mere formal affiliation.

## Decision

- The tribunal found that the defendants’ racial and resettlement programs, as carried out in occupied territories, supported convictions for crimes against humanity and, where tied to the law of occupation, war crimes.
- Greifelt was convicted for his role in implementing and coordinating racial-policy and resettlement measures that involved coercion against civilian populations.
- The tribunal rejected the claim that civilian status or office work insulated a defendant from liability when the defendant knowingly participated in, directed, or substantially assisted a criminal program.
- The tribunal held that superior orders and domestic legality were not complete defenses to crimes under Control Council Law No. 10; at most, obedience could be considered in assessing punishment where the proof supported mitigation.
- On the criminal-organization count, the tribunal treated liability as dependent on voluntary connection, knowledge of the organization’s criminal character, and meaningful participation, not simple nominal membership.
- The tribunal imposed terms of imprisonment on convicted defendants (ranging from acquittal to lengthy sentences), including a substantial prison sentence for Greifelt.

## Legal Principles

- Individuals may commit crimes against humanity and war crimes through planning, administration, coordination, or other substantial assistance when they act with knowledge that their conduct furthers a criminal program.
- Racial persecution implemented through forced population transfers, denationalization measures, and coercive “Germanization” practices can qualify as crimes against humanity under Control Council Law No. 10.
- Acts carried out in occupied or annexed territories do not become lawful simply because the occupying power claims sovereignty; aggressive conquest does not bar prosecution for war crimes or crimes against humanity against protected civilian populations.
- Superior orders and domestic law do not excuse responsibility for international crimes; a defendant’s position and ability to choose not to participate may bear on culpability and sentencing but do not erase liability.
- Membership in a criminal organization requires proof of more than a title or paper membership; conviction turns on voluntary association, awareness of the organization’s criminal use, and active participation connected to that use.

## Conclusion

United States v. Greifelt (the RuSHA Case) held that civilian and SS-linked officials who used administrative power to implement Nazi racial policy—through coercive resettlement and related measures in occupied territories—could be convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity under Control Council Law No. 10, and that neither Nazi law nor superior orders provided a complete defense where the accused knowingly furthered the criminal program.


United States v. Greifelt, 5 CCL No. 10 Trials 1 (1947)