Also in Document Book I, page 27, Exhibit 32, Document 10. That is the affidavit of Klaus Buecking, whose Communist family members the Defendant Schulz helped and supported. which is the affidavit of a former attorney, today a parson, Kurt Mueller. an affidavit of the present Police President of Bremen, Helmut Ystroem, who is a well-known Free Mason.
In Document Book I, page 29, Exhibit 33, Document 11. This is an affidavit of the editor Alfred Faust, a former Reichstag member for the Social Democratic Party of Germany and Chief Editor of a Social Democratic paper in Bremen, who today is living in France. loyally, cordially and humanely, and when they were in protective custody, he released them, and partly enabled then to get work and supplies. of the Defendant in Graitz. To this point I submit, in Document Book I, on page 44, Exhibit 35, Document 15, which is an affidavit of the former Ambassador and Minister of the Reich, Freiherr Erwin Gudenus. an affidavit of the wife of a university professor, Dr. Edith Spath. affidavit of the Austrian Government Councillor, Wilhelm von Lahousen. vit of the Episcopal Ordinariete , Chancellor, Dr. Josef Steiner (Fuerstbischoeflicher Ordinariatskanzler).
In Document Book II, page 184, Exhibit No. Document 62, an affidavit of the Lord Bishop Dr. Ferdinand Pawlikowski of Graz. of the Graz State Police Office, dealt them as well as with a number of leading Austrian personalities who had been arrested by Austrian National Socialists and either got them out of custody himself or caused their being released from custody.
the defendant in Reichenberg. I submit in Document Book II, page 142, Exhibit 41, Document 47, an affidavit of Police Senior clerk, Fritz Weise. the Defendant Schulz in Hamburg. I submit Document Book I, Exhibit 42, page 59, Document 19, an affidavit of the then Personnel Chief of the Department in the Office of the defendant, Reinhard Breder. as the leader of Gruppe I-b, in the Reich Security Main Office, and as commander of the Security Police, I submit from Document Book I, page 89, Exhibit 43, Document 24, an affidavit of Criminal Councillor Dr. Georg Fleischmann. in the Russian campaign. I submit in Document Book I, page 69, Exhibit 44, Document 20, an affidavit of Karl Weber, who was in Einsatzkommando 5 under Schulz. witness deals explicitly with the statements of the Defendant Schulz on the witness stand concerning the events in Lemberg, and also that he confirms them. an affidavit of Karl Hennicke. This witness also confirms the happenings in Lemberg, and the setting free of the Jews who had been driven together on the Lemberg sport fields. He also talks about the tension in the relationship between Schulz and his superior Gruppen Leader Dr. Rasch, and his Staff Leader Hoffmann. From this explanation it becomes furthermore evident that the Defendant Schulz was never in Kiev.
an affidavit of Helene Loh, who confirms that Schulz in August 1941 was in Berlin. Document 49, an affidavit of Fritz Sperrhake. He confirms that Schulz had rows with Gruppenfuehrer Rasch and often did not obey his campaign for quite some time and stayed in Berlin. 37. That is a letter from Heydrich, of the 26th of September 1941, to the Defendant Schulz, according to which he was released from the leadership of Einsatzkommando 5 and was being recalled to Berlin. document. The defendant stated on the witness stand, that on the 21st of September 1940, as the leader of Einsatzkommando 5, he was released from his job. The date of this document, which is the 26th of September, is explained through the fact that the defendant received the formal note of release only after his return from Russia, in Berlin. His release actually happened on the occasion of his visit in Berlin when he went to see Streckenbach and it was confirmed by him orally. Einsatzgruppe C thereupon had already been told of the release through radio, and the defendant returned only to give over his kommando to his successor, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Meier.
Only for this purpose he returned to Russia and went back to Berlin immediately. 49, the Document 57. That is an affidavit of August Haefner. He confirms that on the 27th of September 1941 the training course of the leaderschool, the Gruppe for the training course of those who were to take part in the Russian campaign, was recalled, and that Schulz then in Berlin expressed his disapproval of the executions of Jews which had been ordered.
the Defendant Schulz as Gruppe Chief I-a, and Chief of Office I of the RSHA. Concerning this point I offer from Document Book II, on page 144, as Exhibit 50, the Document 48. That is an affidavit of the government official, Kurt Dommick. And in Document Book I, page 46, as Exhibit 51, Document 16. That is an affidavit of the government councillor, Regierungsrat, Gustav Gottwald. 17. That is an affidavit of the government councillor, Heinz Wanninger. information service and in executive measures, was in no way native and never responsible; that as a personnel chief he tried to avoid all injustices and other severe measures that he could possibly avoid, and that, therefore, he could not make his way within the Reich Security Main Office. the activity of the Defendant Schulz in Salzburg. Referring to this I submit from Document Book I, page 86, as Exhibit 53, the Document 23. That is an affidavit of Kurt Egmont Damn. an affidavit of the former Gauleiter and Reich Governor of Salzburg, Dr. Gustav Adolf Scheel. davit of the former general, Julius Ringel. an affidavit of the former Police Lieutenant Colonel, Wilhelm Kirchhoff. davit of the former Police Lieutenant Colonel, Otto Barck,retired. vit of Franz Schubert.
affidavit of Government Assessor Karl Peukert. 55, an affidavit of Kaethe Froeschauer. vit of the present Mayor of Salzburg, Anton Neumayr. Document 38. That is a confirmation of the supreme commando of the Army Group G at Leogang, of 17 May 1945, to the effect that the Defendant Schulz had surrendered to the American delegation and had put himself at the disposal of this delegation as far as his person goes. document the name of Schulz has unfortunately often been omitted. In the photo copy , however, which I have just submitted as an exhibit, the name is shown. It is a typing error here. ments made by the Defendant Schulz when he was in the witness stand concerning his activity and his attitude in Salzburg;especially, that the Defendant Schulz propagated unconditional surrender of the town of Salzburg. Schulz - at least for the time being - but I should like the Tribunal to allow me to submit a few very important documents which I could not get so far because of bad mail connections, that I may be allowed to submit them at a later time but still in due time as supplement to my document books. which I have mentioned, and the testimony of the Defendant Schulz, and also other testimonies of other witnesses, an well as other documents submitted by the Prosecution as evidence which I shall reserve for my trial brief which has been suggested and approved by the Tribunal at the end of my case.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have only one question. Dr. Durchholz has presented an affidavit of a Major Lahousen. I unfortunately do not have the document number, but Dr. Durchholz will certainly know.... I do presume that this affiant is not identical with the witness before the IMT, but I would like Dr. Durchholz to inform the Tribunal and the Prosecution about this fact.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: The affidavit of the witness Lahousen which I have offered is not made by the well-known Lahusen who was a witness during the IMT trial, but I believe he is a brother, or at least a relative, of that witness. In any cane, this witness Lahousen whose affidavit I have submitted up to this point has never been mentioned in connection with these trials and has never been heard an a witness yet. At the time, I think, he was a major in the Austrian Army.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will contain your clarification.
Dr. Gawlik, will you proceed now, please. stand. as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Give the Tribunal your first and your surname.
A. Willy Seibert.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On the 17th of June 1908, in Hannover.
Q. Please, describe for the sake of the Tribunal your life until the year 1935.
A. My youth I spent first in the country near Hannover, and then I lived in Hannover; I went to secondary school there. I left school Master 1928, after I had passed my matriculation. My father had been a merchant by profession. I myself intended to become a building merchant, and be active in building administration and take up an activity in this field. For this purpose I wanted to study building and economics. My father was killed in the first world war. He had no property, so that before I could begin my studies I had to work on various building sites near Hannover, and on the Midland Canal near Hannover, in sluice building. Thus I worked practically in order to earn myself some money, and at the same time I trained myself in craft.......which would be of value in my building, activities.
school in Hannover, and I studied building, and at the same time economics. I studied for four terms on the whole, but during the holidays and also during two of the terms, I worked practically as a mason. From Hannover I went, after four terms, to Goettingen University.......economics again.... that laster for four terms; and after four terms, I graduated. I passed my State examinations at the Goettingen University, and received a diploma in economics.
Q. When was that?
A. That was in the autumn of 1932.
Q. What was your further activity from then on?
A. I attempted to join the Chamber of Trades in Hannover, or in other economic establishments, but at that time I could not get any work. Then I learned at the University of Goettingen, through a poster which I saw, that referendars and all kinds of young students were given the opportunity to become a soldier and later on if they proved themselves suitable, they would be promoted to officers. This opportunity I made use of because I imagined that after I had been promoted an officer I could join some administrative unit of the Army, and I could thus make use of my professional training and could work in the sphere of my interest.
Q. How long were you a soldier?
A. On the 1st of November 1932 I join ed Infantry Regiment No. 17 at Goettingen, as a private, and I remained a soldier until autumn 1935.
soldier?
A During this period I was trained as an infantry soldier; later, as a non-commissioned officer, a platoon leader, and then a company leader of a motorized unit. But in between for some time, I was detached for training schools by the Chief of Training Affairs of the Army. That was an independent organization. In the summer and autumn of 1935, I was active in the infantry school in Doebritz near Berlin. I went through an officer's training course and after that I joined the guard-battalion in Berlin--Wach Battalion--where I passed the practical part of my examination for an officer. That was in the autumn--I think it was October 1935.
Q What activities did you carry out in the following years? economic expert--a Referent, in the SD Information Service.
Q How did it come about that you joined the SD? met, quite by accident in a Berlin restaurant, an acquaintance of mine who was meanwhile employed in this SD organization as an expert on agricultural questions. During our conversation I told him about my professional aims, and then he explained to me the tasks of this SD organization and the specialized training with this organization. He asked me whether I could succeed in being transferred from the army to the SD if I received the same rank and the same field of tasks in this economy department. I told him that I had, on various occasions, spoken to my superior officers of Defense District III, the personnel department of Berlin, and had asked for a transfer into the administration unit of the army. The major of this department in Defense District III liked me, but he could not help me because there were very few openings, or at least jobs, which were not taken yet. I therefore suggested that there would be a possibility to join this SD organization holding the same rank and dealing with the question of economy--that is the field I was trained in-
and this major-get me this transfer to the SD. the SD? Berlin, I had not known anything at all about the existence of the SD; therefore, I did not know about the tasks of the SD.
Q Were you a member of the SS in those days?
Q Did you leave the Wehrmacht when you joined the SD? officer and every year I served with the Wehrmacht, for a certain time and I remained a reserve officer until the end of the war. not, or did you join the SS voluntarily?
AAt that time; I joined the SD and with that I automatically became a member of the SS-formation, the SD. I was never a member of the General SS. I never did a day's service in the fomations of the SS and I was not a member either of the Waffen SS or the armed SS. German and Page 50 in the English, Exhibit 152, Document No. NO-2969. It's the promotion suggestion of the 14 January 1943. When did you learn about this document for the first time? submission of documents by the Prosecution. SA from the first of May 1933 and that you were a member of the SS from the 6 November 1935. Are these statements correct?
from the document itself, because the periods of time, mentioned in the documents do not correspond. Thus it says on page 1 of the original, at the bottom: On the first of November 1932, S. reported voluntarily for service in the Wehrmacht; and until the first of July 1933, he was in military training. That is the same time during which I was mentioned here as serving in the SA. This date, the first of May 1933, can be explained through the fact that at the time I was registered in the Office for Physical Training of the University of Goettingen, and I was mentioned by them that I should be put at the disposal of the schools of this organization for further training. That the periods are incorrect becomes evident from Page 7 of the original. There it says under SA, a dot--or at least an asterik--a few dots, then a diagonal 7 W. This has become evident from the photostat that it is: Chief A W, and that is the organization with which I actually was active as a physical trainer.
Q Was this the organization which belonged to the SA? former members of the SA and men who could deal with military training and to whom military trainers were detached. There are various mix-ups, but I don't think they are of importance now.
Q What about the membership in the SS?
A The date: 6 November 1935 may mean the date since I was active in the SS formation--the SD; especially as the service ranks contained in this document show that I was not, as it was usual and as I should have been, transferred to holding the same service rank, but that on the 6 November 1935 I was Unterscharfuehrer, and then I became a Scharfuehrer a few months later, and then again a few months later I received the service rank of Oberscharfuehrer-- all non-commissioned officer ranks. They are all ranks not corresponding to my rank which I held in the Wehrmacht.
Q. Is the statement correct that on 6 November 1935, you joined the SS as an organization?
A. No, I joined the SD, and not the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, shall we have our recess now?
DR. GAWLIK: I would like to ask you one thing, your Honor. My colleague, Dr. Aschenauer, sent me a note saying that he would like the Defendant Ohlendorf to be excused from the session this afternoon. The reason is an interrogation with Herr Schonfeld, as I see here.
THE PRESIDENT: The request, of course, is granted, and the Defendant Ohlendorf will be accompanied by the Marshal to what room number, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: It does not mention the number of the room. It says Mr. Schonfeld.
MR. GLANCY: That is Mr. Walter Schonfeld, Sir, associated with the I. G. Farben trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have a room number?
MR. GLANCY: I can find out in just a moment, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal please inform himself as to the destination of the Defendant Ohlendorf for this afternoon and have him in custody and properly delivered to the person who desires to interrogate him?
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) Witness, please comment on the document, especially about the statements on page 92 of the German document book, where it is noted, "joined the SS, 1 November" and under the same date "Unterscharfuehrer SD."
A. I did not become active in the SD on the 1st of November, but I assume that this date is due to the fact that the negotiations about transfer from the Army to the scharfuehrer, corresponding to a PFC in the German Army, was dated retroactively before I became active in order that I might reach more quickly the further dates of promotion, 20 April 1936 and 13 September 1936, which had been promised me, and in the same manner in which such transfers usually were carried out, namely, with the same rank.
Q. How do you explain the mistakes mentioned by you in this document?
A. I trace them back to typographical errors which can arise when these matters are entered into the files, when they are copied on other files, in correspondence, et cetera.
Q. What activity did you carry out in the SD?
A. I was used as an expert in the then department economics; that is to say, in the section trade, traffic and commerce and later I became head of the department, and after 1938 I also became deputy of the group chief economics.
Q. When did you become department chief?
A. I became department chief due to the reorganization in 1939, through the fact that Office 3 was created and the referats were now prom oted to departments from that time on. But I want to say that the designation referat or department in correspondence as well as in the usual custom of using the word, was not uniform in the SD organization.
In the one SD organization, for example, for instance,the office in Frankfurt on the Main, the economic expert was called department chief; the same expert in Brauschweig was called an economic referent.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, as Seibert Exhibit No. 1 I submit a sketch about the organization of the agencies of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. us in which group you were active. are listed on this sketch. We did not bother to list all sub-divisions of offices, merely Office III is subdivided. As sub-divisions of Office III there were four groups; Group III-A, administration and law, Group III-B, public health and folkdom; Group III-C, cultural questions; and Group III-D, economics. In this sketch we did not list the office of the adjutant or the post office which were under Office III as independent agencies, but we merely showed these four groups. Of these four groups, the Group III-D was again sub-divided. If the picture were complete, the other groups would be sub-divided in a similar manner. The listed five departments belong to this Group III-D: III-D-1, agriculture; III-D-2, trade, commerce and transportation; III-D-3, banks and finance; III-D-4, industry; and III-D-5 , labor and social welfare. Looking at it from a personnel point of view, the Chief of Office III-D was Ohlendorf; the head of III-A was Gehlenbach; of Group III-B, Dr. Ehlich; Group III-C, Dr. Spengler; and Group III-D, Ohlendorf. I was deputy of the Group Chief of Economics, that is Ohlendorf in his capacity as Department Chief of Economics; and my position was under Department III-D-2 until the 1st of February 1944, that is to say, commerce, transportation and trade; and at the same time I was deputy for the Group Chief Economics. Only in the last year of the war did I become chief of Department Economics.
Q Can you describe your activity in detail?
economic department and to observe them; to gather information in the entire Reich, and to pass on these reports to the economic ministry and to other agencies. For my department, or later it was a group, I received my reports from the thousands of honorary confidence men from all classes of the population who sent their reports to the local SD agencies, who then passed them on to the RSHA. In order to describe this activity which took all my time, apart from the Russian assignment, I may give two or three examples to show how this activity was carried on. When, in the first few months of the war it was seen that for the agricultural and industrial workers too few shoes were available, and this began to have its effect upon the morale of the workers, as well as on the economy itself, we received reports about this from all parts of the Reich, which I compiled and sent on to the proper economic agency. I was informed by that agency at the time that almost the entire allocation for leather had been requisitioned by the supreme commander of the army, and could no longer be made available to the civilian population; but these reports did not decrease. In the spring of 1940 -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Gawlik, why is it necessary to go into so much detail on the activities of this office?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, the witness is accused here of membership in the SD, as a criminal organization; and, therefore, is supposed to be punished for the activity which he had described here; and, therefore, I consider it relevant that he describe in detail what he actually did during the time in which he was not in Russia and for which he is supposed to be punished too.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, are you basing that Count in the indictment regarding membership in a criminal organization on activities in the office, activities such as he is now going into?
MR. WALTON: No, Your Honor, that count in the indictment is based merely upon the first IMT judgment. I have no doubt that the majority of his activities outside of Russia were perfectly legal. We do not contend that membership in an organization declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal is the basis for the count in the indictment.
Now, we intend to show that members of the SD as well as members of other organizations committed criminal acts, but I don't care to say where or when at this particular time.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Well, Dr. Gawlik, it is entirely proper for you to show that his work in the offices was entirely legal and proper. We do not at all discount the importance of that, but I don't see why it is necessary to go into so much detail. If you point out that he was in this office and he had charge of a certain department which had to do with economics of the nation, it seems to be that it might be enough, but to give us the names of the head of each one of these sub-departments can't be of much assistance in determining the real issue.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, this question is finished now. He described his activity which is supposed to be considered, according to the Prosecution criminal, and in order to clarify this for the Tribunal what he actually did, he must give a few examples in my opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is entirely in order, Dr. Gawlik, but now you have covered that; and if the Prosecution does not rebut it, then it stands that his activities when he was in charge of this particular department did not involve criminality. Now, if the Prosecution attacks that, then you certainly have the right to go into it in a great deal more detail.
DR. GAWLIK: It has already attacked it through the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you replied to it now.
DR. GAWLIK: It is my duty to defend him against what he has done. If the Prosecution says that it does not consider this activity in his office criminal, then I shall interrupt at this point. It is only up to the Prosecution to make an express statement.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know if the Prosecution is going that far.
DR. GAWLIK: I don't know, Your Honor, how far the Prosecution goes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well -
DR. GAWLIK: Therefore, I must defend myself in all directions. If the Prosecution gives me a precise answer how far its contention of criminality goes -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) It is very obvious you are going in all directions with all these shoes that you are getting.
Proceed, Dr. Gawlik. BY DR. GAWLIK: your activity in Office III-D. I have occupied myself all the time and personally. These are several extensive reports about the organization of the economic administration which is just red-tape and paper work. The reports showed, just to cite one example, that for the question of labor allocation alone more than twenty agencies were competent for this field, and that this was very difficult for the people concerned and for the population.
COURT II CASE IX I mention only one brief example from all these reports. We have tried through these reports to achieve a reform in the organization. Reforms were started in this direction, but they did not become very effective.
Q. Outisde of the measures and the jobs you have listed in Group III-D, did you have any other jobs to do or did you carry on any other activities?
A. No, at no time. I was not in any other departments, either in an informational or an organizational manner.
Q. Did you have the possibility of having your way about the proposals made in these reports?
A. The suggestions for improvement listed in these reports came from experts and were merely given to the leading agencies for their information. Whether a regulation was thereupon changed was only decided by this ministry or the organization. That had to be this way and we could not take over this responsibility.
Q. During your activity in this Group III-D, did you have anything to do about investigating sabotage activities?
A. No, we were not an economic police, no trade police either, merely an informational organization.
Q. Who was competent for the investigation of sabotage cases in economics?
A. Outside of the police, there was a Department of Economics in Office IV and there was a Department of Economics in Office V of the Criminal Police.
Q. Did you carry on your activity secretly?
A. No, at no time did I use an alias and I always participated openly and officially in all conferences, mostly in uniform.
Q. When were you detailed to Einsatzgruppe D?
A. In the middle of June, 1941.
Q. What rank did you have at that time?
A. SS Sturmbannfuehrer, which is equivalent to a Major.
Q. Were you relieved of your post in the Group III-D when you were ordered to Russia?
A. No, a deputy was appointed for that time and I retained this service.
Q. How long were you with Einsatzgruppe D?
A. About ten months.
Q. Did you report voluntarily to Einsatzgruppe D?
A. No.
Q. How did you come to go to Einsatzgruppe D?
A. Office I of the RSHA ordered me to.
Q. Did you have a possibility not to obey this order?
A. No, I was under military law.
Q. Since when were you subject to military law?
A. Since the 1st of September, 1939.
Q. What would have happened if you had not obeyed this order?
A. I would have been put before an SS and Police Court and punished.
Q. When you were ordered there, did you know about the missions of the Einsatzgruppe?
A. The measures of the Einsatzgruppe were not known to me in detail, but I knew that the missions which an Einsatz agency had to carry out in the occupied territories consisted of the following: First, security missions in order to secure the occupied area, including measures for the interior administration, and, second, SD mission, that is, to report about the morale and about the situation of public life of this occupied area. As for myself, personally, I assumed that I was to gather material for these reports.
Q. Which missions were you destined for in the Einsatzgruppe?
A. I was supposed to become head of Office III, namely, for these SD missions, within the staff of the Einsatzgruppe.
Q. What were your missions to be in detail?
A. As Director III, I was concerned with gathering material about the morale of the population, about the administrative situation, about health, education, and all economic questions, and I was to send on these reports to the local agencies and to Berlin.
Q. Could this mission be gathered from the designation which you received?
A. Yes, there was an order for me to become Director III.
Q. Perhaps you can explain to the Tribunal what this "No. III" means. Whey was this "No. III" chosen?
A. The "No. III" was chosen because this was the same mission which the Department III had in making out its reports. It, of course, applied here to the occupied foreign area.
Q. Was this mission as Director III mentioned in the order of transfer expressly?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the reasons that you were ordered to be used for this purpose?
A. For this SD mission, namely, this III mission, only a collaborator of Office III could be used.
Q. Were you also supposed to carry out any executive measures?
A. No, no provision was made for this.
Q. Who was destined to carry out the executive measures?
A. Office I of the RSHA had designated a Director IV and ordered him to join the staff, but he did not become active, because Ohlendorf, after conferring with Office I, had ordered that the staff should not carry out any executive measures and this Director IV, who had been provided for COURT II CASE IX them, received a commando when the Russian war started.