AIn the town of Nilolaev there was the Kommando-XI-A.
QNow, as a matter of fact, did these commandos perform executions while they were in Simferopol, and while they were in Nikolaev?
AI found out about this from the reports, yes.
QNow, did you ever pass an order concerning executions to either one of these commandos while General Ohlendorf was away from his headquarters?
ANo.
QYou have seen from these reports that the clothing of people who were summoned to the executions were collected, have you not?
AWhat order are you referring to? To what order may I ask?
QYou have seen from these reports that clothing of people who were summoned to execution was collected before the execution, have you not?
AI can no longer say whether this became evident from the report, but generally I think I did know about it.
QWas any of this personal property in the way of clothing, or money, or valuables turned over to Einsatzgruppe-D by the commando performing the execution?
ASo far as I know, valuables and money were turned over to the administrative leader.
QWas then an administrative leader at all times in EinsatzgruppeD Headquarters?
AI would assume so. He might have been absent sometimes, but so far as I remember he was always there.
QWell, now, isn't this clothing collected for a specific purpose?
AI do not know the purposes, but I think it was certainly made use of.
QDon't you know as a matter of fact, this clothing was turned over to the National Socialist Welfare Organization for redistribution?
AI don't know that this did happen in all cases, but I remember now that it did happen.
QNow, this was an domestic or an economic question, was it not, to clothe Ethnic Germans?
ANo, in this case we misunderstand each other. My economic question I dealt with as an intelligence officer, I had to deal with the problems in occupied territories of that nature, but not the economic questions of supply. All those questions an administrative officer or economic officer had to deal with, and that is something entirely different.
QWell, now, Colonel, if these men didn't have enough food in the occupied territories, or these people didn't have enough food in the occupied territories, you would report such fact to Berlin, would you not?
ACertainly.
QAnd if they didn't have enough clothes for the winter, would you report that?
AYes, I would have reported that, too. Excuse me, not men of Einsatzgruppe, but the population. We must understand each other here. It is the population.
QYes, all right, we are agreed on that, and this population included the ethnic Germans who were being settled in this occupied territory, didn't it?
AYes.
QNow if these people didn't have enough clothing, enough coal, or enough furnishings, that would be a question which you would deal in with as Chief of Leiter III.
AYes, that would have been mentioned in the report for the ethnic Germans.
QThen you would have been interested in a matter which concerned your office as to the distribution of these clothes collected from people who were shot, wouldn't you?
ANo, in this case I reported about the position or situation of ethnic Germans, and, if I now assume, that they had not enough clothes, as to how this situation was being dealt with, that was not for me to decide, it was never a matter for the SD official. I only had to report about it.
QI am agreed with you that you had to report about it, but the point I am making is, that you have reported to Berlin that the Ethnic German Settlers who were part of the population didn't have enough clothing; later, did you ever make an inspection to see if this lack of clothing situation was relieved?
AI cannot remember that. Obviously I visited the ethnic Germans' territory, but not to inspect them concerning these questions, but in order to inform myself generally about the position.
QAll right. Now the information that if you had made a report to Berlin that they lacked essential clothing, would you not consider it a matter of information to later on see if your report about this lack of clothing had been acted upon?
ANo - -yes, it could have been the case, but it was not necessary after each report. But many of these reports were only meant for information, and whether these matters were being dealt with was something for the SD, the competent authority to deal with which received these reports.
QWell, if you reported the lack, would you not also report on the fact that the matter was attended to later on?
AIf within a few weeks I had received a report that the population had sufficient clothing, now in that case, yes, of course, I would have reported about it.
QSo that remotely at least you were interested in the collection of clothing from all sources whatsoever, weren't you?
AWhat do you mean by interested, Mr. Prosecutor? I reported about these matters, and if they changed I reported again.
QAll right, you had enough interest that they didn't have clothing, and to report that fact. Now didn't you have enough interest to report possible sources of clothing for these people who lacked it?
You had enough interest to report the fact that they lacked clothing. Didn't you have enough interest to go one step farther in your report, and report to the proper authorities the sources of the clothing so these people could have their needs relieved?
ASo far as such sources were reported to me, they were, of course, included in the reports.
QThen you had some interest in the supply of clothing, even though it was remote?
AThat is not of remote interest. I did this according to the reports, and if I found out the source I just reported about the source, and if the fact that the shortage was over, then, of course, I reported about that fact.
QLet's go back to these people who were executed. Was that clothing kept for any length of time in Einsatzgruppe-D Headquarters?
AI saw no camp in Einsatzgruppe-D.
QI didn't ask you about a camp.
AI never saw a collection of clothes.
QWell, why is it in your interrogation of the 13th of March which was read to you, in which you stated the valuables and clothing were collected by an inspector from AMT-I. They were registered, and sent to Germany, and the money and valuables were either deposited in a local bank or sent to Germany, and that this inspector was responsible to Ohlendorf?
AThat is correct, Mr. Prosecutor, this administrative officer had to deal with such tasks; the money and valuables, as I said, were sent to the group, but no clothing was taken to the group, but this administrative officer just took care of it. In the Commando he was the competent authority. That was within his competence.
QTook care of what?
ATo make use of the clothing and valuables which were received.
QIn the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D?
AYes. It did not mean, however, that a transport of all these things to the Einsatzgruppe took place.
QWell, you stated a few minutes ago that you never saw any clothing or valuables in Einsatzgruppe D... there was no store for these items.
AI don't know whether that was translated differently. I said the same just now. I said, Mr. Prosecutor, that that does not mean a transport of clothing from the kommandos to the Einsatzgruppe.
QWell, was there ever any clothing of people who were executed stored in Einzatzgruppe D for a day, or a week, or a month?
AI never saw a store.
QI didn't ask you whether you ever saw it; I asked you whether it was there.
AI do not know, Mr. Prosecutor.
QIt could have been there, then?
AA large store would have struck me... I would have seen it.
QAll right. What was the name of this inspector or administrative officer to whom these items were entrusted for transmission to Berlin?
AIt was Hauptsturmfuehrer Ulrich.
QWas he on the staff of Einsatzgruppe D?
AYes. He was a member of the staff.
QDid you see him every day that you reported for duty in the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D?
AI saw him currently.
QDid you know what his duties were?
ANot his individual tasks - but as it is, with every staff there were eight different sections which were under a staff officer who dealt with the section pertaining to his work. Of course, what became generally known, became also known to me.
QYes. And he reported his disposition of these items, did he not?
AHe must have done so, yes.
QWell wasn't that a matter to be included in the reports to Berlin?
AI don't remember any report in which there was anything to this effect. There could have been individual memoranda or letters from this administrative officer.
QYou mean he reported from his own office to Berlin, and it did not go through the general report which you made out?
ANo, it was never contained in my own report because it was an entirely different department.
QI am not speaking of your reports as Chief of Office III; I am speaking of the general reports which you drew up for the whole Gruppe. Were his activities ever included in those reports?
AHe made out his own reports. And a listing of these reports within the general situation reports, I cannot remember.
QDid each one of those eight departments make separate reports to Berlin besides the general situation reports?
AMany of the departments, yes. For instance, the motor pool expert reported about the Office II, about conditions in the field of transport; the medical officer had to report continually to the medical office in the RSHA. The interpreter, of course, did not make any reports. The departments had been given deadlines from the offices in Berlin.
QColonel, these items of clothing and valuables that had been collected by the kommandos, had been sent in to Einsatzgruppe D headquarters, were they not?
ANo, I have already said they were not sent there. If they had, I would have seen larger stores.
QAre you familiar with the reports which General Ohlendorf made concerning watches and rubels - which is contained in Document Book III-D?
AYes, I know it.
QNow, where did these watches come from...and these rubels?
AI have already said that valuables and money had to be passed on to the administrative officer of the Einsatzgruppe. The administrative officer knew about this.
QFrom where did they come - from the kommandos?
AYes, they came from the kommandos.
QNow, the Einsatzgruppe did not keep these items, did they...of money and watches?
ANo.
QBut they transmitted them either to Berlin or, or as the report says, to the Wehrmacht - didn't they?
AYes.
QDid they take receipts for deliveries to other authorities?
ANot personally. I personally didn't get a receipt. But I am sure that the administrative officer had these receipts. He had to have them.
QHow many times do you estimate that your headquarters sent off shipments of clothing and watches and valuables from Einsatzgruppe D?
AI beg your pardon, I never say any shipments of clothing in the Einsatzgruppe.
QAll right. Valuables, watches, fountain pens, eye-glass frames, jewels, rubels... how many times do you estimate that shipments were made to higher authority from Einsatzgruppe D?
AI guess that perhaps this happened twice during the time that I was there. It is possible that this happened in the army a third time.
QThen of all the executions performed by Einsatzgruppe D... only twice or three times valuables were sent in to the headquarters?
AThey were not sent to headquarters. That was so in this one case... that is mentioned in this letter.
QWell, you knew that these things were being taken from people who were selected for executions, didn't you?
AYes, I learned about that... but whether they were items which were generally confiscated I could see that, of course - I did not know any details. They may have been of other people who had to give up their valuables for other reasons. That I don't know.
QAll right. Wasn't it the responsibility of every man in that headquarter to see that no Einsatzgruppe personnel enriched himself by keeping such items for his own use?
ASuch order was issued by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe generally once, and of course I also was informed about it.
QWell, isn't it a fact that these shipments were made regularly, from time to time, out of Einsatzgruppe D headquarters?
AI really can't say that. It is quite possible that I made a mistake when I said twice, and that it might have happened more often, but that there could have been a shipment weekly or fortnightly, I don't know. I think it quite impossible.
QYou have testified that your co-defendant Heinz Schubert was General Ohlendorf's adjutant, have you not?
AYes.
QHow well did you and Schubert know each other?
AI had known Schubert by sight, and I knew that he was working in Office I of the RSHA. Before the assignment I must have talked with him on one or two occasions in Berlin, but I did not know him better than that. I only met him again in the assignment.
QNow, your day-to-day relations with Schubert were friendly, were they not?
AYes.
QWhen you were present for duty at Einsatzgruppe D you came into contact with Lt. Schubert, didn't you?
AWhen both of us were present in the garrison - yes, we saw each other daily; but I have already said that I was often away with Ohlendorf, or by myself; but otherwise, of course, I saw him daily when he was there and I was there.
QDid Schubert take orders from you when General Ohlendorf was absent from his headquarters?
AI cannot remember any general orders, but it must have happened that I did not order Schubert because he was a personnel acquaintance of mine, but I just told him to do something.
QYes. Did Schubert know your functions and duties in the Gruppe?
AYes, he was aware of them.
QNow, if Schubert made the statement that, and I quote: "In matters where one did not want to bother the chief, one turned to Seibert" - would that be a true statement?
AWhen somebody came to the garrison and Ohlendorf was not present, or for some reason or other was away, he came to see me because I held the highest rank... that is quite correct in that form.
QNow, would you take care of these matters in the specific instances which you have stated? Would you render a decision in these matters?
AThat depended what sphere this matter was pertaining to which was called to my attention. If it was pertaining to my own sphere, certainly would have been able to make a decision. Otherwise, I could only have given advice, and I could have said who the expert was for this particular shpere.
QAnd unless it concerned your field you are positive that you never gave any directives or orders?
AIn the combat territory, and during the assignment, considering the special situation in the Crimea, I can never say generally that this was absolutely excluded as a possibility; but I do not remember any directives which have anything to do with spheres that I have mentioned.
QBut it could have happened, even though you don't remember?
AI don't know.
QIt is possible, isn't it?
AI can hardly say whether it is possible.
QNow, from his knowledge about the headquarters and the personnel in there, and their duties - if Schubert considered you the full deputy of Ohlendorf he had a basis for this assumption didn't he?
AHour he had it personally, I do not know. I can only imagine, as I already said, that he was aware of my position within the staff, yes.
QAll right. Let me call your attention to his affidavit of 24 February 1947, which is contained in Document Book I, page 108 of the English, 141 of the German, and which is his affidavit 3055, Prosecution Exhibit 28. Let me call your particular attention to paragraph 2, the second sentence thereof, which reads, and I quote: "In October 1941 I was assigned to Einsatzgruppe D. Otto Ohlendorf was the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, and Willy Seibert was his deputy." Do you find that sentence?
AYes, I've got it, Mr. Prosecutor.
QThat is a true statement, isn't it?
AI have already given my opinion on that. Schubert was detailed to the staff and he found me there -- as the highest ranking officer and as the deputy for the Staff, and this is the only way I can regard this statement.
QDo you know Karl Jonas, J-o-n-a-s?
AJonas? I seem to remember the name, surely.
QWell, I'll tell you. He was second in command to Hans Gabel, the chief of the order police company attached to Einsatzgruppe D.
AYes.
QDo you remember the name now?
AYes, I remember.
QHow often did you see him while you were on duty with Einsatzgruppe D?
AWhile Gabel was currently employed in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I saw Jonas very rarely - that means not very often; I am just thinking over to what kommando he was assigned. I cannot remember exactly.
QHe was assigned to the police company.
AYes. Yes. That is correct. I don't know at the moment in what kommando he served.
Q.Now, if he considered you as General Ohlendorft's deputy, would he have some basis for that statement?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, this basis can only result from the picture that he found when he arrived at the staff, and the reason was that.........I was the senior officer on the staff.
Q.All right. Let us go a little further. Let us consider your own affidavit which is contained in Document Book III-D, page 34 of the English, page 60 of the German, which is Document 2859, and is Prosecution's Exhibit 158. What does the last sentence in the first paragraph read?
A.As senior officer of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the Gruppe whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the Gruppe.
Q.Isn't this a normal function of a deputy when the chief is absent......to take over all the tasks?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, then I could not have already stated, one or two sentences, before, and I quote, "I was never appointed the deputy of Ohlendorf for the Einsatzgruppe D." I would not have made this statement and then said the contrary two sentences afterwards; but this only applies to "within the Gruppe".......the staff itself, and I think I have made that quite clear. But that does not mean that I had any authority over the kommando leaders.
Q.Well, did Ohlendorf when he was present, issue orders to kommandos?
A.Certainly.
Q.And this was one of his tasks, as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, when he was absent did you take over this task, too?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, there were no daily tasks or orders. Otherwise, Ohlendorf could not have been on the road for weeks at a stretch without authorizing and appointing a deputy within the staff. But basic orders had been given before. And when Ohlendorf was absent in April he could, of course, not have passed on any orders to the kommando, but that does not include the fact that at this time I could have given the orders, but the kommando leaders were his deputies for their own departments.
Q.You stated you could have given orders during the time in April and May 1942 when Ohlendorf was absent?
A.No. Not in that form.
Q.You just stated that you could have, while Ohlendorf was absent on the road, give orders.
A.I must have expressed it wrongly somehow. The opportunity could have been given for my giving orders, but I could only have given orders in those matters for which I held the authority, namely, for my sphere of tasks in Department III.
Q.Well, then, in effect you state that the sentence which you have just read to the Tribunal isn't true.
A.No, I did not state that. This sentence is true.
Q.Well, which is correct? You say now that you could only give orders for your own spere, and in your affidavit, you could take over all tasks and give orders.
A.Tasks which were dealt with within the staff, yes.
Q.Then you stated that Ohlendorf gave orders to Einsatzkommandos when he was there.
A.Yes.
Q.That was the normal task of a Chief of a Gruppe? That order was given in the staff for transmission to the kommandos?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, could you take over this same task when Ohlendorf was not there?
A.No. It says, at the beginning of the page, "Chief of the Einsatzgruppe."
Q.Let me interrupt you a minute. Let us go back to this sentence. This sentence as you wrote it in you affidavit and signed it, is not correct, is it?
A.What sentence, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q.The last sentence in paragraph one of your own affidavit. That should be on page 60 of the German copy.
A.The sentence is correct. I have stated that within the Gruppe........that is the term which we used......and that actually means the staff only......and insofar this sentence is correct.
Q.All right. What does the word "all" mean? "For all tasks"?
A.You mean where it says "all"...... Those were the tasks which happened, which came up during my time.
Q.That's right. And if they involved giving orders to kommandos in the field that was part of your tasks when General Ohlendorf was absent, wasn't it?
A.No, that could not have been my task because I was not the deputy of Ohlendorf for the kommando leaders.
Q.Well, then, this sentence does not mean "all" tasks, then?
A.It means, as it says here, all tasks within the Gruppe, which means within the staff.
Q.Perhaps the German says that, but the English certainly doesn't.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, let's get the German, then. Don't let's stop there. Let's find out what the German says. If the German is as he says, then the English should be corrected.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.Witness, do you distinguish between the staff as such and all the kommandos which go to make up the Einsatzgruppe?
A.Yes.
Q.Then explain, if you will, why.......in this statement you say, "as senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe".........there we have the distinction......."staff of the Einsatzgruppe", you say, "I took over all tasks within the Group" - not within the staff, but within the Group. Now please explain that .
A.There it says within the Group. That can only mean within the staff, your Honor.
Q.But why can it only mean that, when in the very previous clause you go to the trouble of saying "staff of the Einsatzgruppe"?
A.Because it is the usual term, the terminology which says.......
Q.Why would you not have said, if the meaning is what you now tell us, "As senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the staff"? Why didn't you use "staff" there, instead of Group?
A.Your Honor, if I had formulated this affidavit myself I would have written "staff".....but I, in this case, understood this to be staff, and therefore I made no correction.
Q.Well, why did you understand it to be staff when it said Group, especially when you now tell us that had you written it out in your own hand you would have used the word staff and not Group?
A.Because the expression can be misunderstood, as actually is happening at the moment. For me it was clean...
Q.Yes, and that is the very reason why, when you had the affidavit before you, and you saw that a misunderstanding could arise, why didn't you correct it then?
A.I could not assume that, your Honor, after I had affirmed a few minutes before that I had not been deputy chief of the Einsatzgruppe. That's on the same page.
Q.Did you read this over carefully before you signed it?
A.I read through it, and then Mr. Wartenberg told me that if I had any corrections or changes to make I had to announce it before each change, and then I had to discuss it with Mr. Wartenberg for quite some time, in what shape or form I could change it, and in eight or ten cases this was done.
Q.Yes, well, then, why didn't you change this particular statement?
A.First of all, because two sentences before I stated that I was not the deputy chief; and secondly, this distinction did not strike me because that was the terminology we used within the assignment. We just meant by Group, the staff.
Q.But in the sentences before you are merely pointing out that you were his deputy in all matters under Department III. Then you go on to another subject. What happens when Ohlendorf is absent? And you point out that when he is absent that you took over all tasks within the Group. Not within the staff. But within the Group. Now, do you want to tell us that this is a mistake?
A.An interpretation to the effect that by Group the whole Einsatzgruppe would be meant, would be wrong, your Honor. Within the Group can only mean within the staff, as was actually the case. I was not the chief of the higher ranking kommando leaders.
Q.Well, do you then say that anyone unfamiliar with what happened there, reading this statement, and concluding from the statement that you took over all tasks within the Group......anyone so concluding would not read the statement correctly?
A.No, your Honor. If it would say here, in the absence of the commander-in-chief of the army I took over all tasks........this would never mean either the task concerning the divisions because it says here when the commander-in-chief was absent from the army, that means from his H. Q., of the army, and not from the divisions.
Q.Well, we didn't get your answer. Now let me put the question very specifically. Someone who does not know you, and has not heard you testify, picks up this document and wants to know what you did when Ohlendorf was not there, and he reads, "As senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the Group whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the Group." Now, please keep in mind what I have said. This individual does not know you, and does not know anything about the case. He only has this paper before him. After he has read the paper he says, "My understanding of this document is that when Ohlendorf was not in charge because of his absence, that Seibert took over all tasks within the Einsatzgruppe, that he had control over everything within the Einsatzgruppe"......... would such a person coming to such a conclusion be justified in the conclusion?
A.A person, your Honor, who does not know anything about this matter could come to such a wrong final conclusion, yes.
Q.Then, wasn't it incumbent upon you, when you read this statement, and not knowing who might read it, to correct it if you thought that it was capable of that wrong interpretation?
A.Your Honor, if I had had the peace and the time and also the concentration, of course I would have read the document word for word so that such a thing could not have happened. But if shortly before, and through discussions I had with Mr. Wartenberg, I had told him quite clearly that I was not deputy as far as the kammando leaders were concerned, I could not assume that Mr. Wartenberg, or generally here, these people who deal with these matters here, would come to another final conclusion than the one that is actually correct and which I testified to here.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess until one-fifty.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1350 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 19 Nov.
'47)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VONSTEIN (Counsel for defendant Sandberger): Your Honor, I ask that, my client Sandberger be excused from this afternoon's and tomorrow's afternoon session to prepare the document book.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow so that he may confer with his attorney in connection with a document book.
DR. VON STEIN:Thank you.
DR.FRITZ (Counsel for defendant Fendler): I ask that the defendant Fendler be excused from tomorrow's (Thursday's) session in order to prerare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Fendler will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR.LEIZ (Counsel for defendant Klingelhoefer): Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Klingelhoefer be excused from tomorrow's session, Thursday, and Friday in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Klingelhoefer will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Thursday, and the following day, Friday.
DR. LEIZ:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. von Stein, did you want to see your client this afternoon?
DR. VON STEIN:Yes, this afternoon too, please.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I didn't understand you to have requested that he be excused this afternoon also.
DR. VON STEIN:Your Honor, I requested for this afternoon and for tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT:For this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon?
DR. VON STEIN:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Not tomorrow morning?
DR. VON STEIN:Not tomorrow morning - no, not tomorrow morning: just the afternoon
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. The defendant Sandberger will be excused this afternoon and will be accompanied by the Provost Marshal and he will be excused also tomorrow afternoon to confer with his counsel.
DR. VON STEIN:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) Col.
seibert - Resumed BY MR. WALTON:
QColonel Seibert, when you signed your reports you generally used the initials "I.V.", did you not?
AYes.
QAnd these initials stand for the term "representing" or "in place of" the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, does it not?
AIt means representing the chief - yes.
QNow, let us take, for example, that there was on duty in Einsatzgruppe D headquarters a full-time, regular deputy to the chief. If he made out a report over his own signature, would he use the initials "I.V." or not? A I did not get it exactly, you mean above his own signature?
DR.GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Seibert): Your Honor, I believe this is a hypothetical question.
THE PRESIDENT:The question perhaps was not too clear. Suppose we have it repeated, and then we will see..... BY MR. WALTON:
QColonel Seibert, in the event there was a full-time deputy on duty in the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D, how would he sign a report, if he had made it out?
AHe would sign "Acting For".
QUnder the initials "I.V.", is that not so?
AYes, that is correct.
QNow, in your affidavit, which has already been called to our atten tion in Document Book III-D, page 34, and Document NO-2859, Prosecution Exhibit 148 -
THE PRESIDENT:It is 158.
MR. WALTON:I am sorry: 158. The last sentence in paragraph 2 of our affidavit reads as follows, does it not, and I quote? "The reports which I signed in the capacity of his deputy were signed with 'I.V.". Does your affidavit state that?
WITNESS:Yes; because in your previous example it was an assumption which never existed in the Einsatzgruppe, and here the facts are given as they really were, namely, that I signed "Acting for....." in my sphere, as it had been done according to Ohlendorf's order during his six to eight years' activities. BY MR. WALTON:
QWell, in the document this morning which we discussed, in this same Document Book III-D, page 39, which is Document NOKW-628, you admitted that none of these topics were in your sphere, but did you not sign that report under the initials "I.V."?
AMay I see the document, Mr. Prosecutor? Without the document I cannot understand the question.
QDo you have Document Book III D before you?
(Document book presented to witness)
AYes, I here the report before me which you mean, counsel.
QAnd you signed that report after the initials "I.V.", did you not?
AYes.
QAnd you said on the stand this morning that nothing in this report was specifically in your sphere as chief of Department III.
AI said that this had nothing to do with the sphere as Chief III, but my reports to the Army which was my second sphere and what is concerned here.
QSo you signed this as Ohlendorf's deputy?
AI signed it because I represented Ohlendorf for my sphere.