THE PRESIDENT:I am a little confused here as to what reports he is speaking of. I thought that he was telling us about the reports he received. Now it would appear that he is talking about reports which were sent out.
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I spoke about the reports deposited in this office. These were reports from the kommandos to the Einsatzgruppe D as well as reports of the Einsatzgruppe D to the Reich Security Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, then you saw both types of reports, those which came in and those which had been sent out or were to be sent out.
THE WITNESS:Yes, Your Honor. In these reports information was contained about so-called resettlements which had taken place, and I already said that I do not remember the exact occasion which caused me to see in this term "resettlement" a camouflaged expression for executions. I intended then to find out in detail and when Herr Ohlendorf returned I asked him concerning this matter, and on this occasion , in this discussion, I was enlightened about the content of the Fuehrer Order, but Ohlendorf also told me on this occasion that I would have nothing to do with the carrying out of this order. BY DR. KOESSL:
QDid you agree with the Fuehrer Order?
AI did not agree with it at the time and I do not agree with it now. I can only say that when I learned of the content of this Fuehrer Order I was deeply shocked, mainly about the fact that one could expect people to carry out an order of such tremendous consequences, that people could actually be expected to execute such an order. Furthermore, in my own position I was completely helpless in the fact of the facts with which I was confronted.
QWhat did Ohlendorf tell you then concerning your own employment?
AOn the occasion of my reporting to him Ohlendorf had ordered that I should be the successor of the adjutant who had been released, and he also put me in charge of the orderly room of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe D.
QPlease give us a short resume of your tasks as adjutant and officer in charge of the orderly room.
AMy tasks as adjutant were relatively small. The reason for this was mainly that Ohlendorf refused personally to have any office machinery for his own personal needs. As the adjutant I had to make appointments for official visits and to receive the visitors in the office. Apart from that there were occasions from case to case to carry out work within the regular field of activities of an adjutant. For instance, when Herr Ohlendorf wanted to go on an official trip it was then my task to assist him in getting the necessary maps, to note down the route, and similar matters. As the supervisor of his office I was entrusted with the supervision of the office work; that is, in this office as far as registration and files are concerned, the correspondence between the Einsatzgruppe on one hand and the kommandos or the various offices of the Wehrmacht on the other hand was filed end taken care of. The complete correspondence went through this office and was there registered according to incoming and outgoing mail.
QHow many people did you have under your supervision in this office?
AIn my capacity as adjutant I had nobody, but as the supervisor, the officer in charge of this office, I had one clerk who at the same time, apart from this activity in the office, was the clerk of the chief and also a radio operator. Therefore, this one man did not only come under my exclusive supervision.
Q Did this T/O correspond to an office of a military unit?
A No, this staff did not quite correspond to an office staff of a military unit. If I may make a comparison at all with a military unit, which never is quite fortunate, then I would compare the staff of the Einsatzgruppe D in its T/O with the staff of a regiment. In such a regimental staff, however, there was a so-called staff sergeant.
This staff sergeant did not exist in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe. Therefore, this function of a staff sergeant was also taken over by me in this case with the effect that in addition to my duties I had to deal with billeting, and I had to make out plans for sentry duties, and I had to deal with main as well.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, if you compare the Einsatzgruppe headquarters to regimental headquarters, following out that comparison, would you say then that the kommando headquarters would be comparable to battalions and the sub-kommandos to company units, or would that rather be a forced comparison?
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, if I may say so openly, even the comparison between Einsatzgruppe Staff and regimental staff is very far-fetched, and any conclusion that could be drawn from this concerning kommandos would be equally far-fetched, I only compared it in order to give a comparison of numbers, of the numbers of the staff, and I only made this comparison in order to give a sort of comparison in the strength of personnel, but actually, or as far as service is concerned, there are no possibilities of comparison here because the Einsatzgruppen and the kommandos are, to be sure, military units, so-called mobile units. but were differently organized and sub-divided than a military unit.
THE PRESIDENT:If you were going to compare them at all, I presume the Einsatzgruppen could be compared more easily to a battalion and the kommandos to companies rather than the way you first put it.
THE WITNESS:If I am to deduce this from the number of the personnel then, of course, Your Honor is right. Of course in that case Einsatzgruppe D at best corresponds to a military battalion.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Doctor. BY DR. KOESSL:
QYour comparison, I take it, was more concerned with the personnel, with the internal service?
AYes.
QDid you have any power of command over any members of the Einsatzgruppe?
AApart from the clerk who had been put at my disposal and whom, of course, I could give directives for his service in the office, I could give no directives to anyone in the Einsatzgruppe.
QDid you find out about all documents which came in and went out of the office?
AGenerally, yes. I can, of course, not exclude the possibility of actually not having found out about a number of proceedings, but I would like to state here that theoretically, of course, I had the possibility of examining any matter which was mentioned in the mail that came in and went out because all the documents were in the office.
QIn this case, therefore, you knew the reports of the individual kommandos?
AOf course, I knew them.
QAnd you also knew the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to the Reich Security Main Office and to the Army?
AYes,the same is true for that too.
QDid you participate in the making out of such reports?
ANo, I had no part in making out these reports.
QDid you ever make out a situation or activity report of any kind or parts thereof?
ANo, at no time whatsoever.
QDid you ever sign a report?
AIf this question applies to the reports which you just mentioned, in that case, of course, never.
QWill you now look at Document Book III_D, English page 34, of the German, page 60 , Document NO-2859. It is Exhibit 158. It is an affidavit of the co-defendant Seibert, in which it says under No. 2 it is on page 1 of the original - I quote, "Although Ohlendorf, as well as his adjutant, Schubert, from time to time prepared their own reports, the making out of reports was one of my main duties."
That is the end of my quotation. What can you comment on this way of putting it? A I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the casein-chief of the prosecution, on page 255 of the English transcript, where it says, and I quote, under paragraph 2 of the document, that is the affidavit Seibert, it says, "It is shown that the defendant Schubert from time to time prepared certain reports of Einsatzgruppe D."
QWhat do you have to comment then on these formulations?
AI beg your pardon for just one moment. I haven't quite found the place.
QYou mean in the case of the prosecution?
ANo, in the document book.
QIt is in the document book, page 60 at the bottom. It is the next-to-the-last line on page 60.
A.Yes, thank you, I have got it. Seibert testified here to the effect that although Ohlendorf as well as myself prepared our own reports from time to time the making out of reports was one of his main duties.
He furthermore deseribes the content matter of these reports but it seems tome of importance to clarify that this way of putting it, in the case-in-chief of the prosecution, concerning the omission of the defendant Seibert, that Schubert from time to time made out certain reports, and this does not say which reports, that this omission, however, should refer to the reports mentioned by Saibert in his affidavit; that would be a false assumption. From time to time in this program of reporting, I made out documents concerning personnel changes and changes of garrison within the field of activities of the Einsatzgruppe D. These documents which were made out from time to time for Berlin in order to give them an idea on the regional and personal structure and in order to keep their reports up to date, these documents, therefore, I made out; and only to that extent did I personally or my clerk take part in making out reports because these documents were made out all at a certain time for a certain report and were contained in such a report.
Q.Do you know of any data concerning executions in such reports?
A.Yes, I know about such data.
Q.Did these individual reports from the Kommandos, contain any figures concerning executions?
A.In the various reports figures concerning executions were mentioned.
Q.Did the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to the Reich Security Main Office contain any figures of executions?
A.Yes, but not all reports; some reports, especially the radio reports to Berlin, contained figures.
Q.Did you have any id*a concerning the total figure of executions?
A.At no time whatsoever. In spite of the knowledge that executions took place and in spite of figures mentioned in the reports I had no idea concerning the total number of people who were executed; never, and I could not have any such idea.
That was practically impossible.
Q.On the 30th of September in the afternoon , page 251 in the English transcript, it is in German 256, the prosecution read a contradiction into your statements on page 7 of your affidavit of the 4th of February, 1947, Document Book I, English page 17, German page 19, No-2716, Exhibit 4. The Prosecution sees the contradiction in the fact that you first maintained that younever knew how many people were executed altogether on the one hand, and that you say yourself that the written reports which went to Berlin contained the exact number of people who were executed. Will you clarify this alleged contradiction?
A.I think that if the prosecution reads a contradiction into my Statement the reason must be in my affidavit. This phrasing , especially of no. 7 in my affidavit. is partly so unfortunate, that somebody who does not know the actual conditions can either not see anything from this or can also see that what the prosecution wants to read into it, mistakenly. In this Figure 7 of my affidavit I said, or shall we say that I signed the wording as it was put by Mr. Wartenberg, and I gave details about the two ways of reporting of Einsatzgruppe D to Berlin. On the one hand, I spoke of radio reports in which figures were also transmitted, which, however, I did not get to know, and I said why I could not have known about them. Then I explained the second way of reporting, that is those reports which went to Berlin as written reports , via army mail or via courier. As for content of these written reports, the wording for it was chosen by Mr. Wartenberg, and I quote, "These reports contained exact data and descriptions of those places in which the operations had taken place. " I may now come back to the wording in theprosecution's case-in-chief. Here it says, "I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Schubert's claim which is contained in Paragraph 7 of his affidavit of the 24th of February, 1947."
Here I may clarify this and say that it should be 4th of February. It is evidently a mistake. Furthermore, it says, two sentences later he says that he did not know the exact number of people executed, but I am now talking about the content of the reports concerning the activity of the group which went regularly to the headquarters in Berlin. He says that these reports contained exact details anddescriptions of the places in which these operations actually took place. I can, therefore, only refer these statements to the radio reports, and if the prosecution really understands it to this effect then this conclusion is wrong, because here they connect the word "operations" with the executions which had been mentioned before, but the written reports which I talked about and which I explained, contained mainly information about operations and the places in which these operations took place, but in no place whatsoever does it say that these operations or actions meant executions which had been carried out.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.Well, did you see the reports before they were sent out?
A.Whether I saw the reports which were sent out?
Q.Yes, did you see the reports?
A.I don't say basically before they were sent out, your Honor, but I had the chance to see them either before, that is theoretically possible, but in any case after they had been sent out when the copies were filed.
QYes, well, then, I don't know that you have answered Dr. Koessl's question, namely, that you should explain the inconsistency between the statement that you did now know how many were killed and the statement that the reports contained the numbers killed. You have quoted from that paragraph, but you didn't go--you did not go to the phrase which indicates the number "number of places destroyed and persons killed". Now, when you signed this affidavit you saw that wording, didn't you?
AYes, Your Honor.
QWell, doesn't that very clearly state that the reports indicated the number of persons killed?
AYour Honor, I already said that this wording is very unfortunate because it is not clear enough, and I may remind the Tribunal of the fact that my defense counsel, when Mr. Wartenberg was called into the witness stand for cross examination, that my defense counsel asked Mr. Wartenberg about this wording and its unclarity, and I may remind Your Honor that it was you who said, "Yes, if it isn't very clear, then it is not very clear". BY DR. KOESSL:
QIf I may say something, Your Honor, please tell the Tribunal what operations are concerned on that particular point where it says in your affidavit. "the number of villages destroyed and people killed"-- what operations or actions were you speaking about in this particular point of the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT:Judge Dixon calls to our attention that this statement appears twice in your affidavit; in paragraph 6 this sentence appears. "The reports of these leaders arriving at our headquarters were written in the manner prescribed by Chlendorf and also contained information as to the number of Russians and Jews executed". That is in paragraph 6. BY DR. KOESSL:
QWitness, what figures were you referring to? We are now discussing reports containing figures of executions. Did these reports only contain 5 Jan 1947_M_MSD_7_2_Spears (Hildesheimer) the figure of one single execution or did these reports calculate cumulatively from the last figure in order to give a total figure of execution and people executed by this Einsatzgruppe up to that period?
ANo, such total figures did not exist and the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to Berlin were not based on a previous figure that had been reported about before. Therefore, the sum total of all the executions that had taken place after that date was not reported.
QBut figures were contained?
AYes, figures were contained, and, I think that I have made it quite clear that I knew about that.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I think that the statement which apparently I made some time ago stands, that if it isn't very clear, it isn't very clear, so let us have a recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR.RATZ(ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY): I would like to ask that the Defendant Von Radetzky be excused today and tomorrow afternoon from attendance in court so that he can visit his wife. This has been approved already for special reasons and I would like instructions to be given that the defendant be brought to Room 57 at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT:When you say that Von Radetzky will be excused that he may visit his wife, you mean that his wife may visit him.
The Tribunal, of course, will be glad to allow that opportunity for Mrs. von Radetzky to visit von Radetzky this afternoon in Room 57 and the same privilege will be accorded tomorrow afternoon.
DR. RATZ:Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. KOESSL: My colleague, Dr. Ulmer, asked me to make an application that the Defendant Six be excused tomorrow, Tuesday, the 6th of January, -- that he may be excused for the afternoon only tomorrow and that he be brought to Room 57 so that the closing brief for the Defendant Six can be written.
THE PRESIDENT:The Defendant Six will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow afternoon for the purposes indicated.
DR.KOESSL: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHUBERT) I ask permission to continue with the questioning of the Defendant Schubert in his own case.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) Witness, please clarify again which figures you knew and which figures you did not know.
AI always knew those figures which were reported for a certain period, but I did not know any possible total figures about the total period of the work of Einsatzgruppe D. I never knew of these at any time.
QDid you yourself never work out the figures and add the figures of the various reports?
ANo, I never did anything like that. I never had orders to do that. In addition those figures, for example, which were with Einsatzgruppe D before I worked there, I could not possibly know, because no more documents existed for that period.
I don't think either that unless customs were changed, lists previously had been kept; I know nothing about this.
QUnder Figure 7 of your affidavit you say that the reports about the operations, losses, number of locations destroyed and the persons killed; which operations were you referring to here at this point of the affidavit?
AThese operations mean the military operations of the Wehrmacht, as they were made known to us for the territory of Einsatzgruppe D. These were purely military operations against Russian troop units or also against partisans.
Here, of course, localities were destroyed during combat and also people were killed.
This is what I was referring to and I believe in the previous investigation, I expressed this quite clearly.
QWhat did you mean to say when you said at the end under Figure 7 "Reports about the civilian sector"?
AThis wording is rather unfortunate, in particular, because it means nothing.
I regretted this and pointed this out to Mr. Wartenberg at the time.
If I had had the opportunity to word this myself, it probably would have said, that these reports also contained reports and informa tion about the situation in the various domestic spheres of the civilian population in the occupied territory.
That is what was meant.
QMr. Warenberg said in the English transcript, page 390 to 391, in the German, 397, that you had the opportunity in the supplementary affidavit of 21 April 1947 to correct everything that was incorrect under Figure 7 in your First affidavit.
Why, on 21 April, or on 24 April, did you not do so?
AMay I correct you first? You mean 21 February and 24 February. I want to correct that.
QYes, that is right.
AThis statement by Mr. Wartenberg here on the witness stand was given about eight months after this affidavit of 4 February, 1947 was signed.
Mr. Wartenberg at the time did not tell me that he would interrogate me again, or, if this should occur, when. I did not know whether I would be interrogated again. He never let me know at any time that at a later date I would be able to give further explanations concerning this affidavit. I mentioned to him that there were some points which were not clear in this affidavit and he told me that if something had been formulated unclearly, it could only mean the same thing, as I had explained it. This was merely a compilation, a summary of this previous interrogation.
QDid you make a supplementary affidavit, apart from the one of 4 February?
ANo, I did sign another affidavit on 21 February, which was rewritten, on 24 February it was signed again.
This affidavit merely contained matters which in the previous interrogation of 18 February had been discussed.
Therefore, for me it was not supplementary affidavit concerning the subjects discussed on 4 February, but is a completely new affidavit with new subjects.
Apart from that, if I may mention it here.
on the wording of these texts in these affidavits. I could not have any influence.
The interrogation was conducted entirely by Mr. Wartenberg and I could not interfere here and say, "Stop here.
We can't do it that way," but I simply had to do as I was told.
QDid you yourself take part in any executions or any preparations for any executions?
ANo.
QDid you yourself ever see an execution?
AYes, I did see an execution near Simferopol on the Crimes.
QHow did this come about? Was this part of your task as Adjutant?
AOf course, it was not part of my work as Adjutant, not even as Chief of the office, because in these two capacities I had nothing to do with the executive task.
Why this order was given to me, I would like to explain according to the special situations which existed for Einsatzgruppe D at the time.
This was the execution which has been discussed here repeatedly.
It was the execution for which the 11th Army had given orders to the Einsatzgruppe to carry it out before a certain time.
This deadline, as far as I know, was Christmas or the end of the year, 1941.
Einsatzgruppe D, in as far as I understand about events there, in my opinion, did everything at the time in order to avoid carrying out the executions by that time.
The Army was informed about this in detail that the kommando at the location in Simferopol in the way of personnel and technically was not able to cope with this matter.
The Army on their part appointed personnel and sent vehicles and fuel to carry out the entire execution, but the previous order concerning the actual execution did not change, so it had to be carried out.
In this situation, I also received instructions in connection with this execution and I think I can say that this only came about because the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, my codefendant, Mr. Ohlendorf, under those circumstances, which were very difficult for the Einsatzgruppe, wanted to have these matters carried out in a clean and thorough manner.
Herr Ohlendorf and also the local kommando leader of Simferopol, Dr. Braune, themselves inspected these execution repeatedly and beyond that I had received instructions also to inspect various phase of the entire events, not merely to look at them to see whether they were carried out at all, but in what way they were carried out in detail.
THE PRESIDANT:I didn't quite catch that distinction which you drew Witness.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) Which differentiation did you make, whether they were carried out at all or how they were carried out?
That is what you said.
AYes, I understood. What I was trying to say was: my instructions did not require any work which might have had any connection between cause and effect, so that they had to be carried out, but I merely had the order to look at those matters, insofar as whether they were carried out in such a manner as Herr Ohlendorf had ordered these executions in detail.
THE PRESIDENT:Do we understand that you say that you yourself did not make arrangements for the executions, but that you inspected to make certain that the executions were carried out in accordance with the orders issued by Ohlendorf?
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I would not like to say here that they were carried out, but whether they were carried out in the manner ordered by Mr. Ohlendorf, because the words, "that they were carried out" would necessitate work on my part, which can only cause those ordered to carry out the executions to carry it out.
I did not get such an order.
DR. KOESSL:You only mean the manner, Witness. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Let us suppose that the execution was not being carried out in accordance with the rules laid down by Ohlendorf, could you then intervene and instruct them to follow the procedure laid down by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe?
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I could not have done this. I would have had to inform Herr Ohlendorf about this, if it had been carried out in a different manner.
I might have tried to tell the officer who was ordered to carry out the execution and to point out to him that in my opinion the manner of execution did not conform with the rules laid down by Ohlendorf and therefore I would have to report about him, but I could not have stopped from carrying out every thing that had been laid down by Herr Ohlendorf, I had no authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, if you saw a flagrant violation of the order laid down by Ohlendorf, you would acquaint the officer in charge of the execution with that violation, would you not?
THE WITNESS:Of course, Your Honor, in an emergency I would, of course, have done so.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) What instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you at the time for your work?
MR. WALTON:If Your Honors please, I want to object to that question as putting the answer in the witness month.
If you will note, in his affidavit he gives two possibilities or two sources from which he could have received his instructions.
I should like very much for the defendant to say of his own volition who gave him the instructions, rather than the suggestion being made by his counsel.
THE PRESIDENT:The point is well taken.
DR. KOESSL:I believe that the prossecution merely objects to the fact that I asked about Ohlendorf, but to the question whether the Defendant Seibert gave instructions I shall bring up later.
I shall ask that.
I don't know whether I understood the prosecution correctly.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, well, why make it so difficult? Just ask him "Who gave you instructions?"
DR. KOESSL:I shall do that now.
Q (BY DR. KOESSL) Witness, who gave you the instruction to be present during this execution?
AI received these instructions from Herr Ohlendorf.
QWhat instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you?
AI have already said, I had the instruction to watch the various phases of the entire events. That was what Herr Ohlendorf told me to do.
QDid you know the special directives for the carrying out of executions?
AYes. I knew those directives and that is written directives they had been issued to the kommandos and as part of may work in the office. I also heard about these directives.
QApart from this mission, were you given any other instructions, any other missions?
ANo, neither before nor afterward did I carry out any similar mission.
QIn the case of the prosecution, English Transcript Page 250, German page 256, the affidavit by Ohlendorf of 2 April 1947 was mentioned. This affidavit is in Document Book III-D, page 1, as Document No. 2856, Exhibit 148. The prosecution says, and I quote, "In paragraph 3 of the same document, Ohlendorf says that he had sent Schubert as his deputy in order to inspect executions. These inspections of executions, the Defendant Schubert in his own affidavit of 24 February 1947 admits." What I mean is the affidavit Schubert Document Book I, English page 108, German, 141, No_3055, Exhibit 28. What can you say to this statement by the prosecution and the affidavit by Ohlendorf?
A.This wording by the prosecution, in my opinion, is wrong, because the plural is mentioned, that is, those various events are mentioned in the plural.
Concerning the affidavit by Herr Ohlendorf such a wording is incorrect too because Herr Ohlendorf said in his affidavit at no point that I carried out inspections of executions, that is several.
He says that as far as he remembers I carried out one inspections in Simferopol.
Later in his affidavit he says, however, that he assigned for general inspections, apart from myself, the co Defendant Seibert and Herr Gabel.
If the Prosecution wants to charge these inspections, these general inspections also to me, this could only mean official trips in which I took part and on the occasion of which through Herr Ohlendorf or through another member of the staff of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe inspections were carried out for his own sphere of work, but in my opinion general inspections never meant inspections of executions.
In fact in my life I only saw one executions, the execution in Simferopol, on the Crimea which I mentioned before.
Q.Please describe how you carried out your mission and explain in particular whether you interfered in the execution at all in the manner it was carried out.
A.Hay I summarize first briefly and later explain it in detail?
As I had been ordered, I went to the various locations where the various phases of the entire events took place as I was ordered.
I inspected the manner in which the execution was carried out.
In no manner did I have any opportunity nor did I have instructions to interfere in the events which took place.
Q.Who had to supervise those executions?
A.The supervision was carried out by a person who hold the rank of a major.
Q.Were any other officers present and what rank did they have?
A.Apart from this officer who hold the rank of a major, there were two other officers who had the rank of a captain.
Apart from that there were officers who were 1st or 2d Lts.
Q.Could you supervise these officers in carrying out the missions given to these officers?
A.Of course, I could not supervise any missions of these officers neither in regard to the manner in which they executed their task given to them nor could I supervise them at all, because they held higher ranks than I had.
Q.It has just been pointed out to me that the comparison the Army rank, did not come through in the translation.
A.The person in charge of the execution is a Sturmbannfuehrer, and, therefore, an officer who held the rank of a major and apart from that there were two officers who held the rank of a captain.
Q.In the SS, therefore, the major was a Sturmbannfuehrer and the captains were in the SS -
A.Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q.Did you have any influence in choosing the location where the execution was to be carried out?
A.No, I could not influence this. The location which was chosen for carrying out the execution was fixed right from the beginning and I think I can say that this location was already laid down when the preparations were made for these executions, with which I had nothing to do.
I merely had the instruction to look at conditions of the location where the execution was to be carried out, that is, I was to find out whether in the vicinity it had been secured and whether it was quite safe, that nobody who had nothing to do with it could look at it or watch it.
Q.How long did you stay at that place where the valuables were collected?
A.As far as I can remember or estimate now, I would like to say about a quarter of an hour.
I remember that during my presence at the actual place of execution a truck with about 25 or 30 persons arrived and that these persons were requested there to hand over their valuables.
I witnessed this. I saw how these valuables were collected.
As far as I remember, this event took about a quarter of an hour.
Q.Did you have any special mission concerning the valuables and the collection of them?
A.I did not have a special instruction for this, merely the instruction as I described before, that is, to watch this and to inspect it. whether it was carried out according to the rules laid down by Herr Ohlendorf, that is, whether the collection and the listing had been done in the proper manner.
Q.Had the execution already started when you got there?
A.Yes, it had already started.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, is he now describing one certain execution or is he describing generally executions which he inspected?
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, the witness already testified that he only inspected on one occasion. That is the inspection mentioned in his affidavit and being talked of just now.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.Well, Witness, I understood you to say that although you only witnessed one execution, you did make some preliminary arrangements in other executions. That is to say, to see that the place was secured so that no one might look in on the executions.
A.Your Honor, I did not carry out any kind of preparations, but
Q.I did not mean that you actually made any physical preparations, but I understood you to say that in your capacity as Adjutant and acting under the instructions of Ohlendorf that from time to time you would inspect locations and sites where executions were to take place and to observe that the necessary security regulations were met and other things which you could make certain were entirely in accordance with regulations.
A.Your Honor, I would like to emphasize again, that except this one execution which I now described, I did not see any other executions and as Adjutant on no occasion did I receive the mission to inspect any executions except this one mentioned concerning the points, Your Honor made just now.