QMr. Schubert, you have stated in one of you affidavits that you reported for service in Einsatzgruppe D in October 1941, is this correct?
AYes, I had reported at the beginning of October 1941 for service with Einsatzgruppe D.
QAt this time, where was the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D? What city or what town in Russia?
AThe headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D was at the time in Nikolajew.
QHow soon after your arrival was your conference with General Ohlendorf?
AMy first discussion?
QYes?
ATwo or three days after my arrival. Perhaps I may explain this in more detail why two days intervened.
QPlease do so?
AThis was just at the time when the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had been staying in the territory, and as I heard later had talked to members of Einsatzgruppe D. During this visit of Himmler in Nikolajew we suddenly appeared unexpectedly.
At the moment they could not use us, and I would like to say, they kept us on ice, so to say, until Himmler had gone, and then Herr Ohlendorf had the time to deal with us.
QHow did you occupy yourself during those two or three days before You could see General Ohlendorf?
AI had a look at the city of Nikolajew. Apart from that I had no other definite work.
I had no special occupation during that time.
Q.Did you hold conversation with other members of the Einsatzgruppe?
A.No, during those days I was together with those comrades who had come together with me as re-enforcements.
We had no contact with the Einsatzgruppe as yet.
Q.Now when you finally had this conference with General Ohlendorf how long did it last?
A.This discussion with Herr Ohlendorf took a very long time because, as I have already explained this morning, Herr Ohlendorf scrutinized everyone of these officers per sonally, very thoroughly, and I think some of them didn't like it.
This took a very long time. I think it was se veral hours.
Q.Did General Ohlendorf have his conference with all ten of you together or did he confer with you one at all time in private?
A.No, we were all 10 together in the casino of the Gruppenstab together with Herr Ohlendorf.
Q.Did General Ohlendorf explain to you at the con ference what the over-all or primary mission of Einsatz gruppen D was?
A.I did not quite get that. What the primary task was?
Q.Did he tell you in what work generally the Einsatz gruppen was engaged at that particular time?
A.I can only repeat here what I have already said this morning.
Herr Ohlendorf described the work of the Einsatzgruppen in general to us as it resulted from the Barbarossa decree as a security task in the territory of the rear Army, - duties concerning the carrying out of the security task as far as I can recall here were not mentioned at the time.
Q.Was anything said in that conference or by General Ohlendorf about the executions of Jews, Gypsies, Communist functionaries, Krimjaks, Asiatics, or others?
A.May I repeat here what I said this morning. About such matters it was never talked on that occasion.
Q.Now, I believe you testifies this morning that you first learned of the Fuehrer order from the files in the Headquarters of Einsatzgruppen D, is that correct?
A.No, Mr. Prosecutor, not through the files did I hear about the Fuehrer order but from the files I saw thing which made me assume or suspect that resettlement as it was written in the reports was a camoflage expression for executions, possibly.
And, in order to be clear about such matters I asked Herr Ohlendorf about this.
On that occasion Herr Ohlendorf told me about the contents of the Fuehrer Order.
Q.About how soon did this discussion concerning the Fuehrer order take place with General Ohlendorf after you arrived in Nikolajew?
A.I cannot say that any more now for certain but I think I used the very first opportunity in order to asked Herr Ohlendorf about this, but of course I could not mention this when he returned from his official trip to his office.
I think I let some time pass, perhaps it was the next day, but I don't know for certain.
Q.At your first opportunity then you asked him about why these terms of resettlement, etc.
, were used in reports to mean liquidation of Russian nationals?
At you first op portunity you discussed this with General Ohlendorf?
A.The occasion of that discussion after his return from Berlin in the last third of the month of October.
Q.Now when did you first learn that reports of ex ecutions of Jews, Gypsies, and Communist functionaries were being sent to Berlin?
A.For certain after that discussion because before I was not certain that my suspicion that this resettlement was camouflaged expression and was justified I wanted to have this confirmed.
Q.Did you ever discuss this topic with any other member of the Gruppenstab?
A.I cannot remember any discussion, Mr. Prosecutor, with any other member of the Gruppenstab in particular concerning this Fuehrer order.
There was no particular reason officially for me to do so.
Q.How soon after you reported for duty with Ein satzgruppe D did you meet Seibert?
A.I met Mr. Seibert when I came to Gruppenstab of Einsatzgruppen D, that is the beginning of October 1941.
Q.Did you ever hold any discussions with him con cerning your duties?
A.About my duties, my official duties? As far as I can recall I did not talk with him particularly because my duties I knew according to the orders given my by Herr Ohlendorf.
I had no reason to discuss my duties with Herr Seibert.
Of course, I talked to Herr Seibert every now and then.
Q.Now, after you reported to Einsatzgruppen D in Nikolajew and after you had this conference with General Ohlendorf you received your assignment from the General himself, did you not?
A.Yes, from Herr Ohlendorf personally.
Q.How soon after your assignment was given and you entered on your official duties did General Ohlendorf leave his headquarters for an official trip to Berlin?
A.That might have been about 2 weeks but I cannot say for certain.
*---*t is possible that Herr Ohlendorf re turned already before two weeks had elapsed.
I remember very clearly that at the time Herr Ohlendorf in as far as the return from Berlin to Nikolajew was concerned only took three days to return to Nikolajew.
Q.I think you misunderstood the question. How soon after you entered upon your duties as the adjutant of General Ohlendorf did he leave the Gruppenstab Headquarters for his trip to Berlin?
A.I beg you pardon. I now understand the question It might have been the second or the day after the next after my arrival after I went to report to Herr Ohlendorf.
Q.Now, at that time some of your tasks and duties and your surroundings were strange to you, weren't they?
You were a new man on a new job, so at least you didn't understand thoroughly everything you were to do on this job, did you?
A.I believe that it would have been the same for anyone.
Q.That's right.
A.I was about to do a task which was partly new to me.
I had to get used to it. Therefore, on the first day I could not see all the jobs I would have to do.
Q.And when prospects or problems came up which puzzled you and General Ohlendorf left for Berlin so soon after you had arrived there to whom did you turn for advice and counsel in these problems with General Ohlendorf gone?
A.May I ask which particular definite problems?
Q.Any problem which you didn't exactly understand, any method or transacted business in Einsatzgruppen D that was unknown to you, anything which puzzled you in your of ficial duties to whom would you turn for advice and counsel?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, I have a disappointment for you, there were no puzzles for me - it only took time to train me.
Of course, I had some qualifications, some previous training in order to conduct filing and registration.
During the entire time while Herr Ohlendorf was in Berlin I was not confronted by any puzzles so I didn't need any counsel.
Q.I believe you testified that one of your tasks was the receiving and handling of the incoming mail and also the dispatching of outgoing mail.
Now, if mail came into Einsatzgruppen D Headquarters addressed to the Commanding Officer or addressed to the Chief of Einsatzgruppen D and it was a fact know to you that General Ohlendorf was at that moment absent from the Headquarters, on his way to Berlin or in Berlin, wasn't it a problem for you to decide to whom this mail would be referred for action?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, there was no difficulty - there was no real problem for me.
These matters went automatically to that person who was at that time the main in the Staff of Einsatzgruppen D to deal with it.
In this case during the absence of Herr Ohlendorf that was Herr Seibert.
QWere you thoroughly familiar, the first day you took over your duties, with the entire files of Einsatzgruppe D?A on the first day not at all with the entire material, Mr. Prosecutor.
QAnd if a problem arose as to where a certain document handed by you was supposed to be filed, to whom did you turn for advice in this problem?
AI do not remember any such case in particular, but if I should be uncertain in finding some particular document I probably would have asked advice from that man who knew most about this registration work, namely, my secretary or my clerk, and he probably could have told me where I could find what I was looking for.
Q was it necessary for you to ask any advice or council of Seibert while you were first being acquainted with your job?
ANo, there was no reason for this. I myself got used to my work and acquainted myself with my work.
I don't remember ever having asked Herr Seibert about this daily work which I did and ask him for special instructions.
QYou just don't remember. It is possible that you could have, but it does not occur to your memory now.
Is that what you tell the Tribunal.
ANot only do I not remember it now but if it ever should have happened I should think I should soon know it, but I know nothing about it.
QAll right. You have Document Book I there on the stand, do you not?
AYes.
QLet's turn to your affidavit which occurs on Page 17 of the English, Page 19 of the German, which is Document 2716.
being Prosecution's Exhibit 4. Now, I particularly direct your attention to Paragraph 6 of that affidavit.
In this paragraph you relate some facts concerning two Einsatzkommando leaders who reported for duty.
Who were these men?
ADuring the time of my work in Einsatzgruppe D new kommando leaders were brought in as relief for two others, to replace two others, the kommando chief 11b, the co-defendant, Dr. Braune,and the successor for the kommando chief 12, the co-defendant Nosske, who had been relieved in March, 1942, and an SS-Standartenfuehrer replaced him whose name was Mueller.
I believe that when making my affidavit I thought of those two names.
QNow, when you spoke of during this period, you mean during the period of your service, or do you refer specifically to during the period of your arrival in Nikolaev in October, 1941, which is referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph of that affidavit?
Note, please, that you start Paragraph 6 with the words, "During this period".A "During this activity" it says here.
QThat means that your activity in - the period of your activity in Einsatzgruppe D.
AI believe this refers to the last sentence under Figure 5 where it says I came to Ohlendorf as an adjutant, and then figure 6 starts, "During this activity". It refers, therefore, as far as II understand, to my work as adjutant in Einsatzgruppe D.
QAll right. Now, you say these men were Dr. Braune and Nosske?
ANot Nosske, but Dr. Braune and Mueller.
QI beg your pardon, Dr. Nosske's sucessor?
AYes.
QDid these men receive any instructions, to your knowledge, about their duties from anyone except General Ohlendorf?
AMr. Prosecutor, I cannot say anything about these discussions:
that is definite because I was not present, but it was my opinion at the time too when this was written that these kommando chiefs surely received instructions about their tasks.
What kind of instructions these were, of course I don't know.
I could only give a general opinion.
QI asked you whether according to your knowledge they received any instructions from anyone else in the staff except General Ohlendorf?
AI know nothing about that.
QContinuing on to the seventh paragraph of this same affidavit, you relate in some detail the manner of reporting to Berlin.
Now, did You ever see a copy of the radio report as sent off by the enlisted man, Fritsch?
AThe copy of these radio reports?
QYes.
AYes, even these radio reports had been sent off. They were brought into the files in the office, and of course, I saw them.
QThey were handed you by the radio operator then handed you for filling by the radio operator?
ANot to me personally, but the normal manner was from the radio office they went back to the office.
There, of course, I had opportunity to see them.
QDid you file this copy of the radio report in the secret or top secret file?
AThese radio reports were secret reports which were treated as such.
That is, they were kept in secret files and kept secret.
QNow, did you also have the responsibility of filling the office copy of the written report that was sent periodically to Berlin by courier?
AThese reports or copies of these reports were also brought into the office and were part of the files.
Such reports or the copies of such reports I could also see and I did see them in foot.
QAnd in what category were they filed, secret or top secret.
restricted or open matters?
AOne cannot make a general statement about this, Mr. Prosecutor.
It depended upon the contents of these reports.
QWell, they contained details of the separate executions. What file would they go into?
ACertainly they would have been treated as secret matters, but may I point out here, Mr. Prosecutor, that in our file system concerning those two persons, that is myself and my clerk, there was no difference made on the outside, and I don't see much difference.
We treated it secret or top secret, and in the place where they were received they were treated as such.
QWho had the privilege of opening the files besides you and your clerk?
AI did not quite get it, the right or the possibility?
QYou had a file drawer or cabinet in your office where you kept these documents, did you not?
AYes.
QAnd I presume that your secret or top secret file had a look on it where it could be secured at night, could it not?
AI don't think so, Mr. Prosecutor. Conditions were so primitive that we neither had a safe nor a special cupboard to keep secret matters.
We could only treat them as such in as far as we had possibility to do this.
QLet me ask you this. Could any of the twenty-five or thirty men, enlisted men besides your clerk there in the staff headquarters, could they go in any time they wanted to pull a file drawer open and look at one of your reports?
ANot just like that, Mr. Prosecutor.
QNow, who in the group staff could, on his own initiative and when he so desired, go to your files and refer to any operational situational report which had been dispatched out of that office?
Could General Ohlendorf act in that manner?
A of course he could do that.
QWho else besides yourself, your clerk and General Ohlendorf?
ATheoretically any person who was authorized or might have been authorized for this by Mr. Ohlendorf.
They needed a special order by Herr Ohlendorf for this.
If a kommando chief, for example, and come and wanted to look into the files, then I would have had to send him to Herr Ohlendorf because I was not allowed to let him look into the files without special permission.
QCould Seibert go to the files any time he wanted to just like General Ohlendorf and take out there from any document which he needed in his work?
A of course, yes.
QAnd he did not have to ask your permission or he did not have to present permission from General Ohlendorf, did he?
AHe did not have to do that, but, of course, he told me what he wanted to look at.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, it is a convenient place for me to stop.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(An adjournment was taken until 6 January, 1942, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.
, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 January 1948, 0930 1630, Justice Musmanno, presiding
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
MR. GLANCY:May it please the Tribunal-
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY:The Prosecution is in receipt of the original of document number 3428-PS which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 111.At the time it was introduced and frequently at times later the defense counsel for Dr. Strauch objected to its authenticity and requested that we send to New York for its original and we are pleased to announce we have it in our possession for the perusal and scrutiny of the Tribunal and defense counsel.
I expected Dr. Gick to be present in Court but I see he is not here.
I will give it to the Secretary General for the perusal of the Court and will notify Dr. Gick that it is present.
THE PRESIDENT:Have you made arrangements to photostat this document?
MR. GLANCY:The photostat is now in evidence - the photostat of the original.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, what I had in mind was that this document being so valuable that it might not hurt to have a photostat of the one which actually arrived now.
MR. GLANCY:Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT:We cannot exclude the possibility that argument might be made that the original photostat was not of the document that you now have and it wouldn't hurt any one to have this photostat and considering the difficulty which had to be undergone to get this document makes reason for just having a photostat of the document itself.
MR. GLANCY:Yes, sir. I shall make arrangements to have it photostated.
At the present time we need it for the archives but will turn it over to the secretary General at which time arrangements will be made to have it returned to New York.
THE PRESIDENT:When you contact Dr. Gick inform him what transpired this morning and then if there is any motion he wants to make he can make it regardless of the stage of the trial at that time.
MR. GLANCY:Yes, sir, very well.
HEINZ SCHUBERT - resumed
CROSSEXAMINATION - continued BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Schubert, yesterday at the close of the session we were discussing your affidavit which appears in Document Book I on page 17 of the English, page 19 of the German and is document No-2716, Prosecution Exhibit #4. I would appreciate it very much if you would turn to paragraph 7 of that document and indicate when you have found the place.
THE PRESIDENT:He is very familiar with that Document I don't think you need to wait any time until he locates it.
I think he could locate that in his sleep after the discussion we had yesterday about it.
BY MR. WALTON:
QYes, sir. Now you state in this document and I quote, or rather, you state in this document that these written reports contained among other things and I quote:
" number of places destroyed and number of persons killed". Would these reports contain information that a Jewish synagogue was burned by units of the Einsatzgruppe?
ASomething like that is not contained in the text of my Document Book - that a synagogue was burned.
I never said that.
QI am quite aware of that fact but you did say that these reports, and by these reports you referred to operational situation reports, contained among other things the number of places destroyed and the number of persons killed.
Now you said that, didn't you?
AYes, I said that and that is what is written in the affidavit.
QNow, when you speak of the number of places destroyed I ask you the question would these reports in these number of places destroyed which they speak of contain such information that a Jewish synagogue was burned by units of the Einsatzgruppe?
ANO, Mr. Prosecutor, that isn't how it is meant and apart from this wording I don't know any report where any such report might be contained.
I don't know of any such reports. Something quite different is meant here.
This wording refers to that part of the reports of the Einsatzgruppe which deals with the military situation in that territory where Einsatzgruppen D was active during certain times.
I said already yesterday that communications were made in this connection and are contained in these reports which described military operations and actions carried out, or rather the situation as we knew about it according to the reports which we received.
Part of this was, for example, that it was reported - just to give you an example 0 that in the Crimea one of the first reports said that the location Ushun had been completely destroyed and did not exist any longer.
But this refers to the previous combat action and it says here in this connection there were those persons killed.
Them in fact it would have been better to write - after it had been written - the persons killed during these military actions That is what is mean here.
QBy persons killed you mean the number of enemy killed, is that right?
AI don't refer that only to the enemy who was killed but to any persons killed.
That might have been civilian people or enemy soldiers or might have been our own losses.
I only speak of casualties here and these are casualties.
QI can understand what you said about casualties. It is in the very next sentence of that paragraph.
But I was speaking particularly about the phrase " total amount of persons killed". Now would that phrase include executions as well as people killed in open combat?
AMr. Prosecutor, this wording here does not refer to executions carried out at all but exclusively to what I said before and in the case of the Prosecution unfortunately this wording has been understood to mean the same as executions mentioned before.
This was never meant and I think I can say, therefore, that expression is not in the affidavit either.
QAll right. Let's consider the operational situation reports of which you had personal knowledge.
I believe you stated yesterday that in the written reports which went to Berlin the totals of the number of persons killed for the period of the reports was sometimes contained in them.
did you not?
AA total figure for a certain period of reporting. Of course, you are right.
I cannot exclude the fact that in these reports communica tions about executions were contained.
QNow you knew from these reports which contained information about executions that thousands of people were being killed monthly by units of the Einsatzgruppe, didn't you?
AMutilated, I never heard that Mr. Prosecutor. I merely know the fact that executions were carried out.
QLet me repeat the question. I think the translation was a little bit different from what I meant.
From reading the copies, the file copies, of these reports - and by reports I mean the operational situation reports - which contained information about executions you knew that thousands of people were being executed monthly, didn't you?
AMr. Prosecutor, that monthly thousands of people were executed I would not like to say.
Here I can only stick up for the fact that I Knew about executions which had been carried out but I would not like to say and I cannot say that monthly thousands of people were executed.
I am not able to say that.
QWould you say hundreds of people were executed monthly?
AI believe, Mr. Prosecutor, you asked whether I would say hundreds?
The translator said I said hundreds were killed.
QWould you say that hundreds of people were being executed monthly according to reports which you saw?
AMr. Prosecutor, I cannot determine this for a certain figure fro a month.
Occasionally I saw figures and heard of figures which were less than 100 and I also saw figures which were more than 100 but I cannot determine this for a certain period of time.
I am unable to do this.
QWell, at least, there were more than one person per month executed by units of the Einsatzgruppe, weren't there?
AOf course.
QNow who was it that generally gave you these reports to be filled?
AThere was no special order for this Mr. Prosecutor. This was part of my task as part of conducting the business in the office.
QMr. Schubert, I am asking you for the name of the person in the Gruppenstab which generally, which usually handed you, or placed on your desk, or put in your office the file copy of the operational sit uation report for you to file.
Who was this person?
AMr. Prosecutor, perhaps I may briefly explain the way we worked.
After the report had been made, that is written and sent off, copies of these reports were left in the office - they were filled in the office.
They came from that person who originally wrote the report, that is dictated or worded it.
QWho was that person?
AThat might have been the chief of the Einsatzgruppe himself or that might have been co-defendant Seibert.
QNow you could have answered that when I first asked the question without trying to dodge the question.
I merely asked who the man was who left these copies in your office.
Let's pay attention and answer promptly.
Now, in paragraph 8 of this affidavit you make a statement to the effect that when General Ohlendorf and Seibert were both away from headquarters you, as you state there, and I quote:
"looked after the house". Approximately how long did these inspection trips last?
AThat varied very much, Mr. Prosecutor. These official trips might have taken one week or they might have lasted only 1,2,or 3 days.
That varied.
QNow did you ever receive any mail or any orders during the time when Seibert and General Ohlendorf were both away which demanded the immediate attention of the commander during this period when you were looking after the house?
AI do not recall any such case, Mr. Prosecutor. Of course, I received mail even when Herr Ohlendorf and Seibert were both away at the same time because the work went on just the same and in the office mail still arrived during that time as well but I cannot say that I ever had any reason in some particular case to inform Herr Ohlendorf who was absent I do not know of any such example.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed Mr. Walton.
BY MR. WALTON:
QNow if you had received an order from Heydrich in Berlin or from the commander of the 11th Army and General Ohlendorf and Seibert were both away and you knew they would not return for a week or so what would you have done with this order?
AMr. Prosecutor, in such a case, that is an emergency situation for me, if that had arisen - since I did not have authority to decide myself in such a case - in that case I would have been able to contact Herr Ohlendorf immediately and would have informed him about that.
QYou mean to say that you could have contacted General Ohlendorf if he was on a journey which was some three or four hundred kilometers away - at the time you got his order he was enroute you could have contacted him then, too?
AIf he was enroute it was very difficult, Mr. Prosecutor, because in his vehicle he did not have a radio instrument to keep up contact with the gruppenstaff but I knew in general where Herr Ohlendorf went to and could always try to reach him and that was a technical possibility.
QNow you were present, were you not, when Seibert said that he accompanied General Ohlendorf to Prague at one time. Suppose during that time the same emergency had arisen, to whom would you have referred this order for action? It took a long time to get from the Crimea to Prague, and you know they are on their way and you get an order which demands immediate action, to whom would you refer?
AMr. Prosecutor, in every case, in each and every case, there was one definite way of receiving instructions from Berlin, from the chief of the Security Police himself if any such emergency arose. There was always their radio communication. The distance didn't make any difference. In a short period of time through the radio a decision can be reached from Berlin to the Crimea in a very short time.
QHad a decision of the Chief of the Security Police in Berlin come out, as the adjutant of General Ohlendorf, and it be requested, it would be transmitted to you by radio, would it not, after the Chief of the Security Police was informed that you were the only officer present and that General Ohlendorf and Seibert were gone?
Would Heydrich's decision come back to you over the radio?
AI don't think that the Chief of the Security Police would have put me in charge of carrying out this decision because my rank was too low.
QNo, I don't mean that. We take our same example. Fro purposes of this example General Ohlendorf and Seibert cannot be reached.
You receive an order which demands immediate action.
You acquaint the Chief of the Security Police with the fact that you are the only one in staff headquarters, that your chief and that Seibert are away, and request guidance or direction to whom this order would be referred to in Einsatz gruppe D. Now, the question I ask you is this, after the Chief of the Security Police was acquainted with that fact, would his answer, that is to whom this matter would be referred, come back to you over the radio?
AMr. Prosecutor, it would not have come to me personally, but it would have come to Einsatzgruppe D, and in such case I would have informed the officer who dealt with this subject, who deputize for the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe during that time, I would have reported it to him, and I would have to find out which territory and sphere this decision did concern, and I would have informed that officer, who deputized for the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe in a certain territory, that is the kommando chief there fore.
QThat is the answer that I wanted. If this matter was a matter which concerned Einsatzkommando 10a and Heydrich said, "Refer that to the area where 10a is," you would then have taken Heydrich's answer and referred it to Seetzen, the commander of 10a, would you not?
AIn practice it probably would have been different, Mr. Prosecutor, because from Berlin, in such case, the Einsatzkommando 10a would have been informed themselves directly from Berlin, and between Berlin and Einsatz kommando 10a there was a radio communication, without having to contact the Einsatzgruppe in such a case, in particular as there was nobody with the Einsatzgruppe at that time who could make a decision, and there fore they never had to be informed about this.
The kommando chief of 10a was a Standartenfuehrer.
I cannot imagine that any officer in Berlin in the staff of Heydrich or any other officer who gave such instructions would have sent these instructions via a lower officer to the Standarten fuehrer, if he had been able to reach the Standartenfuehrer immediately.
QAll right, we will take another example. Suppose that in the first instance orders came from Berlin, from Heydrich's office, which said that the area covered by Einsatzgruppe D shall be cleaned of Jews within the next thirty days and that Einsatzgruppe D would then move for ward.
Now, both General Ohlendorf and Seibert are away, and they cannot be reached.
This is a matter which you open and you decide and which effects every kommando leader in Einsatzgruppe D, and according to your testimony you acquaint the Berlin office with the fact that the command ing officer and the deputy for the staff are both away and request instruct ions what to do with this order.
Now, I ask you, would instructions come back to you from Berlin to the effect that it would be your responsibility to forward this order to the commanding officers of the various kommandos?
AMr. Prosecutor, such instructions were never received and theoreti cally I cannot imagine a thing like that, but even if such an order had come, and I consider this question too hypothetical, then there was the commander in chief to the Army to whom I would have had to turn in such a case, if I had been the only one, the only officer present with the Einsatzgruppe at that time.
Such a situation, however, never arose.
QYou mean to tell me that the commander of the 11th Army, a Wehrmacht units, would consider himself bound by orders form Heydrich at Berlin?
AThat is not what I am trying to say, Mr. Prosecutor.
QWouldn't the commander of the 11th Army say, "This is a Security Police order; it means nothing to me.
My commanding general is the only man who can order me to do anything," and he refuses to help, and you know that the units of Einsatzgruppe D can carry out this order and the quickest way for you to handle it would be to forward this order to the various Einsatzkommandos, wouldn't it?