Q All right. I will go back to our same example. Heydrich has gruppe D shall be freed or cleaned of Jews.
General Ohlendorf and Seibert are both away from headquarters.
We will state even this order comes in over the radio marked "Urgent". Would you sit down and inform cannot concern himself with.
I am asking you, would you then dis mandos, the various commanders of the Einsatz and Sonderkommandos?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, I object against this question which in practice could not have been practiced at all.
The hypothetical questions from one day to another.
This is so entirely impossible, and entirely
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Koessl, you are indicating that it is im possible, but you weren't with the Einsatzgruppe D. You are arguing factually.
You are not arguing legally or logically now. It is up to the witness whether such a situation is impossible.
How do you know whether it is impossible or not?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, the order is the same as the Fuehrer Order had not been carried out completely.
I, therefore, think it is quite
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Koessl, the witness stated that in any given general of the 11th Army.
Now, the witness has stated that. Mr. Walton went one step further and said, which is not impossible, "Suppose the it did not fall within the purview of his activities."
What is impossible about that?
If the commanding general says, "This is not my field; this is a Security Police measure," what is impossible about that?
DR. KOESSL: The order based on this hypothetical question is the is, they are to be executed in that territory.
It only differs from the Fuehrer Order by the word " immediately" and the word " immediately" makes the Fuehrer Order logically impossible.
In practice, therefore, the
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is not unimaginable. You say that the only change is that the word "immediately" is added.
Well, that is a very important change.
A program may be outlined for a period of time, and then or should be achieved at once, and furthermore, Dr. Koessl, the important know what would happen in the event the commanding general said, "This is not my problem; it is the Einsatzgruppe's problem."
So, let us hear
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE WITNESS: May I answer to this now, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
by me. I could not have decided at all.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Suppose when you handed it back to Berlin you got subunits of Einsatzgruppe D, would you have done so?
A If I had received orders from Berlin to hand on this order?
Q Yes, would you have done so?
mando chiefs and I would not have had to forward it. It would have been
Q. Now you have an order. There is no point in them sending closer to the kommandos than Berlin.
So an officer on the staff of Heydrich radios you personally, "Pass the order on to the five kommandos, of the subunits."
Would you do so?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, here again I would like to point out that it was technically impossible to do so in such a case.
In such a case one radio massage would have been sent to everybody.
That is, all the they are being addressed at the same time over the radio.
In this case
Q. You haven't answered my question yet. I am not talking about the feet that it never happened.
I ask you the simple question if an officer on Heydrich's staff, in view of the fact that General Ohlendorf and Seibert were away, radioed you to pass on Heydrich's order done so?
Now, you can answer that yes or no. You have given your
A. Mr. Prosecutor, If all other possibilities which I have
Q. Thank you very much. Now, when General Ohlendorf was every would you give it?
A. You now talk about the order, if I had received that, the order we just discussed?
Q. Not particularly any order. Suppose that you get an order men, will be paid henceforward on the 28th of the month.
General Ohlendorf is away from his headquarters.
This is a matter which affects the whole Einsatzgruppe from the general on down.
Nobody is in To whom would you give this information?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, in that case I would have made a difference, that it had to be handed on immediately.
Then Ulrich, the administrative who required it.
I would not have been needed for this.
Q. Suppose this request came from Berlin to the effect that the ten days of the month, they have lost the report in Berlin.
To whom would you have handed this matter?
A. May I repeat the question in order to make sure that I understood it correctly?
Berlin gives me an order to inform them how of the Einsatzgruppe, is that right?
Q. That is right. Now, you are in your office and you open the mail and that request is in front of you.
I want to know to whom you would give that letter for action on that request?
A. I would not have been able to hand it on to anyone because it was addressed to the Einsatzgruppe.
Probably I would have submitted
Q. You mean to say that if that order had come down the last until he returns?
A. Of course I would have done something. If Herr Ohlendorf had
Q. That is what I want to know. Now, did General Ohlendorf ever issue any written orders to any of the kommandos?
A. I cannot remember any definite order but already yesterday about the manner of carrying out executions.
Surely there were other instructions, only I don't know whether I could call them orders.
Q. All right. Did he ever issue any written instructions or orders to a particular kommando leader?
A. I cannot say that any more now, Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot
Q. Well, it is possible, isn't it?
A. I cannot exclude that possibility.
Q. Now, you had the responsibility to see that these orders group staff headquarters?
A. For the fact that they were sent off or that they had been conscience because that was my work.
That was the task of the office
Q. Would you keep a copy in the file of this order?
A. Of course.
Q. Now, if the general was away and Seibert was in the head orders, or instructions to a kommando leader?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, If Herr Ohlendorf was absent and Herr
Q. Then he had -
A. And in that capacity he also conducted correspondence with
Q. Can you recall any subjects which he treated in his orders during the time when General Ohlendorf was absent?
A. I cannot remember any definite case, Mr. prosecutor, but I
Q. I am not talking about the reports now. I am talking about communications with the kommandos.
I am not talking about his reports either to the Army or to Berlin.
I am talking about his separate communi cations with the komnmando fuehrers.
Do you recall any subjects which he treated in his instructions or orders to the kommando leaders?
A. Here I cannot remember any definite case at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor.
I really don't know what I could tell you here.
Q. You have answered the question I asked you. Do you remember its location or its base of operations?
A. I do not remember any such order nor do I remember that
Q. Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by this acting commander which concerned the Jewish question at all?
A. May I ask to have the question again, please? I did not
Q. Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by Herr Seibert which concerned the Jewish question?
A. Such orders I do not know of.
Q. Did any kommando leader over call at group headquarters when the general was away and Seibert was there?
A. That certainly occurred, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. With whom did they discuss official business?
A. The kommando chief? With whom?
Q. General Ohlendorf is away and Seibert is there. I asked
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I still don't quite know what you are aiming at.
I think you are trying to ask with whom the kommando chief discussed
Q. That is right.
A. These kommando chiefs in such case discussed the affairs
Q. When both the General and Seibert was present in staff there request to see the general?
A. The kommando chief, of course, could ask me to report him
Q. Who made the decision that the matter upon which he came was important enough to be discussed with the general?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know any case where there might not be led to him.
He certainly came to him and then discussed his
Q. If such a matter did not need the general's decision, if he didn't particularly want to see the general, he wanted to see anybody the adjutant?
A. If it was part of my task he could have talked to me. For
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, just a moment, please. We didn't quite get that word, Miss Juelich, if he wanted to have a "term". I don't understand a "term".
DR. HOFFMANN: That means the English word -- it is the German word "termin"
INTERPRETER JUELICH: I am told it is "appointment, " not "term."
I said "term." I meant to say "appointment".
DR. HOFFMANN: It is the German "termin" "appointment".
MR. WALTON: An "appointment", Sir, an "appointment" with General
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Thank you.
(By Mr. Walton) I have been informed that one duty of an adjutant, wanted or frivolous visitors.
Now, you were such an adjutant in Berlin for second time.
Wouldn't some of your duties, at least in Berlin include chief?
A. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor. The person who asked for such an he wanted to discuss with him.
I had to tell Herr Ohlendorf this.
Q. Now, did you perform the same service for General Ohlendorf when you were sitting outside his office in the Einsatzgruppe staff?
A. You mean in my former work?
Q. I thought your previous answer referred to the time when you sat in his anti-room in Berlin.
Now my next question, did you inquire when a to see him about such and such a subject?
A. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor, I did that.
Q. Now, after you talked to this man, and you found out that even Ohlendorf was rather a busy man that this matter did not need the General's decision, to whom would this visitor be referred by you?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, in no case could I have decided, or overlooked whether the visit was so important or so unimportant that I could have stopped the visitor from seeing H err Ohlendorf. I think I never had that right and I think I never used any such authority.
Q. Well, let's take one other example. Here is a man that arrives hot foot with what he considers a very important matter concerning the morale of the Russian population. Now you a re sitting there and he says I want to tell this to someone who can handle it. I think I can improve the morale of the opoulation. You know that, according, at least, to Seibert's testimony here, he took care of those matters as Chief of Department III. You know that General Ohlendorf is extremely busy, Wouldn't you have the right to say, "Look, maybe that's not a matter which you need to worry the General with. Seibert's taking care of this in these headquarters. Suppose I make an appointment with him for you?' Could you have told him that?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. I would have done something else.
DR. GAWLIK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS NAUMAN AND SEIBERT): Your Honor, I object, Your Honor, I object to this question. I consider this question irrelevant, because I think the subject of this trial is not to get reports on morale. Making reports on morale among the opoulation, I cannot consider that a punishable act and therefore it does not matter what would have been done in such a case.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear the witness* reply? Did you hear the witness' reply?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, I heard it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did it hurt your case any?
DR. GAWLIK: I only heard the first few words, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That's because you were doing a very rapid race.
DR. GAWLIK: What I wanted to say was I believe that in that manner that contact is to be made with the prosecution with the subject of Jewish executions. If the prosecutor refers the question to the subject which is the with this at all.
That is why it is irrelevant to whom the visitors would have
THE PRESIDENT: Well, haven't many of the defendants testified that they were concerned about submitting reports of the morale of the population?
Haven't several of the defendants and hasn't your own defendant testified to that -- your own client?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Dr. Gawlik, if you reflect on just what happened here, won't you conclude that Mr. Walton help you generally?
Wasn't he sort of confirming what you have been insisting morale in the population?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton in this instance was really helping you, wasn't he?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that's why I consider this question irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. You should consider it very good.
DR. GAWLIK: That is not the point, Your Honor, in the trial it depends
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Do you regard the which a certain Einsatzkommando is operating important?
Do you regard that important?
DR. GAWLIK: For the work of the Einsatzgruppe, yes, but from a legal
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to exclude then everything that your client said about that?
DR. GAWLIK: No, not at all, Your Honor, not at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, that is one of your defenses, isn't it?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and Mr. Walton was talking about that very thing,
DR. GAWLIK: That is just why this is irrelevant. It has already been clarified.
I do not see the purpose of the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you object to its being corroborated and helping your client a little bit?
DR. GAWLIK: In this case during the questioning of this witness, it is irrelevant.
I consider this question in this particular case concerning
THE PRESIDENT: Was it irrelevant when your client spoke about it?
DR. GAWLIK: Not in this case, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, why is it irrelevant now? It is still the same
DR. GAWLIK: I said, Your Honor, this is accumulative proof claimed
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then do we understand you, Dr. Gawlik, that you don't want another word said in this trial which my help your client a little bit more ?
DR. GAWLIK: I do not start from the assumption that questions by the
THE PRESIDENT: No, but if accidentally he helps you, you don't have any quarrel with Mr. Walton, do you, about that?
Dr. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal holds the opinion that the answering
MR. WALTON: In order that I might have Dr. Gawlik feel a little better, I'll repeat my first general question, since we have given an Q. (By Mr. Walton) If the kommando leader or a visitor came to upon yourself to refer him to the man who could help him certainly more quickly than the General could?
perhaps Dr. Gawlik won't object to that form of the question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think upon reconsideration now, he didn't object to the former question.
MR. WALTON: All right, Sir.
A. If a visitor had come, Mr. Walton, in every case I would have informed Herr Ohlendorf who was there what he wanted to discuss and then Herr Ohlendorf could have told me, "I have not time. Take the man to Herr Seibert, to Herr Ulrich," or to any other man. That would have depended on what the man wanted to discuss, but in every case I would have asked Herr Ohlendorf first. I would have told him about this man, even in the danger of being thrown out by Herr Ohlendorf myself. He wouldn't have done that at all, but I would not have assumed the authority and not let him see him on my own authority.
Q. Suppose General Ohlendorf arrived at his headquarters early that morning and he said, "Schubert, you are like St. Peter, standing outside the gates of heaven keeping them safe against the world. I am very busy this morning. I don't want to be disturbed. I have a lot of important things to do." Just about the time General Ohlendorf gets seated at his desk and deep in work, here comes a visitor. He wants to see General Ohlendorf. You question him about the nature of his business and you find out it is not quite as important as he thought it was and furthermore other people could handle the matter beside General Ohlendorf. Would you still go in, in spite of what General Ohelndorf said and disturb him and ask him if he wants to see this visitor or would you refer him to the one he wants to see?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, if I received these definite instructions to stop seeing visitors from seeing Herr Ohlendorf, I would have taken the man to Herr Seibert and said "This man really wants to see the boss, but the Chief has said he does not want to be disturbed and he is busy, would you please deal with the man." That would be the next best thing to do.
there was an unfortunate choice of language by Mr. Wartenberg used in your reference to Mr. Seibert and that you meant to say that Mr. staff.
Now, that is correct, is it not?
A I did not hear I am sorry. -- I think it is all right now.
INTERPRETER: Would you repeat the question, please?
Q (By Mr. Walton) Yes, in your direct testimony yesterday, I which Mr. Wartenberg put in your affidavit; that what you meant to say was that Mr. Seibert was deputy for the Group Staff and not just Deputy of General Ohlendorf.
Did you make that statement yesterday, or words to that effect?
A Yes. Mr. Prosecutors I said that Herr Seibert was the Deputy affidavits while you were at Oberoesel?
D down through the kommando level?
A I don't remember any details, just now, but I did discuss it.
I was asked about it; What were the functions of the various officers?
That is 18 months ago. Now, I don't remember the details.
it appeared on such an affidavit, wouldn't you?
A Of course, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. WALTON: Page, will you hand this to him?
(By Mr. Walton)
A That is my signature, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q And what date is given on that document?
Q December 1945? You were at Oberoesel at that time?
Q Now, what is that document, Witness?
A May I look at it first?
Q Certainly. Certainly.
Q And that is an affidavit on that subject by yourself?
Q What title did you give the Defendant Seibert? What's on that affidavit as Seibert's title?
A It says here as title of Herr Seibert, "Permanent Deputy."
Q "Permanent Deputy"?
Q So 18 months apart you call Herr Seibert "the permanent deputy of General Ohlendorf" and yesterday you said that you didn't mean to say that, but you meant to say a deputy in the staff.
Now that is twice that you have called him "the permanent deputy."
Why did you change from your affidavit yesterday?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I did not think of this affidavit and this wording "permanent deputy" which I had used before.
I didn't think of because this wording, "permanent deputy" in my opinion can only refer to
Q The way you have got it written up there it means "permanent Deputy," for all questions. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for the staff. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for economic questions. You just said the all-inclusive term,"personal deputy". Why didn't you make that addition to that paper?
A Mr. Prosecutor, because at the time I did not know that possibly this statement might be misunderstood. If I had known that and if I had had the opportunity to explain it in more detail, I could not have explained it any differently at the time than I could have done yesterday here.
MR. WALTON: Page, will you return the copy? is being prepared for introduction into evidence. In view of the fact that there was no force here that purpose during the holidays, I am forced to be a little late. I trust that I shall offer this into evidence before the close of the cross-examination and certainly before the close of the day. I would like to reserve the right to introduce it formally into evidence at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a copy that you can hand to Dr. Koessl so that he can be informed of its contents?
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, Sir. That will come down with the others. I have only the copy which is my own. I have a copy, but not that I can serve on him.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not let him look at it even now.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Can you remember any orders given by Seibert that resulted in the execution of a person or persons?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I do not know of any such orders.
Q Could he have given such orders unknown to you? done without my knowledge.
Q The possibility exists, though, doesn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that's a fair question. He says he doesn't know. He can't say what Seibert could have done. Seibert could have done anything and he could have done nothing.
MR. WALTON: I withdraw the question, Your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Was it known ahead of time in Group Headquarters that an execution was scheduled for a future time?
A I don't quite understand that question. I don't quite get the sense. May I have it again, please? later or a day later an execution was scheduled to take place at a certain time and on a certain location?
A Whether it was known in the Einsatzgruppe? May I remind you of the example I gave you yesterday? But on the whole, the Einsatzgruppe only heard about executions after they had been carried out and they heard this from the kommando; in this particular case which I mentioned yesterday there were special circumstances and therefore it had been known before.
Q Now, here's the question that I should like you to answer: Was such information of general knowledge to the staff or was this information restricted to only certain ones of the staff? one case I mentioned.
Q Either one. What I had in mind was when advance information about an execution came into Staff Headquarters, I would like to know whether such information was known to everyone in the staff or only to the particular persons in the staff.
A Mr. Prosecutor, this question I cannot answer. I never heard what might have been known. I don't know whether everyone in the staff heard about.
Q Well, I'll amend the question. Was such information known by all the officers in the staff, the SS officers, or was it known only to General Ohlendorf and yourself? except for the example in Simferopol, which I mentioned myself yesterday, I do not know any definite case where the Einsatzgruppe was informed beforehand of an execution. I really cannot say if such a case had occurred who, apart from Herr Ohlendorf, would have heard of it. Unforunately, I am not able to do this.
Q I think you have answered the question. You have in effect said that as a general thing you only know of executions after they happened. However, if anyone would have known of their scheduled time the likelihood is that if General Ohlendorf knew and certainly a very few other people, possibly Ohlendorf himself alone, is that what you mean to say?
A Mr. Prosecutor, theoretically the possibility exists that others apart from Herr Ohlendorf heard about it. For example, it is imaginable that in this case Herr Ohlendorf informed one of the officers on the staff to inspect, but it is merely an assumption, a theoretical assumption. I don't know any definite case except the case I described yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, do you think this might be a suitable time at which to have a recess?
MR. WALTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. LUMMERT: Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. Your Honor, I ask the defendant Blume be excused from the session this afternoon and tomorrow morning so that he can prepare his documents.
THE PRESIDENT: In accordance with the request of counsel, the defendant Blume will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon and tomorrow morning.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Mr. Schubert, when General Ohlendorf ordered you to make the inspection of the execution which you saw in the neighborhood of Simferopol you did not think it was an unusual occasion to receive such an order from him, did you?
A Well, I may correct this first of all. Herr Ohlendorf did not give me the order to carry out inspections of executions as it was translated but he gave me one specific order of one inspection and that I could have thought it funny I don't understand that at all.
MR. WALTON: The translation came through "funny".
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that is used in the sense of strange.
MR. WALTON: Well, my question to him was that when he received this order from General Ohlendorf he didn't think it was a particularly unusual occurrence and I didn't quite understand his answer. If the Tribunal is satisfied
THE PRESIDENT: No, you may put the question again. BY MR. WALTON:
Q Mr. Schubert, did you think that General Ohlendorf's order to you about this execution was an unusual one?
Q Did it occur to you why you were selected to watch this execution?
A That wasn't very difficult for me, Mr. Prosecutor. There wasn't any one else there at that time. All the other people were occupied in carrying out the execution and Herr Ohlendorf had no other choice but to give the order to me. sometimes were the personal representative of General Ohlendorf, weren't you?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to draw a clear distinction here between the purely legalistic term deputy and the fact that anyone whom Herr Ohlendorf sent anywhere is sort of a delegate or representative. One can call it a deputy but it is not the same.