defendant is guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: WALTER BLUME.
SS-Colonel Blume obtained his Doctor's Degree in Law at the University of Erlangen. He later served with the Prussian Secret State Police. In May 1941 he was called to Dueben where he was given command of Sonderkommando 7a and instructions on the task of exterminating Jews. This unit formed part of Einsatzgruppe B which in the execution of the FuehrerOrder killed Jews, Communists and alleged asocials in no inconsiderable numbers. Blume states that he left his kommando on August 15 or 17, 1941. The defendant Steimle stated that Blume remained with the kommando until September 1941.
Report No. 73, dated September 4, 1941, credited Vorkommando 7a with 996 killings as of August 20. Even if Blume's assertion as to the date of his leaving the assignment were correct, that would only mean that he cannot be charged with that proportion of the 996 murders which occurred during the last 3 or 5 daysof this period; and even this only under the additional assumption that prior to his departure he had not given orders which were executed within those 3 or 5 days.
Report No. 11, dated July 3, 1941 states that Blume's kommando liquidated "officials of the Konsomol (Communistic Organization) and Jewish officials of the Communist Party."
Report No. 34, dated July 26, 1941 speaks of the incident already described in the General Opinion -- the killing of the 27 Jews who, not having reported for work, were shot down in the streets. This happened in the territory under Blume's jurisdiction.
Blume admits having witnessed and conducted executions. He states that he was opposed to the Fuehrer-Order and that he made every effort to avoid putting it into effect, But the facts do not support this assertion, From time to time during this trial various defendants have stated that certain reports were incorrect, that the figures were exaggerated, even falsified.
Yet, when Blume was asked why, since he was so morally opposed to the Fuehrer-Order, he did not avoid compliance with the order by reporting that he had killed Jews, even though he had not, he replied that he did not consider it worthy of himself to lie. his revulsion about cold bloodedly shooting down innocent people. In spite of this reasoning on the witness stand he submitted an affidavit in which it appears he did not have scruples against lying when stationed in Athens, Greece. In this affidavit he states that the KriminalKommissar ordered him to shoot English commando troops engaged in Greek partisan activity. Since Blume was inwardly opposed to the kommissar decree as he pointed out, he suggested to his superior that the order to kill these Englishmen could be circumvented by omitting from the report the fact that the Englishmen were carrying civilian clothes with them. him with revulsion, yet he announced to the firing squad after each shooting of ten victims:
"As such, it is no job for German men undertake these executions.
This we out this order."
had committed any crime or had shot at anybody, but that the Fuehrer had said that he, the Fuehrer, was convinced that these people "would shoot" at them, their women and children, 2,000 miles away. In other words, the victims were to be killed because of the possibility that they might at some time be of some danger to the Fuehrer and the executioners.
Blume says that he made this speech to case the feelings of the men, but in effect he was convincing them that it was entirely proper to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. If he was not in accord with the order, he at least could have refrained from propagandizing his men on its justness and reasonableness, and exhortation which could well have persuaded them into a zestful performance of other executions which might otherwise have been avoided or less completely fulfilled.
Blume's claims about revulsion to the Fuehrer-Order are not borne out by his statement:
"I was also fully convinced and am so tic dictatorship, and still is."
instructed the local commander to arrest all Jews and confine them to a ghetto. Since the local commander of Wilna was not Blume's subordinate, Blume was not called upon to issue the order for the incarceration of the Jews which only brought them one step closer to execution under the Fuehrer-Order. Blume's explanation that he hoped the Fuehrer-Order might be recalled is scarcely adequate. He could have done nothing. Duty did not require him to incarcerate these Jews. men charged with having asked the farmers not to bring in the harvest he was asked whether such an execution was not contrary to the rules of war:
"Q. Are you familiar with the rules of war?
"A. In this case I acted by carrying out "Q. Did you regard a person who told a farmer sentence which you invoked?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Are you familiar with the rules of war?
"A. I already stated that for me the directive was the Fuehrer-Order.
That was my war law."
that he was shooting innocent people and admitted the shooting of 200 people by his kommando.
Blume is a man of education. He is a graduate lawyer. He joined the NSDAP voluntarily, swore allegiance to Hitler voluntarily and became director of a section of the Gestapo voluntarily. He states that he admired, adored and worshipped Hitler because Hitler was successful not only in the domestic rehabilitation of Germany, as Blume interpreted it, but successful in defeating Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, Luxembourg and other countries. To Blume these successes were evidence of great virtue in Hitler. Blume is of the notion that Adolf Hitler "had a great mission for the German people." he would not go so far as to say that this order which brought about the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children, constituted murder and the reason for the explanation was that Hitler had issued the order and Hitler, of course, could not commit a crime. In fact Blume's great sense of guilt today is not that he brought about the death of innocent people but that he could not execute the Fuehrer-Order to its limit:
"Q. We understood you to say that you had a bad order.
Does that mean that you regretted Order?
"A. Yes. This feeling of guilt was within me.
ed it impossible, to follow a Fuehrer-Order."
Dr. Lummert, Blume's lawyer, made a very able study of the law involved in this case. His arguments on Necessity and Superior Orders have been treated in the General Opinion. Dr. Lummert, in addition, has collected a formidable list of affidavits on Blume's character. They tell of Blume's honesty, good nature, kindness, tolerance and sense of justness, and the Tribunal does not doubt that he possessed all these excellent attributes at one time. One could regret that a person of such excellent moral qualities should have fallen under the influence of Adolf Hitler. But on the other hand one can regret even more that Hitler found such a resolute person to put into execution his murderous program. For let it be said once for all that Hitler with all his cunning and unmittigated evil would have remained as innocuous as rambling crank if he did not have the Blumes, the Blobels, the Braunes and the Bibersteins to do his bidding, -- to mention only the B's. the Indictment. criminal organizations SS, SD and Gestapo under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment. Universities of Munich, Freiburg, Cologne and Tuebingen. He worked as an assistant judge in the Inner Administration of Wuerttemberg and became a Government Councillor in 1937. In October 1939 he was chief of the Immigration Center and in June 1941 was appointed chief of Sonderkommando ia of Einsatzgruppe A. He left for Estonia on the 23rd day of that month. On December 3, 1941 he became Commander of the Security Police and SD for Estonia. He returned to Germany in September 1943. During this long period of 26 months he had ample opportunity to be involved in the execution of the Fuehrer-Order which he originally heard in Pretzsch end which was fully discussed again in Berlin before he left for the East.
Despite the defendant's protestations from the witness stand, it is evident from the documentary evidence and his own testimony, that he went along willingly with the execution of the Fuehrer-Order. Hardly had his kommando reached its first stopping place before it began its criminla work. Operational Report No. 15 reads:
"Group leader entered Riga with Ein satzkommando 1a and 2." of 400 Jews and the setting up of groups for the purpose of fomenting progroms.
Sandberger seeks to deny responsibility for the executions, although it has been demonstrated that not only he was in Riga at the time they occured, but he actually had a conversation about them with the Einsatzgruppe Chief Stahlecker before he left Riga.
This same report shows that a teilkommando of Sandberger's unit, Einsatzkommando 1a, was assigned to an operation in Dorpat; and it is interesting to note that a subsequent report (No 88, dated September 19, 1941) tells of an execution in Dorpat of 405 persons of whom 50 were Jews. This report closes with the significant statement:
"There are no more Jews in prison." included one item under Esthonia of 474 Jews and 684 Communists. The defendant also denies responsibility for these killings, placing the credit or blame for them on the German Field Police and Esthonian Home Guard. It is a fact, however, that the Esthonia Home Guard was under Sandberger's juridiction and control for specific operations, as evidenced by the same report:
"The arrest of all male Jews of over 16 "At present a camp is being constructed be free of Jews in a short while".(Emphasis supplied) Report No. 17, dated July 9, 1941 carried the item:
"With the exception of one, all leading to about 14,500.
Of these about 1,000 tration camps.
3,785 less guilty sup porters were released."
cipated but argued, reponsibility for only a fraction of the mental figure". He placed this "fraction" at 300 to 350 persons. In further attempted exculpation from responsibility for the numerous killings which admittedly occured in the territory under his jurisdiction, Sandberger announced in court a system of investigation, appeal, review and re-view which involved eleven different people, one of whom was himself. The real difficulty about Sandberger's explanation is that it lacks not only support, documentary or otherwise, but it lacks credibility in itself. Sandberger's story would argue that these involved and elaborate pains were taken under the Nazi aegis to protect the lives of the very people, the supreme order under which they were operating had doomed to summary extermination. for at least 350 deaths in this instance:
"Q. The sum total of Communists seized runs to about 14,500; do you see that?
A. Yes, 14,500, yes.
Q. That means 1,000 were shot?
A. Yes, I get that from the document.
Q. You know it. Did you know of it?
Do you remember it?
A. The report must have bun submitted to me.
Q. Then at one time, at least, you knew of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in Esthonia then?
sponsibility. I am only responsible for Q. You are responsible for 350?
A. That is my estimate." the internment of Jews which resulted in the internment of 450 Jews in a concentration camp at Pleskau. He states he did this to protect the Jews, hoping that during the internment the Fuehrer-Order might be revoked or its rigorous provisions modified. The Jews were later executed. Sandberger claims that the execution took place without his knowledge and during his absence, but his own testimony convicts him:
"Q. You collected these men in the camps?
A. Yes, I gave the order.
Q. You knew that at some future time they could expect nothing but death?
A. I was hoping that Hitler would withdraw the Q. You knew that the probality, bordering on being collected?
Q. In fact, almost a certainty, isn't that right?
A. It was probable." which, of course, constituted murder, was even more definitely admitted.
"Q. You collected these Jews, according to the basic order, didn't you, the Hitler Order?
A. Yes.
Q. And then they were shot; they were shot;
isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. By members of your command?
A. From Esthonian men who were subordinated to my Sonderkommando leaders; that is also Q. Then, in fact, they were shot by members under your command?
Q. Then, as a result of the Fuehrer-Order, these Jews were shot?
A. Yes."
(Emphasis supplied)
Sandberger's temporary absence, on the date of the execution of course, in no way affects his criminal responsibility for the deed. witness stand to denial, the one admission he did make was that executive measures in Esthonia were taken under his supervision. He stated that he objected to the Fuehrer-Order:
"I objected to the decree sp strongly thinkable.
... I could not imagine that I could not do myself."
was the highest legislative authority, and, although the Fuehrer-Order offended his moral sense, it had to be obeyed. His moral sense apparently did not always prevail for the defendant btrayed himself into a note of justification of the Fuehrer-Order when he testified:
"....when we saw in this Baltic area this."
the Fuehrer-Order and other Nazi dictates is evidenced by the eulogistic remarks which appeared in the recommendation for his promotion:
".....He is distinguished by his great in his work.
From the professional point of view, S. has proved himself in the East.
S. is a versatile SS-Fuehrer, suit "S. belongs to the Officers of the Leadership minimum age set by the RF-SS (36 years).tanfuehrer."
(Emphasis supplied) ant guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and is, therefore, guilty under Count III of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1120 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
JUDGE DIXON: The defendant WILLY SEIBERT. University of Goettingen in 1932 as a graduate economist. He served in the Army from 1932 until 1935 when he entered the SD as an expert in economics. In 1939 he became Chief of Group III D, Economics, in the RSHA and, as such, Deputy to defendant Ohlendorf. He continued in this capacity until transferred to service with Einsatzgruppe D in May 1941. April 2, 1947, declared:
"The former Standartenfuehrer Willi Seibert was my Chief III.
Since he during my absence.
One of his tasks Berlin, and to the 11th Army.
In of the contents as a routine (customary) matter.
Seibert had full access to all the secret files; including those by Seibert as by me.
Reports which are Einsatzgruppe.
Seibert was acquainted the framework of Einsatzgruppe D. Only which took place, namely, Seibert and myself."
already been cited and quoted from, the defendant Seibert stated that the radio reports on the activities of Einsatzgruppe D were known only to Ohlendorf, Seibert and the telegraphist. Further, that Seibert accompanied Ohlendorf on journeys of inspection.
their original statements as to Seibert's activities with the Einsatzgruppe and endeavored to delimit his functions to those of Chief of Office III. This modification could well have stemmed from a desire to help a co-defendant, rather than because of a mistaken statement in the first instance. One could err in the general summing up of another's activities, but it is difficult to comprehend how one in the normal possession of faculties of memory and reflection could ascribe the accomplishment of a very specific act to another if, in fact, it had not occurred. Thus, in his affidavit of April 2, 1947, Ohlendorf stated: "The only people whom I generally assigned to inspections were, except for Schubert, Willi Seibert and Hans Gabel." Here we have a very definite type of work. specifically declared that Willy Seibert was Ohlendorf's deputy, and that Ohlendorf or Seibert had assigned him to supervise and inspect an execution which involved some 700 people. Schubert could scarcely have credited Seibert with this type of executive authority, unless he was aware ho possessed it. One Karl Jonas declared by affidavit that Seibert was deputy to Ohlendorf. he was not Ohlendorf's deputy generally for Einsatzgruppe D, he did represent his chief "in all matters which a Chief III has to work out". And then he explained that "as senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe" he "took over all tasks within the Group whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the Group".
his activities to those falling within the normal scope of Office III, he did state that he made inspections of Tartar companies, that he engaged in combat actions against partisans and that he did make reports on executions. These assignments obviously do not fall within the duties of a Chief of Office III, as Office III was described by Seibert. been originally appointed by Heydrich as chief of the Department IV in his Einsatzgruppe. Under the plan of organization, Setzen would thus become Ohlendorf's deputy in executive functions of the Einsatzgruppe. However, Ohlendorf did not use Setzen for this purpose. He assigned him to the leadership of a subkommando, and the evidence is entirely convincing that he used Seibert for functions which would otherwise have been performed by Setzen. Seibert had been Ohlendorf's deputy in Office III of the RSHA since 1939. It would be quite natural for Ohlendorf to want Seibert, who had been his deputy in Berlin, to continue in a similar capacity in the field. And it is significant that they both returned at about the same time to the RSHA in Berlin and Seibert once more took up his duties as deputy to Ohlendorf in Office III. of reports signed by Seibert as acting commander for Ohlendorf during the latter's absence. These reports show conclusively that Seibert was reporting upon the general activities of the Einsatzgruppen, which included executions, planning for operations, and negotiations with Army officials, and in one of the documents Seibert is revealed requesting a conference with the chief of Staff of the Army. A report (Register No. 1118/42) dated April 16, 1942, carried the phrase "The Crimea is freed of Jews". Seibert knew the full significance of that phrase.
He was questioned about it on the witness stand:
"Q. When you signed the report which contained of Jews?
A. That did not have to be the case, Your Honor, or at least during the first time; they were Q. Eventually they were executed?
A. Yes, that is probably the case.....
Q. And when you signed the report which contained the phrase, 'The Crimea is freed of Jews', you knew what had happened to the Jews?
A. Yes, I knew that." stated that he did not exclude the possibility that Jews were among the executees. He also knew that Jews and Communist functionaries were shot without investigation:
Q. So you know that of your own knowledge without any investigation or trial?
A. Yes, I had to assume that from the Fuehrer-Order."
Einsatzgruppe D any orders from Army Headquarters which should arrive during Ohlendorf's absence. name, Ohlendorf's deputy in the Einsatzgruppe D. It finds further that he was thoroughly aware of the activities of Einsatzgruppe D and participated as a principal as well as an accessory in its operations which violated International Law, and fall within the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.
that the defendant is guilty under Counts I and II in the Indictment. of the criminal organization SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and, therefore, is guilty under count III of the Indictment.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Eugen Steimle. and French at the Universities of Tuebingen and Berlin. In May 1935 he qualified as instructor of secondary schools, and in March 1936 he passed the examination as Studienassessor. In April 1936 he entered the security service and on 1 September 1936 was appointed leader of the SD Regional Headquarters in Stuttgart. chief of Sonderkommando 7a of Einsatzgruppe B. During this time his unit executed 500 people:
Report No. 92;
Report No.108;
Report No.125;
Report No.133, chief of Sonderkommando 4a of Einsatzgruppe C, which unit also participated in liquidating operations. executions ordered by him were in the nature of punitive actions falling under established offenses against the laws of war, such as sabotage, looting, and partisan activity. It is evident that this defendant, like the defendant Blobel, has a distorted view of what constitutes established offenses when he states, as he does in his pre-trial affidavit, that under his leadership his kommando executed even "persons suspected of being partisans".
did not submit any evidence to contest the defendant's assertion that every exeuction of partisans was preceded by a thorough examination on the basis of a regular procedure. The defendant himself gave one highly illuminative demonstration on his idea of regular procedure. He was asked what he would do to a man he came upon lecutring on Communism, and he replied that, after taking a look at him:
"If I was under the impression that he shot."
narrative of an episode involving the shooting of three girls who, according to the defendant, were about to form a partisan group. He explained that the case of these throe girls was investigated for eight days. Whether such an investigation actually took place or not can only depend on the credibility of the defendant himself. In this respect it must be remarked that, if his concern for the girls' civil rigts rose no higher than his regard for their spiritual comfort, the victims could not have had much of a chance to defend themselves. Steimle himself commanded the firing squad, and he was asked if the girls were afforded any religious assistance before the shots were fired. He replied that, since they were Communists, they could not have had a religious conviction. Then the question was put to him as to what he would have done in the event they were religious. His reply was:
"If the wish had been uttered I can I, myself, wouldn't have bothered."
executions performed by his two units by stating that the alleged investigations were conducted by his subordinates. His admission, however, that he reviewed investigations and ordered death sentences makes him co-responsible with the persons in charge of the examinations. A superior may not delegate authority to a subordinate and then plead non-involvement for what the subordinate does.
Especially, when the superior reserves the right of supervision, as Steimle testified he did. defendant understood his responsibility in this regard but failed to meet it. does not support any conclusion that all Jews admittedly executed under Steimle's orders were accorded a trial and judicial process guaranteed by the rules of war and International Law. sub-kommandos while he was chief. In his pretrial affidavit he stated:
"From talk by members of the Kommando, I know that SS-Stnadartenfuehrer Dr. Blume, besides fighting against partisans."
And "I know that my predecessors, SS-Standart through the Ukraine."
were engaged in the execution of Jews prior to Steimle's arrival, they should suddenly cease performing their principal function while the Fuehrer-Order was still in force. Jews in his territory is discredited by Report No. 108:
"The Sonderkommando 7a executed a local, Gorodnie.
In Klinzy 83 Jewish terror were likewise liquidated.
At a further Politruk (political commissar at the front) and 82 Jewish terrorists were dealt with, according to orders."
(Emphasis supplied) Order.
He added that he was opposed to it and thus, by failing to shoot Jews, he exculpated himself from any responsibility under that order. But, neither the Fuehrer-Order nor the Indictment in this case is limited to the extermination of Jews. The ruthless killing of members of the civiliam population other than Jews is also murder. Nonetheless the Tribunal is convinced that the Einsatz units under Steimle's leadership and authority killed Jews on racial grounds and also killed Jews on supposed offenses without affording them the trial called for under the Rules of War and International Law. It is also clear that Steimle did not attempt to prevent Foltis, his subordinate, from killing Jews under the Fuehrer-Order. The Tribunal finds from all the evidence in the case that Steimle authorized and approved of killings in violation of law and is guilty of murder. defendant guilty under Counts I and II of the Indictment. criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal and, therefore, is guilty under Count III of the Indictment. JUDGE SPEIGHT: The Defendant Ernst Biberstein.
Ernst Emil Biberstein was originally named Szymanowsky. This striking change in name was no more extraordinary than the change in his profession. From clergyman in the Lutheran Protestant church in Kating, Schleswig-Holstein, he went to a chiefship in the Gestapo in Oppeln, Germany, in the meantime having renounced the church and his ecclesiastical garb. In August 1935 he entered the Reich Ministry for Church Affairs and in May 1936 was promoted to Oberregierungsrat in the State service. He served in the Wehrmacht from March 10, 1940, until October 20, 1940, when he became Chief of Gestapo at Oppeln. In the meantime, he had become SS-Sturmbannfuehrer and as such went to Russia as Chief of Sonderkommando 6 under Einsatzgruppe C. He served in this capacity from September 1942 until June 1943.
a sworn statement that his kommando during the time he was its chief killed from 2000 to 3000 people. In Nuremberg he twice repeated these figures under oath. At the trial he sought to repudiate the total, saying that the interrogator, on the three different occasions, had insisted that he name a figure and that a discrepancy of one thousand more or ess did not matter. It was then put to him that allowing for a margin of one thousand he had still admitted to from one to two thousand killings. He refused, however, at the trial, to name any figure. that he had witnessed two executions, the precise details of which he had described in his three pre-trial declarations. In his affidavit of July 2, 1947, he related:
"I personally superintended an execution of a gas truck.
The persons destined valuables (sometimes the clothes also) and 60 people.
The truck was then driven to any outward signs of spasms.
There was no that the people were really dead."
"I have also witnessed an execution carried out with firearms.
The persons to be exe automatic pistol.
The persons thus killed mostly dropped straight into the pit.
I the neck.
No physician was present either at this form of execution."
only because the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe wished him to experience the sensation of watching an execution so that he might know how he would feel about a spectacle of that kind.
"Q. You didn't know that before you witnessed You didn't feel that before you actually witnessed the execution?
A. Of course not, Your Honor, for, before,
Q. So you had to see an execution in order sentiments?
A. Yes, I had to see what kind of an effect this would have on me."
stantiation of this assertion he advanced various explanations:
(1) that Thomas, the Einsatzgruppe chief, was aware of his religious background and therefore wished to spare him his feelings;
(2) that there were no Jews in his territory anyway; (3) that he did not know of the Fuehrer-Order. point where he declared that althought he had led an einsatzkommando in Russia for 9 months, he did not learn of the FuehrerOrder until he reached Nuremberg. In fact he states that the very first time the Order ever came to his attention was when it was talked about in the court room and its contents shocked him considerably. nounced the word "investigation" with a certain self-assurance which proclaimed that so long as they "investigated" a man before shooting him they had fulfilled every requirement of the law and could face the world with an untroubled conscience. But an investigation can, of course, be useless unless proof of innocence of crime releases the detainee. Investigating a man and concluding he is a Jew or Communist functionary or suspected franctireur gives no warrant in law or in morals to shoot him. Biberstein claims that all executees of his kommando were given a proper investigation and killed only in accordance with law. Can this statement be believed? In testing Biberstein's credibility he was questioned regarding his work as a Gestapo Chief.