Q Did you appoint Kerr Seibert as Executive Office or did he work in that capacity?
A This expression executive officer is an invented expression which Q According to page 236 of the German record the Prosecution stated that Herr Seibert was Staff Chief for Security measures.
Is that correct?
A That again is an imaginative description. We did not have a staff chief nor a staff chief for security measures.
There was no title Q In order to make it quite clear I want to ask you again, was Herr Seibert perhaps the officer dealing with security questions?
A No, he was not an officer dealing with security Questions either.
Q. Did Herr Seibert have to carry out any executive tasks?
A. At no time did he have to carry out executive tasks?
Q. Did you appoint Herr Seibert to make lists of numbers of executions?
A. No, there was no such lists.
Q. Did Herr Seibert have the task to prepare secret papers and documents?
A. No, he didn't have that job either. The documents were in the office altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: Question, please, Dr. Gawlik. Did I understand you to say, witness, that there were no lists of executions. Did you hot keep a register of those who were to be executed or had been executed?
A. No such lists were kept by Herr Seibert or by me. It might be possible that in the office the number were known, because there for example, reports fron Berlin were collected there.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Did your Einsatzgruppe have a deputy chief?
A. Originally a deputy had been appointed for me. The reason was because the chief of State Police wanted mo to take a State Policeman because he under-estimated my capability in these tasks. For that reason Obersturmbannfuehrer Seezem, Chief of the State Police Agency, had been appointed asmy deputy expressly, but since he was chief of Vorkommando as well, during my activity he never was present in the place there I was billeted and for that reason ho never carried out this function as deputy.
Q. Who appointed this deputy chief?
A. Like all other functionaries, he was appointed by Heydrich.
Q. Was Herr Seibert ever deputy chief of Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. He never was that.
Q. Did the RSHA appoint Herr Seibert as deputy chief officially?
A. Neither official nor unofficially.
Q. To make it quite clear I want to ask again. Did you appoint him as a deputy?
A. I neither did this, nor could I do this.
Q. From Document volume III-D I submit to you on page 1 of the German Document Book--I am afraid I cannot give you the English page because I don't have the English Document Book; Exhibit No. 148, Document NO-2856, I submit to you; it is your affidavit of 2 April 1947 and in explanation in this document you stated the following among other things: "The former Standartenfuehrer Willi Seibert was my Chief III. Since he was the senior officer from point of service after me, he was entrusted by mo with the duties of a deputy during my absence." This "Entursted by me with the duties of a deputy during my absence," is that statement in this affidavit not contradictory to the statement you made just now?
A. No, not in disagreement, Seibert was the senior officer after me, in my staff but, not in the Einstazgruppen, but in the Einsatzgruppen there were at least two people who were senior to him in rank, and at least two others who had the same rank as he hold; therefore, it means that he wasmy deputy on the staff of the Einsatzgruppen, but not duputy for the entire sphere of the Einsatzgruppen.
Q. Please look at the same document book, on page 60, Your Honor, it is Document Book III-D, Exhibit 158, document No, 2859, the affidavit of Herr Seibert. In this affidavit Seibert said that as senior officer within the Einsatzgruppen staff"I undertook all tasks within the group in case Ohlendorf was absent from the group."
A. I don't understand this sentence because he could do nothing but continue to be in charge of this staff during my absence, and to settle the affairs which were in this staff.
Q. Was Herr Seibert senior officer within the entire Einsatsgruppe?
A. I think I have already answered this question.
Q. But perhaps you will repeat?
A. No, he was not.
Q. During your absence did Herr Seibert have special rights which normally he did not hold in respect to the command leaders?
A. Not materially. Actually, of course, he did not hand on any reports which I would have given normally. The fact that he dealt with the affairs of the staff in my absence, those affairs which could not remain until my return, does not mean that his power was extended.
Q. Please look at document III-D, page 73, which is Exhibie No. 160, Document NOKW 623, the report to the 11th Army, 16 April 1942?
A. What is the page?
Q. Page 73, 39 of the English. Do you find it?
A. Yes.
Q. In this report, shows that Communists of an extermination battalion were hanged in public, was this measure based on an order by Herr Seibert?
A. This measure in no way was based on an order by Herr Seibert. Such matters did not concern him, but he wasonly informed of it afterwards as a report of an event which had taken place here in the partisan war.
Q. When you look at the signature of this report, and also look at the same document book III-D, page 68 of the German Document Book, Exhibit 159, page 36 of the English Document Book, Document No. 629 NOKW, you will see that Herr Seibert signed both letters "By order of"-
A. I can not see that on page 68.
Q. Then it will be on one of the next pages.
A. On page 68 it says, Herr Seibert, but not "By order of."
Q. May I see that document book, please? Please look at page 80, does this signature "by order of" show that Herr Seibert was your deputy?
A. This "by order of" does not show it, but it was the general habit that chiefs of certain branches signed "by order of." That was the usage in the RSHA, and particularly in my office III. Therefore, he signed "by order of" automatically, no matter whether I was present or absent, as my deputy in his branch.
Q. If you would look at the letter of 9 October 1941 again, in Volume III-D page 68, Exhibit 159, Document 629, NOKW, this letter reveals that Herr Seibert, during your absence, asked the AOKL for an appointment for a discussion, giving the reason, that you were absent; did Herr Seibert deal with this matter only because you were absent?
A. No, he did not deal with it ;?or that reason, he did it because he always thought it was part of his branch. The question was whether such matter could be discussed with the chief of staff, or with the OB, (Commander in Chief) because then I usually went too.
Q. Please look at Document Book III-D on page 3 of the German; it is your affidavit of 2 April 1947, exhibit 148, Your Honor, Document No. 2856, on page 3, where you stated the following: "The only people whom I generally assigned to inspection tasks were, except for Schubert, Willi Seibert and Hans Gabel." I now ask you, what did these inspections tasks consist of?
A. This formula was no doubt the result of long discussion with Wartenberg, who wanted to determine that Seibert inspected execution. This I could not confirm, however, the reason is in the sentence before to the final sentence, that it was no doubt after this discussion that I prepared the statement, "That I did not know anything whether, or to which executions I sent the two persons named last. The inspection task I refer to was the regular contact of the Einsatzgruppen with the Einsatzkommandos, I only had three officers dealing with this, Seibert, Schubert and Gabel, these general inspections Seibert also carried out regularly; he inquired about order in the command, about the work in his branch, he inspected everything he had to deal with, or if any events occurred.
Q. Is it therefore correct that in this sentence you wanted to express that Seibert did not inspect any executions?
A. I expressed that I do not remember any such executions, because, therefore, I do not remember that Seibert inspected any.
Q. Did Herr Seibert ever give an order to carry out executions?
A. He certainly didn't give any such orders, because such orders were not given, particularly Seibert never was given the opportunity to do so; he did not have such authority.
Q. Did Herr Seibert ever in any manner assist in carrying out executions?
A. I do not know anything about such a thing.
Q. Could Herr Seibert have avoided carrying out the decrees given by Hitler?
A. No, he didn't have any authority to do so.
Q. Did Herr Seibert accompany you during the service trips to the commands?
A. Almost regularly.
Q. What were his tasks during these service trips?
A. His own branch had to be inspected in particular.
Q. During these trips with Herr Seibert, did you visit places of executions?
A. I remember one case when we happened to come across an execution of a few people who were executed for some reason the police had given. I cannot remember any other such case.
Did Herr Seibert assist in these measures at all?
A. No.
Q. Did Herr Seibert have any tasks such as observations?
A. No.
Q. Was Herr Seibert only a witness by chance there?
A. Yes, it was merely chance that he was a witness.
Q. Did Herr Seibert make service trips on hisown to the commands?
A. Certainly.
Q. What were his tasks?
A. The same inspection order we have already dealt with.
Q. Was Herr Seibert intended to become your successor as chief of the Einsatzgruppe?
A. I don't know about that, but I don't think it probable, because he didn't hold a position high enough for that.
Q. What do you know about a long absence of Herr Seibert from the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. I remember that for four or five weeks, November to December 1941, he was on leave in Berlin.
Q. What do you know about the activity after Herr Seibert returned to Einsatsgruppe-D?
A. Herr Seibert returned with me and assumed his activity as deputy chief of the Economic Department.
Dr. GAWLIK: Thank you, Tour Honor, I have no further questions.
DR. MANRY: Dr. Mandry for the defendant Sandberger. BY DR. MANDRY:
Q. Witness, do you know how Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, Chief of Amts-IV judged Sandberger's activity in Estonia?
A. Yes, I know that. Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, during a lunch we had together, expressed his opinion about Sandberger's activity in Estonia, basing it on statements that he neglected his own Security Police, and tried to build up such a machinery of Estonians; he left these Estonians to themselves,. In his opinion Sandberger did not look after the security well enough in this region.
Q. Can you tell uswhen this discussion took place, approximately?
A. I cannot say that any more.
DR. MANDRY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Schubert. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, on what occasion did you meet Herr Schubert?
A. I met Schubert when he reported to me in Nikolaev, that was October 1941.
Q. Could you determine his job in the Einsatzgruppen yourself or was Schubert appointed for a special task?
A. No, he was not appointed for a special task. Only commanders were assigned for certain tasks.
Q. What position did you give to Schubert?
A. He became my adjutant, and as such chief of the business office; that letter was of more importance to me, because I did not use an adjutant myself.
Q. Why did you use Schubert in this very function?
A. He had had jobs as; official, and, therefore, had been trained in administration, and owing to his training he seemed to me particularly suitable to deal with business matters.
Q. What tasks did he have to deal with as adjutant?
A. As adjutant he had to get terms, to make agreements, to look after guests, and to agree on terms and such things.
Q. Did Schubert ever have any power of command for troop units?
A. No, he had no power to give orders to any unit, only to one or two secretaries.
Q. Could Schubert give orders to Kommando leaders, for example, the chief Einsatzgruppe 11-B?
A. Of course not, he was not entitled to give any orders.
Q. Would Schubert determine the appointment of non-commissioned officers, or of enlisted men?
A. I do not understand the question.
Q. Could Schubert determine that the non-commissioned officer, Mueller, of Einsatz command 11-A, say, would take part in some partisan drive tomorrow?
A. Of course not. I have replied to that before, he could not give such orders. He could only have given orders to Sergeant Firtsche to write the letter again, but not to move to another place.
Q. Was it Schubert's duty to supervise duty in units?
A. No.
Q. Was Schubert ---the previous question was, was it Schubert's duty to supervise the duty of units and individual members of Einsatzgruppen-D, apart from the secretaries?
A. No.
Q. Did Schubert have to deal with planning executions?
A. No.
Q. In fact, what did Schubert have to do with the actual carrying out of the executions?
A. Actually not all, unless in individual cases I would have appointed him to carry out an inspection.
Q. In your affidavit of 2 April 1947, Document Book III-D, pages 1 to 3, Exhibit No. 148, No. 2856, you write in the last paragraph; "Insofar as I was prevented from inspections for personal reasons, I ordered members of my staff to represent me at these." I remember that Schubert inspected an execution which was carried out by Kommando 11 B under Braune's direction in December 1941 in Simferopol. The only people whom I generally assigned to inspections were, except for Schubert, Willi Seibert and Hans Gabel." Did the order to Schubert include that he should deputize for you at Simferopol, or was he entitled to give orders to Kommando Leader Braune?
A. Of course not. He was merely the one who inspected places and then a report wasmade to me. I read his affidavit, and was surprised by the formulation. He neither had the task of inspection, nor did he have to arrange anything, nor could he give any directives personally. He could merely see and listen.
Q. Could Schubert give orders to commanders, or part-commanders? That is, subordinates of Braune?
A. Of course not, except in an emergency, of course.
Q. Could Schubert have changed directives of Branune or did Schubert have to change directivesof Braune, if he did not agree with the way executions were handled?
A. Of course not, he could not interfere.
Q. What was Schubert's task if your orders concerning the treatment of those to be executed were not conformed with?
A. He had to report about the occurrence.
Q. If I understand you correctly, Schubert, owing to your directives, was not allowed to give any orders?
A. He was not allowed to give any orders.
Q. Was Schubert, apart from the Execution in Simferopol, sent to any other execution?
A. I do not know about that. I think it is quite improbable.
Q. On other occasions, apart from executions, did you assign inspection tasks to Schubert?
A. I cannot remember inspection tasks, but certainly he had other tasks, for example, I remember, for example, that he helped to recruit Talars.
Q. Were inspection tasks a part of Schubert's, general task?
A. Not in general, or principle, but only on other immediate orders.
Q. Did Schubert have to make reports to the RSHA about the activity of the Einsatzgruppe?
A. Not in general, but if I remember rightly he dealt with personnel questions, and administrative department, because he was chief of the business section where these questions were dealt with.
Q. Did Schubert sign reports himself?
A. I definitely do not think so.
Q. In how far was he entitled to sign?
A. In general he did not have the opportunity to sign anything, but if he had to transfer a person to a command, and had given him a letter of recommendation, he certainly would have to sign "by order of" Schubert, ro "By order of", every time at my request.
Q. During the several service trips, did you always have Schubert with you?
A. I think only on exeptional occasions, once or twice. I can not remember.
Q. Was Schubert appointed to deal with special tasks into which the other members of your staff could not look?
A. Of course not. Unless they were personal questions.
Q. Did Schubert over receive an order from you to execute any persons, himself?
A. That was not his task, and he did not get any such order.
Q. Did Schubert ever receive such a report to be handed on?
A. He certainly did not hand on any such reports, because they did not exist.
Q. Why was Schubert given the Iron Cross Distinction?
A. For repeatedly taking part in partisan fights.
Q. Who conducted these partisan fights?
A. I think I have answered this question before. They were lead by unit leaders, and the distinctions were given by the commander-inchief of the Army personally, and only under very grave conditions.
Q. What tasks did Schubert have after he served in Einsatzgruppen at the time he was with you as adjutant in the RSHA?
A. He returned to Berlin with me immediately, and there again he represented me in my antechamber, that is, he dealt with the same tasks as in the Einsatzgruppen.
Q. Did Schubert ever have the power of giving orders during that time?
A. No.
Q. Was Schubert active as an advisor, or did he carry out any confidential activity?
A. Nothing other than being in charge of the ante chamber will answer that question.
Q. Why did Schubert stop working as your adjutant?
A. After he had been with no for about two years, as adjutant I considered it better for his development that he would now get another job in order to develop better in a professional manner. The reason washis marriage, and since Iris service with me took up nearly every evening, I did not think that he could conform with his duties as a husband if he had to work evenings.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will terminate the days proceedings. The Court will now recess and will reconvene next Tuesday morning, October 14th, at 9:30 o'clock. hours.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II-a. Military Tribunal No. II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, during the afternoon session of tribunal II-A on 30 September 1947, Dr. Aschenauer interposed an objection to Book III-D, pages 39 of the English, 69 of the German, Document NOKW 628, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 160.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Attorney for Defendant Ohlendorf): The translation is not coming through.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you please repeat that? Apparently the translation did not go through.
(The interpreter repeated as requested.)
THE PRESIDENT: Very wall. Did you get that Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No.
MR. WALTON: I will repeat it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Walton will repeat it.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, during the afternoon session of Tribunal II-a on September 30, 1947, Dr. Aschenauer interposed an objection to Book III-D, page 39 of the English, page 69 of the German, Document NOKW 628, offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 160. In subsequent conferences with Dr. Aschenauer it was determined that pages 2, 3, 5 and 8 of this document were, in fact, missing, Under Your Honors' ruling that excerpts from a document which are introduced into Guidance, it can be presumed, therefore, that the entire document is admitted in evidence.
We immediately telegraphed Washington to forward the missing pages of this document. These pages, which I have already referred to, came by air courier after the Tribunal had recessed on 9 October and are now available, together with the proper certification attached. that it be allowed to place a photostatic copy of each of these missing pages in the archives of the Tribunal and respectfully request the Tribunal to instruct the Secretary General to add them to Document NOKW-628. copies of those pages and is prepared at this time to deliver them to Dr. Aschenauer. Counsel can therefore make the necessary comparison between his copy and the photostat, which, If Your Honors admit, will then be in the official record of the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The request of the prosecution is approved. The full statement made by Mr. Walton is selfexplanatory and the Tribunal need not take up each item detail by detail. The Secretary General is instructed to receive the photostatic copies and make them part of the official records of Case No. 9, now before Tribunal II-A.
Dr. Aschenauer, have you now completed with the direct questioning of the defendant Ohlendorf?
DR. ASCHENAUER: There are a few more defense counsels who want to put questions of Ohlendorf.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. Such defense counsel as desire to cross examine the Defendant Ohlendorf may now take up their cross-examination in whatever order Defense Counsel have agreed upon.
BY DR. SCHWARZ (Attorney for the Defendant Jost) : Were the Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos only active in the Army areas? area of the civilian administration? only meant for the Army area, while in the areas of the Reichskommissars and the General Kommissars, the regular agencies of the Security Police were active. active in the area of the civilian administration? the commanders of the Security Police and SD.
Q Were these authorities locally established authorities? or Sonderkommando in the Army area and the commander in the area of the civilian administration? units, no agencies. The have no definite garrison. They are not restricted to a locality but in fulfillment of their tasks they adapt their activities to the requirements of the Army. Their various strengths and their Sub-Units also do this, while the agencies of the commanders and the civilian administrator are restricted to a locality and are a definitely established agency, which, is suited to be operational for the administrative hierarchie.
SD, as compared to that of the commanders, an unrestricted and exclusive one or was it restricted?
A The title "commander" does not picture the condition correctly, The commander himself was under the Reichskommissar that is to say, the supreme administrative organ in a definite occupied area. This latter one had a power of command which cannot be compared to any other agency leader, He was immediately under the Fuehrer and the Chief of State. The commander of the Security Police was part of this hierarchy by reason of the fact that the commander of the Security Police as regional agency of a district or general Commissariate was again within the hierarchy of the general Commissariate. The commander was under the Generalkommissar, however not immediately, but the SS and Police Leader was in between. The Generalkommissars, for instance, of the Eastland, were relatively independent agencies, since those were three different areas, and, thus, the commander was actually more independent of his Generalkommissar than of his commander. Since the Generalkommissariats were independent areas, the Reich Main Security Office had, established the fact that, for example, in the Generalkommissariats of the Eastland, the commander there was also responsible to Berlin directly, that is, not by way of the commander. In the same way, the Reich Security Main Office issued orders to the various commanders without touching the military commander himself. In Eastland, for example, I would say that the commander is more an inspector than a military commander. In other occupied territories it was different.
the commanders ? commander. direct?
Q. You said that, if I understood you correctly, that the Reichskommissar Was the immediate representative of the Fuehrer and the bearer of the highest responsibility?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Is it correct then, according to what you said, that the designation of "commander " actually does not picture the real condition, but is a mistake?
A. I thought I had described the various conditions which made the commander merely an inspector.
Q. From what time does the activity of the Einsatzgruppen cease in an area ?
A. At the moment when an area has been given over to the civilian administration.
Q. Do you know anything about the opinions of the Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, the Chief of Office IV of the RSHA, as far as Jost is concerned?
A. I think it can be said that Mueller hated Mr. Jost deeply. This was shown by the fact that he tried for many years to prejudice Jost, in which attempt Mueller used his power with the State Police.
Q. Do you know anything about the reasons for this hatred?
A. Not in detail, no.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, I think it will appear from the indictment that the time when Jost was Commander of an Einsatzgruppe, it was after the death of Heydrich Mueller. Therefore, the prosecution objects to the questions concerning the attitude of Mueller toward the Defendant Jost as being immaterial to the issue involved in the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: If thechronology as indicated bythe Prosecution is correct, the objection is sustained.
DR. SCHWARZ (Attorney for Defendant Jost): I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY DR . HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Nosske):
Q. Witness, a few factual questions: During your direct examination, you mentioned the shooting at Belzen and you said that the 45 Jews who were shot there were shot byEinsatzkommando 12. I do not find any description of Einsatzkommando 12 in the document. Would you affirm whether this was actually Einsatzkommando 12?
A. Einsatzkommando 12 never was in Belzen. This is a mistake; in the document too it says 10a and not 12.
Q. Witness, where was the Einsatzkommando 12 in 1941?
A. Until the end of July 1941, Einsatzkommando 12 was in what was formerly Rumania.
Q. Can you say anything about the mission of Einsatzkommando 12?
A. At that time Einsatzkommando 12 was a rest area.
Q. It has not been made clear to me how Einsatzkommando 12 is connected with Anajew. Do you know whether Einsatzkommando 12 was in Anajew at all?
A. First Einsatzkommando 10 A was in Anajew. Later 10 B.
Q. The documents also show that a partial kommando of Einsatzkommando 12 was ordered to the Crimea. Do you know what the reason for this transfer was?
A. This transfer took place in the winter of 1941, 1942, after the returning of the Russians in the South and East and in the West, and this created a very difficult situation, since the partisans and saboteurs continually interrupted the railroad lines, and then a part of Einsatzkommando 12 was detailed to reinforce the kommandos on the Crimea. They were detailed to assist Einsatzkommando 10B.
Q. Then I still have one more question. You said that the Einsatzgruppe D was also active in Stalino.
A. Neither the Einsatzgruppe nor any Einsatzkommando nor a man of Einsatzgruppe D was ever active in Stalino.
Q. Witness, then I have one further question. If I understood you correctly, you said during your direct examination that a man of your Einsatzgruppe who refused to obey the order, if this happened in the front lines, would either be shot immediately or be put before a court-martial. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Witness, do you agree with me that if someone were to expose himself to such a danger of rather being shot than to execute such an order that such a person would have to have a definite moral inner attitude about this?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. Witness, I heard you here on the witness stand - I am not of the same opinion as you are, but I would like to say that your deduction was open to disagreement - did you inform your men of the Einsatzgruppen of this deduction, and did you train them in this respect?
A. I believe that your words are too general for me to answer concretely.
Q. Another question, Witness. I would like to make it more concrete: Concerning the misgivings which the various men in the Einsatzgruppe D mighthave had in t his connection did you do away with these misgivings by telling them your explanations?
A. I cannot remember anything concrete about this, but I am convinced that in individual talks with the officers I talked about this and I am also convinced that I talked along these lines to the commandos during roll-calls.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, you asked one question whose purport I was unable to grasp. It came through this way: Did anyone objecting to an order have to have a definite moral attitude? That to me is a little vague.