Q. Witness, do you know anything about whether Ohlendorf in the spring of 1941 still worked on the Minority statute for the Jews?
A. I don't know any details about this. Even though I thought about it, I cannot give you the year. I don't know whether it was 1939, 1940 or 1941. I don't know exactly. But Ohlendorf retained this attitude, this known to me from former years.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination, will be taken up after the morning recess. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I made a mistake during the discussion -- and I wish to beg your pardon -- I used the expression "Gestapo State". To explain this -by this I did not mean the organization, and their legal tasks, but only the terminology used today for the Nazi state.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that explanation and correction.
DR. SUESS (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I ask that the defendant be excused from the session this afternoon because the defense wants to prepare him for his direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon so that he may confer with his counsel in the preparation of his defense. Now, Mr. Secretary General, will you see that the necessary order gets to the prison authorities so that Schulz will not be brought into Court this afternoon?
DR. SUESS: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Seibert): Your Honor, I would like to address a few questions to the witness Spengler.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Mr. Spengler, do you know Herr Seibert?
A. Yes, I know Kerr Seibert.
Q. Please state for the record, which of the defendants is Kerr Seibert.
A. From me, the second from the right, in the front row.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I ask you to note in the record that the witness Spengler identified the defendant Seibert correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps the interpreter stated that incorrectly. isn't that what you intended to say?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so indicate, that the defendant Seibert has been identified by the witness on the stand, at the present time Spengler. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Since when did you know Herr Seibert, and what do you know about his work?
A. I hav e known Herr Seibert since 1936. He was in the Group III-D, Economics, of the Office III. He was Referent, and later Deputy Gruppenleiter, finally, Gruppenleiter.
Q. How many Gruppenleiters were there?
A. There were four Gruppenleiters.
Q. Was Herr Seibert also Deputy office Chief?
A. No, Herr Seibert was not Deputy Office Chief.
Q. Did Herr Seibert volunteer to work in the Einsatzgruppen?
A. No, there were no volunteers.
Q. What did Herr Seibert do in the Einsatzgruppe?
A. Herr Seibert, like all those who worked in the Einsatzgruppe, was ordered to go there.
Q. Could Herr Seibert have refused to obey this order?
A. No, no more than any other orders we were given.
Q. What would have happened to Herr Seibert if he had not obeyed this order?
A. He would have been arrested and put before a Tribunal.
Q. When Herr Seibert was ordered to Einsatzgruppe-D, did he know, about the work of the Einsatzgruppe?
A. No, no, he did not know about the work when he was drafted to work for the Einsatzgruppe.
Q. What were the reasons that Herr Seibert was drafted to Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. The reasons were as follows: A Chief-III, that is an expert on the news service, was to be taken in, and as Herr Seibert, since 1936, had belonged to this office and therefore had gained a lot of experience, and as the economical questions were important, Herr Seibert was detailed for this duty. Apart from that Seibert was also an officer of the Army, of the Wehrmacht.
Q. What field within Einsatzgruppe-D was Herr Seibert intended to work in?
A. Herr Seibert was detailed by Berlin to work as Leader-III, That is, he was to give SD reports on various subjects, economics, law, and administration, health, culture, and Science.
Q. Witness, what do you know about Herr Seibert's activity with the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. K know that Herr Seibert carried out his task as leader III because such specialised report were made in the economic field, and, also on ethnic subjects and they were sent to Herr Seibert in Berlin. For example, a report about the position of the Tartars in Crimea, and on their organization, their history, their Estonian origin, and soforth was made.
Q. Would you please repeat on what is your knowledge based as to Herr Seibert's activity in the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. This knowledge is based first of all on reports which remained in Berlin with Seibert's colleagures; we talked about all of this, and also because in the later COURT II-A CASE IX years I met Herr Seibert almost daily, and we talked about this work and these reports.
Q. Was Herr Seibert deputy of the Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. Herr Seibert's position as Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D I don't know about. I knew that he was Chief-III, and in the staff of Herr Ohlendorf, Einsatzgruppe Ghief, I know that.
Q. Then it would have been known to you if Herr Seibert had been deputy of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. If he had held an official position as Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe I would have known about, or I would have heard about it, and, Herr Seibert later on would have told me about it.
Q. Witness, to this reply I submit to you from Document BOOK III-D, page 69 of the German text, and unfortunately, Your Honor, I do not have the English text; it is Exhibit No. 160, Document NOKW-628. This report is from Herr Seibert, signed "By order of"?
A. I see.
Q. Does this not show that Herr Seibert was Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D, and does this not contradict your reply?
A. No, this does not show that Herr Seibert was Deputy Einsatzgruppe Chief, because even I in Berlin signed during the absence of Herr Ohlendorf in the Crimea, I signed all reports of my group "by order of", because each group leader in his field could deputize for the chief, and they signed, "by order of" but this did not make any of us group leaders, deputy chief, Ohlendorf never had a deputy in Berlin in Office-III.
Q. When did you meet Herr Seibert after his commitment in the East?
A. That was when Herr Seibert returned, June 1942.
Q. What do you know about Herr Seibert's activity after this return to Berlin?
A. As previously he again worked in the economic group III-D., and expert reports were made in addition to the economic reports.
Q. Did this economical group apart from their reporting activity have any executive power?
A. No, this group III-D, like the rest of Office-III had no executive authority at all. This executive power was Vested in the State Police and in the Criminal Police, Office-III, and, therefore, Herr Seibert and the group could neither give an order for arrest, nor could they interrogate a person; not even could they officially ask him to a court, they could only invite him for discussion. The only authority which Herr Seibert and the entire Office-III had was the information Service showing the situation in special fields.
Q. Was Herr Seibert, after his return from Russia, Herr Ohlendorf's deputy?
A. No, Herr Seibert never held that position, I must definitely state here that Herr Seibert would have been the last one of the group leaders to be appointed as Deputy Chief of the Office, because he was the youngest one of us. Only in 1944 was Herr Seibert appointed Gruppenleiter, group leader, although he had worked in the economic field since 1936, and since Herr Ohlendorf had been in the office as Office-chief, he conducted the economic departments in III-D.
Q. Witness, you already said that it was customary under Herr Ohlendorf that every group leader signed "by order of." I have one question on this point, was this only used when Herr Ohlendorf was absent at any time?
A. This was not only used when he was absent, but it was generally used, for example, after Herr Ohlendorf had returned, I continuously signed finance department reports "by order of" just, as Herr Seibert did in the economic field.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you stated that Seibert was too young to have taken ever a deputyship. How old was he at the time?
A. Herr Seibert, I believe, was born in 1909, I am not quite sure of it, I only know that among us group leaders he was the youngest one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Ohlendorf himself was only about thirty-two or thirty-three at the time?
A. I know that, but Herr Ohlendorf had a very good education and training. He had studied law.
THE PRESIDENT: Then your answer should be not that Seibert was too young, but he was too inexperienced?
A. I can say that, too, as well.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination on the part of another defense counsel?
DR. STEIN: for the defendant Sandberger. BY DR. STEIN:
Q. Witness, since when have you known the defendant Sandberger?
A. I believe since about '36, '37, perhaps even '38.
Q. At that time was he in the Reich Security Main Office with you?
A. No, at the time he was not in the RSHA, but he worked in the SD, in Stuttgart, and there he did reporting, expert reporting.
Q. Did you see Sandberger after his journeys after COURT II-A CASE IX the Eastern campaign?
A. Yes. I know Herr Snadberger was appeared there in the RSHA, in Berlin.
Q. How often did this happen?
A. Two or three times, I am not quite sure,
Q. What did he want in Berlin at that time?
A. On one occasion Obersturmbannfuehrer Gengenbach, that was the group leader for law and administration, who dealt with personnel questions in Office-III, I talked to this man, and there I heard that Herr Sandberger urgently requested to return to his specialized SD work in Office-III.
Q. Can you say approximately when this happened, about what year -- what month?
A. I can work that out. When did the Russian campaign start, the year of '41, or the beginning of '42, was it not, and it was a few months after the Russian campaign started, approximately.
DR. STEIN: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other defense counsel? Is the Prosecution ready for cross examination?
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution has no questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness will be allowed to leave the courtroom. He may be escorted from the courtroom.
(witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I have finished except for presenting the documents in the submission of my evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Aschenauer, as I have indicated on several occasions, I do hope that you will get to work at once on your own documents that you intend to present.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall hand in the document books, as the affidavits arrive and state when my documentary material will be ready. The first document book I shall hand in at the beginning of next week. I shall hand in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Gawlik are you ready to proceed with the defendant Naumann?
DR. GAWLIK: I am prepared to continue, but the defendant Naumann is not here. I believe he is just coming.
THE PRESIDENT: He will be brought in immediately. Dr. Gawlik, through no fault of your own, and we are sure you are not trying to conceal your client from the Tribuanl, they brought over the wrong defendant. They brought here Blobel instead of Naumann. It would take a little of time to correct this error, and to make the correct substitution, so we will take advantage of that time, and we will now recess for the regular lunch period, and reconvene at 1:30 o'clock.
(Whereupon recesswas taken to 1330 hours, 16 October 1947) (The hearing reconvened at 1335 hours, 16 October 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHWARZ: Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Joost. Tribunal permit the Defendant Joost to be examined after the Defendant Schulz?
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for Defendant Schulz here?
DR. SUESS: Dr. Suess for the Defendant Schulz. this. If the examination of the Defendant Joost is now going to be postponed, we have no objection against this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand it then that counsel for the Defendant Schulz is prepared to proceed with the defense case upon the termination of the case of Neumann?
DR. SUESS: Pardon me, your Honor, but I didn't get this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that counsel for the Defendant Schulz is prepared to proceed immediately after the termination of the Naumann case?
DR. SUESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the Defendant Joost will be prepared to proceed immediately after the termination of the Schulz case?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor. I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are very welcome indeed.
DR. SCHWARZ: May I also make the request that the Defendant Joost be excused from tomorrow's session so that I can discuss his defense with him?
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Joost is excused from attendance at tomorrow's sessions so that he may confer with his attorney.
DR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honor please, the Prosecution has no objection to the defense taking the stand in any order they see fit, but we Would appreciate it if the Prosecution could be given notice in advance of the order they intend to take so that we may prepare our cross-examinations at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. For the information of the Prosecution the Tribunal will state that Joost's order was moved back only because his counsel was appointed a little later than the other attorneys, so that it now stands this way: Naumann, Schulz, Joost. Then we have no reason to assume that the regular order will not be followed following that.
MR. FERENCZ: We would like to know if the Defendant Rasch intends to take the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: We had set that aside because of the physical condition involved there, and I don't suppose Rasch's attorney is here this afternoon. No. Very well, will someone -- I will ask the Secretary-General to obtain information at the Defense Information Center as to the condition of Rasch and the intention of his counsel with regard to placing Rasch on the witness stand.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the Defendant Naumann. the examination of the Defendant Naumann in his own defense. With the permission of the Tribunal I call the Witness Naumann to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The oath has not yet been administered.
ERICH NAUMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant you will stand. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. the pure truth and will withold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q When and Where were you born? English and 4 of the German text of Exhibit 113, Document NO-2970, and from Document Book II-D, Page 1 of the English and Page 1 of the German, Exhibit 112, Document NO-4150. Are the statements in these documents about your person correct?
A In Document 4150 there is one small mistake. It must be on Page 1. Instead of "1940" it should read "1942."
A Yes, I am just looking for it. In the seventh line from the top, but this is in the German text, you must read the whole text, the sentence reads: "In the year 1935 I became SS-Fuehrer in full time capacity and from 1940 on I became an official and a police officer." Here it should read "1942" instead of "1940."
THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the original?
THE WITNESS: That is Page 1 of the Document 4150. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q And in the original?
THE PRESIDENT: Read the sentence again, please.
THE WITNESS: On Line 7 of the German text, "In the year 1935 I became SS-Fuehrer in a full time capacity, and from 1940 on I became an official and a police officer." There it should read "1942" instead of "1940."
THE PRESIDENT: "1940" does not appear in the English text.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honors please, I believe the English text says "1935." I believe that is what the defendant is referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it should be, "I have been a member of the SD since 1940," is that the correction he wishes to make?
THE WITNESS: That is already the next sentence, I mean the previous sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it reads in the English this way. "I joined the SA in a fulltime capacity. In 1935 I became full-time SS leader, and since 1935 I was an official and officer of the police." Is it that "1935" which is incorrect?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is not correct, but in the German text it says "1940", not "1935."
THE PRESIDENT: And it should be nineteen-forty -- what?
THE WITNESS: 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the correction is made.
THE WITNESS: The other document is 2970, in the same document book, Page 14 of the German text.
DR. GAWLIK: This is Exhibit 113, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: In the middle of this page, it is on Page 11 of the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Next to my signature it says "10th of January '42." That should read 10th of January, 1943, because in January, 1942, I was neither Brigadier General nor Major General. Otherwise, outside of a few typographical errors, which are not important, this document is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The corrections will be noted. BY DR. GAWLIK: the year 1929? not at all active politically. The distress of the year 1929, the struggles between the various parties, the collapse of the economy, the unemployment with all its devastating results, and the resulting party struggles caused me to bother my head about political parties.
Thus in May 1929 I went for the first time to a gathering of the Nazi Party. In November 1929 I then joined the Party. Before I worried about political parties I was a neutral German as far as party policies were concerned who loved his Fatherland, but who rejected Marxism, the Nazi Party seemed to be the only party which would find the way out of this distress and misery which was not Marxistic but was yet socialistic. For this reason I joined the Party in November 1929.
Q How long were you an SD leader in full capacity? first of July, 1935, until the end of the war.
Q Where were you active before? and I was this from October, 1933, until June, 1934.
Q In what were you active after that? the Educational Matters. Here I remained until June 1935 when the organization was dissolved.
Q Was this an agency of the Party of an affiliation of the Party? connections with the Party, of its affiliations. was accepted by you? Educational Matters was dissolved in the year 1935. Therefore, I had to look for another position. Through a former acquaintance of mine, the then SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Joost, who offered me a post as a department head in the SD Main Office, I came to the SD.
Q What position did you first hold in the SD?
AAs department chief in the central Department III/2.
Q What was your activity in this central Department III/2?
protection organization? fuehrer in Austria? Graz and Klagenfurt, had to be given SD subdepartments which then would function as branches of the SD Main Office, just like all the other SD subdepartments worked in the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, may I interrupt please? The Defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance this afternoon for the purpose of an interrogation which is to be made by Mr. Wolfe.
(The Defendant Ohlendorf was thereupon excused.)
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) And what were the missions and the activities of the SD in Austria? fuehrer in Berlin? domestic services for the District of the Reich capital, Berlin, and for the District of the Province Mark Brandenburg.
Q When did you become Chief of Einsatzgruppe B in Russia? Einsatzgruppe in Russia?
Q Did you voluntarily report for this mission?
Q Who gave you this order to take over this Einsatzgruppe B? B from Streckenbach, the head of Office I. Heydrich gave the order for me to take this group over.
Q Who signed the Transfer- order? Russia?
Q Can you give reasons for this?
A Yes. Orders of Heydrich had to be obeyed, especially during war time. the commitment? would have been sentenced to death for refusing to obey an order.
Q When did you leave Berlin?
Q When did you arrive at the Einsatzgruppe B?
Q And when did you take over the command of Einsatzgruppe B? introduced me to the job and during that time I did not have my power of command. Nebe still held it. After the expiration of this week, Nebe handed the Einsatzgruppe over to me and frm then on I was Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B.
Q How long were you Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B? of the German text, I submit to you Exhibit 113, Document NO-2970. This document says from the 1st of November 1941 you were Chief of Einsatzgruppe B. How do you explain this statement in this document book? Is that correct?
A The 1st of November is the date of my Transfer - order. After Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach had ordered me to take over Einsatzgruppe B, Rasch suddenly was supposed to take over Einsatzgruppe B and I was supposed to go to Kiev. At the same time it was discussed that Rasch should go to Berlin and Thomas was to be sent to Russia and it was not clear whether Thomas or I were to go to Kiev or Smolensk. After a long discussion back and forth I finally went to Smolensk. Rasch did not go to Smolensk but went to Berlin and Thomas went to Kiev as new Chief of Einsatzgruppe C. During that time I had to remain in Berlin, because my destination was not yet determined. English, page 23 of the German text, Exhibit 72, Document NO-2830. This concerns the Operational Situation Report 132 dated 12th of November, 1941. In this Operational Situation Report of the 12th of November 1941, you are already mentioned as the Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B. Were you already Chief of Einsatzgruppe B at that time?
November, 1941. Report 132 of the 12th of November, 1941? RSHA, but as my Transfer Order was of the 1st of November 1941, I of course, was automatically mentioned in the reports as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B.
Q Where were these Operational Situation Reports compiled? It may have been Office IV, but I am not sure. on these situation reports?
A Yes, for example, in the case of Rasch, I don't remember these two reports, but there are two operational Situation Reports of the 29th of October and the 5th of November. In these two Operational Situation Reports of the 29th of October and the 5th of November. In these two operational Situation reports, Rasch is designated as Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B, even though he never was in Smolensk in all his life. It may have been caused by the fact that Rasch as I said before was to go to Smolensk before me, which was made known in Office I and therefore Rasch was certainly mentioned as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B in these Operational Reports.
Q Who was your predecessor in Einsatzgruppe B?
Q Who was Nebe?
A Nebe was the Chief of the Reich Criminal Office. That is, the Chief of the Reich Criminal Police.
Q What were the reasons why Nebe was recalled?
A I don't know. I assume that he had to return in order to continue his very important activity as Chief of the German Criminal Police.
Q What Einsatzkommandos belonged to Einsatzgruppe B? 7b, and the Special Kommando Moscow and the independent, detachments Smolensk and a small detachment which was the advance command post. gruppe B?
Q What was the composition of this staff? assistants, the signal personnel, guard personnel, and the drivers. These together were members of the staff.
Q What was the garrison of Einsatzgruppe B?
Q Where is Smolensk? subordinated to you?
A That varied. The Einsatzkommandos contained about 130 to 150 men. The Special Kommandos were smaller, about 60 to 70. The Special Kommando Moscow contained about 30 men during my time. Einsatzgruppen and the Special Kommandos from your garrison? kommando 9x -- that was about 150 kilometers -- and others were considerably farther. For instance, 7b was in Orel, which was about 450 kilometres away. 7a was in Kalinin, about 500 kilometres away and these distances cannot be measured with our Middle European conditions here, because the road conditions in Russia especially after the battles were very bad and to travel even small distances took a considerable amount of time. As an example I might cite that a trip from Einsatzkommando 9 to Einsatzkommando 7a took me about 1 whole day from early morning to night to travel 300 kilometres.