This report is signed by Seibert with the title, with a designation of deputy. It shows clearly that Seibert was in full charge of Einsatzgruppe D during the absence of his regular commanding officer. page 69 of the German, Document NOK W 628 is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 160.
DR. ASCHENAUER: (Attorney for the Defendant Ohlendorf): Your Honor, I should like to admit this document only according to its probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be so recorded.
MR. WALTON: This document is a 12 page report to army commander 11, which shows the activities of Einsatzgruppe D during the period from 1 February to 16th April, 1942 in which accounts of the executions of communists are given. Five of these executions were by hanging in public for the "purpose of intimidation" to the rest of the civilian population. This point can be found on page 42 of the English document book, and on page 73 of the German. This same report goes on to state that because the village Laki, L-a-k-i, had collaborated with partisan forces, it was evacuated of all those who were not immediately shot and was burned to the ground in reprisal. interest in the executions performed by Einsatzgruppe D is shown by his own affidavit, made on 1 April, 1947. This affidavit is in document Book III-D, on page 34 of the English, page 60 of the German, and is Document NO2859. It has already been introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 158. In paragraph 3 thereof he states "Ohlendorf took a number of inspection trips during the time I served with his group.
He accompanied me -- he was accompanied by me on almost all of these trips, and, if I remember rightly, executions took place on at least two of these trips. I was a witness to these executions but I was not assigned to supervise them. I also made inspection trips alone and reported the facts to Ohlendorf." in his affidaivt of 4th February, 1947, which is in Document Book I, page 17 of the English, page 19 of the German, and is Document NO-2716, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 4. In paragraph 8 of this document Schubert confirms the statements made by Seibert in his affidavit. The statement of Seibert that he never supervised any executions is contradicted by the affidavit of his former chief Ohlendorf, made on 2 April, 1947. In this affidavit, which is in Document Book III-D, page 1, and is Document NO-2856, already offered into evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 148, Ohlendorf states in paragraph 3 thereof "The only people whom I generally assigned to inspections were, except for Schubert, Willy Seibert and Hans Gabel. The latter was Hauptmann of the Protective Police and Commander of the Protective Police Company attached to me. Details, such as whether and to which executions I sent the two last named, I can no longer remember."
Seibert was, of necessity, so close and complete in every detail, and since this defendant knew even the top secret natters in which Einsatzgruppe D was engaged, every document which deomonstrates the implication of Ohlendorf likewise names his executive officer and deputy, additionally, however, even in Ohlendorf's absence, and on his own initiative, he issued the necessary orders for the murder and illtreatment of Russian citizens. The responsibility of these two codefendants is the same, The forgoing documents show this co-responsibility. The documents referred to in the Prosecution's case against Willy Siebert all bear dates within the period when he was a deputy to Ohlendorf and, constitute the Prosecution's case in chief under Count I and II of the indictment. by Count III of the indictment, is shown in Document Book III-D, page 48 of the English, page 81 of the. German, and is Document NO-2858, and is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 161. In this affidavit the defendant Seibert states in paragraph 2 that he was a member of the Nazi Party, the general SS, and in paragraph 1, that he rose to a position of a subchief in the Reich's main office of the Security Service or SD.
DR. GAWLIK: (For the defendant Seibert) Your Honor, as far as the Prosecution his made statements saying that Seibert gave orders, I object to the statement, and I should ask for these statements to be striken from the record, as it does not become evident from either of the documents that the defendant Seibert gave any such orders. I am of the opinion that these statements have nothing to do with the case of the Prosecution.
THE RESIDENT: Upon do you base your statements, Mr. Walton?
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, sir. I want to know what document the Counsel for the Defense is objecting to. At the moment I waa stopped. I was talking about Seibert's affidavit with regard to his life history.
I don't quite the connection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, do you refer to any particular document?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I am not referring to any particular document, but the general statement of the Prosecution which do not become evident from any document. The member of the Prosecution made the statement to the effect that it becomes evident from the document that the defendant Seibert gave orders for the murders, and I object to these statements as they do not become evident from any document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, please always keep in mind that any statement by counsel is of itself not evidence. It must be supported by either a document or by the testimony of a witness in court, so if Mr. Walton made that declaration and it is not supported by any document, it of course can in no way affect Seibert; and you will have ample opportunity to challenge anything which Mr. Walton or any of the Prosecution counsel said.
DR. GAWALIK: I realize that as far as the probative value is concerned, but the general practice is to the effect that the Prosecution also objects to our statements, if during our case, we make any statement and we are always told that we must only submit the actual material evidence and that any statements: are a part of the plea. Therefore, I object new to the statements of the Prosecution, and, therefore, I would like this to be stricken from the record because I am of the opinion that it does not belong to the submission of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT : If Mr. Walt on makes any objections similar to the one which you are making now, I will tell him the some thing which I am now telling you.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you. Your Honor.
MR. WALTON: At the time I had offered into evidence, Document Book III-D, on page 48 of the English, and on page 81 of the German, Document NO-2858, which I offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 161. In this affidavit, the defendant Seibert stated in paragraph 2 that He was a member of the Nazi Party, the General SS, and, in paragraph 1 that, he rose to a position of a sub-chief in the Reich's main office of the Security Service or the SD.
This statement is confirmed in Document Book III-D, on page 50 of the English, page 83 of the German, by Document NO-2969, now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 162. This latter document contains excerpts from the SS Service Record of Willy Seibert, now a defendant in this case. It shows his SS rank on page 50 of the English, page 83 of the German; his membership in the party on page 50 of the English, on page 83 of the German; his membership in the SS on the same pages, and his position in the SD on page 50 of the English, on page 87 of the German. Other and further facts of his life history are also shown.
The case against the defendant Dr. Werner Braune. Dr. Braune is seated No. 13 in the dock, second man on the second row from this end. According to paragraph 1 of his own statement, made on 8th July, 1947, the defendant Werner Braune was from 9th October - sorry- from October 1941 until August or September, 1942, chief of Einsatzkommando 11-B. This statement of Braune's is in Document Book III-D, page 54 and 55 of the English, and page 94 and 95 of the German, and is Document NO-4234, and is now oeffered as Prosecution's Exhibit 163.
DR. RIEDIGER(For the defendant Braune). Your Honor, as far as this document is concerned, Your Honor, I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to a mistake which was evidently made in the copying of the document, of the affidavit of Werner Braune. On page 4 of this affidavit it says that the defendant Wartenburg has sworn to this affidavit; that the defendant Braune has sworn to this affidavit. This statement has been signed by Mr. Wartenberg. Evidently this is incorrect, as becomes evident from the proceeding page, from the bottom of the page. I quote: "As I have made a statement not under oath, but only having given my word of honor, therefore I am prepared to make these statements the Tribunal under oath." I do not assume that Mr. Wartenberg did to this purposefully but I rather assume that this is a mistake; but, at the same time, I should like to have this mistake corrected before the Tribunal; and the statement does not only refer to the contents of the document, but also to the form in which it was submitted.
THE PRESIDENT : Mr. Walton, are you ready to give us any clarification of this?
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, according to my notes, from which I was reading, according to paragraph 1 of his own statement, I did not call this an affidavit. I am sure that it was an oversight on Mr. Wartenburg's part, but the prosecution does not consider this document any more than a statement of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: With that explanation, I presume, everything is cleared up.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes, that is clear, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: In this document, in paragraph 3, he states that during the time that he was chief of Einsatzkommando 11-B a number of Jews were executed and that he can remember exactly an execution which took place in Simferopol a few days before Christmas. He also goes on to state how this execution was carried out, and what was done with the property and the clothing of the victims that were executed. He admits in this same document that gas vans were assigned to him for executions but he denies that they were used by him. His chief, Ohlendorf, in his affidavit, of 2nd April, 1947, which is in Document Book III-D, page 1 of the English, page 3 of the German, and is Document NO-2856, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 148, confirms this statement when he says in paragraph 3 that he, Ohlendorf, personally inspected executions which were carried out by Commando 11-B under the direction of Dr. Werner Braune.
The Operational Situation Report, No. 145, dated 12 December, 1941, which is in Document Book II-D, page 20, and is Document NO-2828, already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 86, it is shown that Einsatzgruppe D was credited with 2,929 executions, 19 of which were communists, and the rest Jews.
These were carried out in the Simferopol area in which at that time Einsatzkommando 11-B was located.
Another Operation Situation Report, which is No. 150, dated 2 January, 1942, in Document Book II-D, page 22 of the English, page 27 of the German, and is Document NO-2834, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 87, shows that at this time Einsatzkommando 11-B had its headquarters at Simferopol with parts of the command in Aluschta, Karasubar and Eupatoria. Under the report from Einsatzgruppe D, the fourth sub-head, on page 28 of the English, page 33 of the German, it is denominated Jews and the following is stated: "Simferopol, Jewpatoria, Aluschta, Karasubasar, Kertsch and Feodosie and other districts of the Western Crimea have been cleaned of Jews. From 16 November, through 15th December, 1941, 17,645 Jews, 2,504 Krimtschaks, 824 gypsies and 212 communits and partisans have been shot.
It goes on further, to quote:
"Rumors about executions in other areas rendered action at Simferopol very difficult. Reports about actions against Jews gradually filter through from fleeing Jews, Russians, and also from unguarded talks of German soldiers." was attached was performing its share of executions in this area, and the fact of executions was known not only to the German soldiers but was generally known to the population of that area. The often-cited document in Document Book I, pages 108/109 of the English, page 141 of the German, which is Document NO-3055, has already been introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 28. This is a Schubert affidavit of 24 February 1947, which shows in paragraph 3 that he witnessed an execution inthe Simferopol area in December 1941, of between seven and eight hundred persons and that Einsatzkommando 11b was in charge of the execution. German, Document NO-3339, was offered as Prosecution Exhibit 93, and is an Operational Situation Report No. 170, and shows that, quote:
"From 9 January to 15 February more than 300 Jews were apprehended in Simferopol and executed. By this, the number of persons executed in Simferopol increased to almost 10,000 Jews, about 300 more than the number of Jews registered. In the other Kommando areas as well, 100 to 200 were still disposed of in each instance." And it can be easily deduced from these reports that Einsatzkommando 11b contributed to these executions. However, the prosecution does not wholly rely upon these documents by which to implicate this defendant. Direct documentary proof, showing Braune's actual participation and command function in carrying out executions is available.
Court2 A Case 9 German --- Document NOKW- 1863, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 164.
This document is an Operational Order signed by Braune for Sonderkommando 11b and dated 12 January 1942. This orders his command to conduct a surprise raid with the aim of seizing unreliable elements such as partisans, saboteurs, possible enemy troops, parachutists in civilian clothes, Jews, leading Communists, etc. Furthermore, it states that the leader of Sonderkommando 11 b, Dr. Braune, will be in charge of the Operation. This Order admittedly does not show its own execution. However, Dr. Braune will soon have ample opportunity to relate the final results of the raid. is in Document Book III-D, page 62 of the English, page 104 of the German, and is Document NOKW-584, is now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 165. This document describes a certain reprisal action which occurred in Eupatoria on 7 January 1942. The Wehrmacht officer was in charge of the operation and to assist him, Einsatzgruppe D headquarters assigned three SS Fuehrers, among them Dr. Braune. courtyard. 1184 men were selected from thisgroup, marched off and shot. This report specifically states that Dr. Braune gave the order for the execution detail to fire. in paragraph 9(F) under Count One of the Indictment, and the documents so introduced all apply to the period when the defendant Braune was in command of Einsatzkommando 11 b. in Count Three of the Indictment, is contained in an already cited document, in Document Book III-D, page 54 of the English, page 94 of the German, and is Document NO-4243, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 163. In paragraph 2 thereof Braune's membership in the Nazi Partyand the General SS is shown.
member of the Security Service of the SD and the Gestapo. These statements are confirmed in Document Book III-D, page 64 of the English, page 106 of the German, in Document NO-3249, which is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 166. This document shows excerpts from the SS Service Record of Dr. Werner Braune. It shows his SS rank, his membership in the SD and the GEstapo, his Party and SS serial numbers, and other pertinent facts of his life history. in Document NO-4146, now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 167, in paragraph 1 of this document, Nosske states that he was in command of Einsatzkommando 12 from June 1941 to March 1942. In this same affidavit, in paragraph 4, he states that he was assigned to duty in Berlin for the purpose of a taking over the staff command of Security Police and SD. However, because of the killing of Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police and SD, the formation of this organization never occurred as planned. He does, however, state that as a senior officer present, he took charge of the weekly meetings of the Referents of the RSHA, in which matters concerning the occupied Eastern territories were discussed and appropriate action taken. So far as it is known, he was in B erlin until shortly before the collapse of the Third Reich. German, Document NO-2841, has already been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 94. In this document there is an excerpt from Operational Situation Report No. 61, dated 23 August 1941, which shows the activities of Einsatzkommando 12 during the month of August 1941. It states that in the Babtschinzy area, resistance was partially shown to an orderly havesting of the crops. This resistance was said to be instigated by Jews. As a counter measure or reprisal, 94 Jews were executed.
German, Document NOKW-634, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 168. This is a report from the defendant Seibert, as the executive officer of Einsatzgruppe D to the AOK 11, dated 9 October 1941. In this report it is shown that 11 parachutists were "rendered harmless" by Einsatzkommmando 12. German, Document NO-3147 has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit 96. This is an excerpt from the Operational Situation Report No. 95, and is dated 26 September 1941.
satzkommando 12 was located at this time, several Soviet party officials and eight NKWD officials were rendered harmless: This report also shows that in less than a month the total number of executions for the group was 8890 Jews and communists, and that all told the group had at the date of reporting liquidated 13,315 persons. It seems reasonable to think that Einsatzkommando 12 contributed its share to these totals. Document NO-2837 which was offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 56; this document is an excerpt from an operational situation report number 67, dated 29 August 1941, and shows that approximately 27,500 Jews had been driven back into the Rumanian area, that 1265, mostly young Jews, were shot by units of Einsatzgruppe D. is in Document Book III-D, page 76 of the English, page 121 of the German, and is document NO-4149, we now offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 169. Ruehl confirms in part the facts in the operational situation report No. 67 just offered.
DR. LINCK: (Dr. Linch for the defendant Ruehl.) - The objections to this document and its submission are on the same line as were raised yesterday for Document NO-4314, Exhibit 29, by my colleague Dr. Bergold for the defendant Biberstein. We refer to the history of the affidavit as a part of a longer statement; as it has been mentioned yesterday, I may come back to this to take care of my case but I should like to make the following two statements. as it says in the English as well as in the German document book, but on the 26th of June, which a look into the original will prove. I do not emphasize this because I want to be righteous but because I want to state that it might be of importance during the taking up of my case.
The second thing is the following. There is a translation mistake which is not without significance; in the english document book page 77 in the middle of the page, on page 123 of the German document book IIIb, it becomes evident from this that the statement of the defendant Ruehl in the reports to Ohlendorf where he asks for a decision has been translated by "we decided" -- "Wir entschlossen." from that that Ruehl had any power of decision.
THE PRESIDENT: What should the word be instead of "we"?
DR. LINCK: "It was decided" that means Ohlendorf, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may recall that to the Tribunal's attention when you take up your client's case.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Court, the Prosecution desires that the official translator render an official translation of the contested part of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean now?
MR. WALTON: No, sir. When it becomes necessary for the Court to consider it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. That right will be reserved to the Prosecution.
MR. WALTON: Ruehl in paragraph 3 of his affidavit relates that he delivered a large transport of Jews to the area occupied by Einsatzkommando 12. In his affidavit which is in Document Book III-D, page 69 of the English, page 114 of the German, and is Document NO-4146, has already been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 167, this defendant relates what assignment he received when he reached Berlin. Thus, the defendant Gustav Nosske is shown to be personally implicated in the crimes through active command of Einsatzkommando 12. His criminal liability for the crime charged in paragraph 9-G under count 1 of the in dictment is shown.
Einsatzgruppen in Berlin as shown by the documents dealing with these activities while on duty at the RSHA there. As in the other cases, documents introduced by the Prosecution against this defendant, all refer to the period in which he was commander of Einsatzkommando 12, or as chief of the Kommando staff of the RSHA in Berlin. minal as charged in count 3 of the indictment is shown in Document Book III-D, page 69 of the English, page 114 of the German, Document NO-4146already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 167. These statements are confirmed in Document Book III-D, page 80 of the English, page 126 of the German by Document NO-3505 which is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 170. Nosske. It shows his SS rank, his membership in the SD, and the Gestapo, his party and SS serial numbers and other pertinent facts of life history.
The case against the defendant Felix Ruehl. In Document Book III-D page 76 of the English, page 121 of the German, Document NO-4149, has already been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 169. This is the affidavit by the defendant Ruehl. In paragraph 1 of this document, Ruehl states that from May until October, 1941, he was assigned to Sonderkommando 10-B in Russia. In paragraph 4 of this document, he states and I quote:
"Immediately after the arrival of Sonderkommando 10-B at Czernowitz, approximately 50 inhabitants were delivered to the Kommando with the order to shoot them, as they were said to have participated in a surprise attack against Rumanian troops, when these arrived at Czernowitz."
"Sturmbannfuehrer Alois Prestera refused at first to carry out the executions but in the end he gave into the wishes of the Rumanians and had 12 or 15 of these people shot by the Kommando.
Additional 20 or 30 persons were then shot by the Rumanians, later. The executed people were Jews for the most part. I did not attend these shootings but got my official notice thereof in the time of my service."
In this connection and in confirmation that the defendant's statement is credible, the Prosecution cites Document Book II-D, page 45 of the English, page 48 of the German, Document NOKW-587 already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 92. This document, dated 9 July 1941, is a report of the commanding officer -- sorry, report to the commanding officer of Army group South and shows that on 6 July 1941, this Kommando 10-B reached the city of Czernozitz. However, the defendant's contention that only a few Jews were shot is not borne out by this report.
This report minces no words when it says "Immediately after arrival we contacted the competent commander, Military Police Major Luzansky, as well as the other Rumanian posts which were present here, and started a search of the town for politically suspected elements. On the 7th of this month, the arresting of the communists and Jews on the basis of the search lists that were already made out and of the newly made up lists. On the 8th instant a major raid was carried through, in the course of which the Jewish leadership could be caught almost completely. The following day about a hundred Jewish communists were shot by the Kommand, together with the execution of Jews by the Rumanian Army and police force, a total of over 500 Jews have been shot in the course of 8 and 9 July. One kommand was sent to Hole for a search. A report has not yet been received."
Five days later, by operational situation report No. 22, dated 14 July 1941, this Kommando was able to report on events that took place in the town of Katyn or Hodyn.
cution's Exhibit 91. Kommando 10-B reported that in this town all intellectual Jews were arrested and treated accordingly.
May it please the Tribunal the words "arrested and treated accordingly" do not appear on the English translation. That will be on page 43. However, a check of the German copies shows that that phrase appears in German in their books.
It should be where his word "and" is, and next to the last sentence -- the third sentence from the bottom, and the word "and" should come out, and the period be substituted, and in the previous sentence "Arrested and treated accordingly" should be added, to that previous sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: You are sure that those words do appear in the German text?
MR WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, I have had three German speaking persons checking on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in that event I think we can take the liberty of adding those words. to the English text.
MR WALTON: To the English, yes, sir. After all details were in, and more evidence was avilable, operational situation report No. 40, dated 1 August 1947, which is in Document Book II-D, page 37 of the English, page 40 of the German, and is Document NO-2950, already has been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 91. This shows the activities of Einsatzgruppe D to B --- correction, may it please the Tribunal, it should be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 90, Document NO-2950. And I quote: "In cooperation with the Rumania Police there have been shot dead in Czernowitz 682 of the approximately 1200 arrested Jews." And in the further paragraph it says and I quote: "In the area of Czernowitz, Hotin has been passed, whereby 150 Jews and Communists have been liquidated." The defendant Ruehl, SS-Hauptssturmfuehfer, or captain, shows was in a position of staff responsibility, even second in command of Einsatzkommando 10-B, in accordance with his own statement compared with his commanding officer as representative of Sonderkommando of Einsatzkommando 10-B. the German, Document NO-4149, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 169, he gives an account of his conferences with his commanding officer, and the action which he took following the conference with his Chief, Ohlendorf.
Two things can be noted, his position, at least in this incident entitled him to command function so that he could confer with the general, and give orders to Obersturmbannfuehrer Lippert, a man who held a higher rank. Second, that this incident here related by the defendant took place in the Mogilew-Podolsk area. situation report No. 45, dated 7 August 1941, which is in Document Book II-D, on page 33 of the English, and page 27 of the German, and is Document NO-2948, already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 89. This document shows that Sonderkommando 10-D was then stationed in the Mogilew-Podolsk area, and prevented the mass departure of Jews into territory under the domination of Germans.
The next operational situation report No. 64, dated 26 August 1941 which is in Document Book III-D, page 24 of the English, and page 46 of the German, and is Document NO-2840, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 154, shows that Mogilew-Podolsk area, Godasr area, approximately six-thousand Jews who had been deported from Rumania, were interned and forced to work. This report further shows that plans were already made to concentrate the Jews in Mogilew in a separate part of town. In this proof which shows that the defendant Ruehl had command functions in Sonderkommando 10-B, during the time the offenses occurred, as shown by the documents I cited here, and, upon these facts the Prosecution charges him with criminal responsibility; only Rosterer had outranked him in this sub-unit of Einsatzgruppe-D. The membership of this defendant in criminal organizations as charged in Count 3 of the Indictment, is shown by paragraph one and two, of Ruehl's affidavit, which is above cited document, and is found in Document Book III-D, page 76 of the English, being Document NO-4149, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 169. This information is confirmed in Document Book III-D, page 90 of the English, and page 136 of the German, and is Document NO-4808, now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 171.
That latter document shows excerpts - -
DR ASCHENAUER: Mr. President. I beg your pardon, Your Honor, if at this time I interrupt you in asking would it be possible for the Prosecution to come to its end as quickly as possible, considering the shortness of our preparation and lack of time for our submitting our case, it is absolutely necessary that at six o'clock we should speak with the defendants, which is hardly possible if the proceedings are not finished before six o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: It was only to allow you additional time to prepare your case that we thought that if we were to terminate the prosecution today, because if they finish today, then you have all of tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday and Saturday for preparations, whereas, if we must come back tomorrow, naturally, you lose just that much time for your preparation. I don't think Mr Walton has very much more.
MR WALTON: Three pages.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will finish very quickly.
MR WALTON: Only the case against the defendant Schubert, Your Honors, and then I will finish.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR WALTON: I was quoting from Document NO-4804, which is found on page 90 of the English book, and page 136 of the German book, and is Prosecution's Exhibit No. 171, which are excerpts from the service record of Felix Ruehl, which gives his rank in the SS, his membership in the Gestapo, his Party and SS serial numbers, and other pertinent information about his life history. Case against the defendant Heinz Schubert. The defendant Heinz Schubert was assigned for duty in Einsatzgruppe-D in October 1941; his co-defendant Otto Ohlendorf as his commanding officer made Schubert his adjutant and this defendant served in this capacity during the entire time Ohlendorf remained in command, until June 1942. Schubert left for Berlin when Ohlendorf relinquished command of Einsatzgruppe-D. It is shown by paragraph 2 of Schubert's affidavit, dated 24 February 1947, which is Document NO-3055, in Document Book I, page 108 of the English, page 141 of the German, and is already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 28.
I might also point out there, if it please the Tribunal, that there is a typographical error in the German which states that Schubert was on duty with Einsatzgruppe-D until June 1944. It whould be 1942. Authority for same is as stated previously.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR WALTON: The duties of the adjutant of the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe-D are described several documents. In Document Book III-D, page 34, Document NO-2859, which has been introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 158 in paragraph 2 of this document, which is an affidavit by Willy Seibert, it shows that the defendant Schubert composed certain reports of Einsatzgruppe-D from time to time. His duties as adjutant, are however, clearly outlined in Paragraph two in the affidavit of Ohlendorf, made on 2 April 1947, which is in Document Book III-D, page 1, Document NO-2856, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 148. There is no point in detailing his duties.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR WALTON: That can be skipped. Occasionally, however, the adjutant of Einsatzgruppe-D was assigned to more important duties. In paragraph three of the same document just cited Ohlendorf states that he sent Schubert as his representative to inspect executions. The inspections of an execution is admitted by the defendant Schubert's own affidavit of 24 February 1947, which has been often cited before.