Q The concluding question concerning the Russian set of questions: How was your power of decision? What was your power of decisions concerning execution orders?
A I do not think I have to repeat this. As to the orders for execution, even if applying the harshest standard, I had no possibility whatever to overlook them.
DR. ASCHENAUER (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT OHLENDORF): This ends the questions dealing with Russia. Perhaps this would be a good moment for a recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I now come to the final questions. Membership in the SS and the SD. BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q: Witness, we heard yesterday that in 1926 for a few months, lists were made of the members of the SS. What was the position after 1926 until 1935?
A: From the time 1926 to 1936 I had n immediate contact nor any immediate connection with the SS. I was not a member of the SS, either.
Q: By joining the SD, did you become a member of the General SS -- the Allgemeine-SS?
A: No, I did not become a member of the Allgemeine-SS. That concerns everybody who joined the SS through the SD as an organization. For all persons wearing the uniform of the SS within the reach of Heydrich and Daluege, the Chief of Regular Police, were appointed for that very purpose in order to avoid that these members of the SS should become members of the General SS. They did not want the officials to be subordinated to the General SS as well and they did not want them to be subordinate to other chiefs in the SS. They way none of those who joined the SD became a member of the Allgemeine SS.
Q: Witness, you said yesterday that Himmler tried to form a State Security Corps. What was the development of this?
A: This idea of the Stats Security Corps remained nothing but a plan. Nothing has been achieved that way, which made this idea at all a reality. The State Police agencies and the SD agencies in the Central Offices, as well as in the Regional Offices for the Reich, remained independent of each other and they remained independent agencies.
This presumption that the so-called Inspector of the Security Police and the SD established this connection, is incorrect because he had no actual orders, but in general he was to deal with the personnel questions of the SS members. He had further tasks which were not within the field of activity of the Sparten. Heydrich had formed commands of the Security Police and the SD in Holland he had made an attempt - and my men, together with the men of theState Police, were organized into one organization. This individual incident was rectified by me after Heydrich's death, when I returned from Russia. This one example in Holland was a step which could be described as one step towards the State Security Corps. The solution of this unit in Holland was the last attempt of that kind, but the agencies of the Security Police and the SD remained independent with their various tasks which had nothing to do with each other.
Q: What did you consider the political situation of the SD to be; in how far was the SD Inland in opposition to the Nazi regime?
A: The way things stood in the Reich there were three possible courses one could take if one did not agree with the development after the seizure of power: emigration abroad, emigration within the Reich, and positive opposition. The first two ways of opposition meant nothing but a catastrophe. They wanted to bring about a collapse by force. The positive opposition held an evolutionary attitude towards history, because in every revolution values are lost which can never be replaced and history must be considered as a continuous course of events where brisk interruptions and the attempt to miss something out -- whether forward or backward it does not matter -- on the whole causes more damage than it does good.
The men who after 1935 built this SD and extended it, saw the faults of the Nazi development in the same manner as those who emigrated abroad or within the Reich, but they stood in the middle of the political development, remained independent, and had to remain hidden for many years; they assembled exports who were able to overlook the situation; they obtained knowledge in order to understand the situation thoroughly and now tried, with the damages they could show, to bring about the evolution against the misuse of National Socialism by National Socialists. They wanted to bring about the evolution in order to counteract the damage done. The possibility was given to us through Himmler's generous attitude on one occasion. It was known generally, that when joining the SS, he did not attach any importance to the fact whether the persons were members of the Party or not.
with the strange coincidence that about 80 per cent of these experts were not members of the Party, But, these people were in a position owing to the moral strength which they held throughout the years to attract the largest part of the German intelligentsia in as far as they proved active in their professions and beyond this they attracted masses of the population and these people, who agreed with us in the one aim to develop history in a positive manner and who wanted to help to stop the mistaken developments which occurred; those were the actual workers for our end. Those were the members throughout the entire Reich with whom we carried out this positive opposition against Naziism.
Q Witness, whom did you fight in particular through the SD?
Q Why these three in particular? value of the human being. Ley, because he interfered with the independent development of the social ideas and the private sphere of the human being and tried to do away with it; Goebbels, because he denied the independent mental development, the development of consciousness, and in that way, the inner freedom of the human being, and in questioning all absolute values he took these values from the modern Existentialism and embodied and expressed Nihilism. Bormann, because he eliminated the natural tension between the individual and the community to the disadvantage of the individual by trying to subordinate these individuals to certain masters within the Party. These three together attacked the value of the human being, the result of modern times.
Q How did SD Inland fight this power? opposed these tendencies and secondly, he denied in his reports the measures of these persons, in as far as they expressed their inner views in their measures. That way, in a great number of cases, the realization of these tendencies in their development, as I have noted, was hindered or eliminated altogether.
opposition as you described it to us? and did not want any executive power and were prepared to show their power only by making reports, whose form and contents were unobjectionable.
Q What aim did the SD have?
A The aim of the SD was: our entire reporting activity was measured in the same way all the time, what is the effects of certain activities upon the individual and how do individuals react to these activities and we tried to help to develop a way of living in which people could develop themselves as we saw them, namely, people who, in their aim to gain consciousness and inner freedom found a way of living and results in all spheres of life and who were suitable to support these human developments.
Q You used the words "inner freedom". What do you understand by the word "freedom."
A By "freedom" I mean the voluntary ties of the individual, the motives of his will and actions, the obvious will of God, in nature and history. existed and still exists, in particular the SD was considered a great power which was omniscient in a way. Will you please state your opinion on this. activity had to be camoflaged. My department was not called Economic Department but ST-4; it was supposed to mean Staff Department No. 4. In 1937 I was not in a position to make any report at all without gitting permission of Herr Kranefuss first who was the economic expert in the personal staff of the Reichfuehrer SS. In 1938 we made the first great report, the contents of it dealt with sabotage of the Railway Adminis tration and further extension of the G erman Communication network.
This report was read by Heydrich and put in the files, that is, it disappeared in the safe because this mighty SD was not in a position to inform even a third person that they were dealing with such questions. In 1939, after the war had started, we had the courage to reveal obvious damages in the beginning of the war by making reports on them and here chance assisted us because Goering saw these reports and took them and used them in the sessions of the Reich defense counsel meeting and used them as questions to the resort representatives. He now desired to be informed on that way without knowledge of the connection for the first and only time in the history of the SD he permitted that these reports were given out. In 1940 he confirmed them again, when a number of local leaders, Gauleiters, objected strongly to these reports. But this leagalizing did not last either and in spite of the importance of these reports the SD was only an illegitimate child which one did not like to see and wanted to hide as quickly as possible. As the development in 1942 and 1943 shows that we were allowed to make official reports to the outside world no longer, Goebbels prohibited it. The power we had until the end was the result of the personal influence of my individual experts using their knowledge in the fact of experts in the Resors who were interested in this knowledge, an actual power the SD never constituted. My personal relations I need not repeat in this connection. I explained it in detail yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any defense counsel who would like to question the witness? If so, and whatever order they desire, they will proceed with such questioning. BY DR. GAWLIK (counsel for Seibert): Q Witness, how long have you known Herr Seibert? A Since May 1936. Q In what manner did you meet Herr Seibert? A He was in the economic section of the SD which I joined at that time.
He was an expert there on questions of commerce and trade. Q Who was Gruppenleiter, Group Leader, of the Economic Group? A I was the group chief of the Group Economics. Q In how far was Herr Seibert your deputy? A In June 1938 Seibert became my deputy, when I left the SD as per orders from the main office.
He was my deputy until about 1944 Q For what tasks was Herr Seibert responsible? A Merely for within the economic sphere. Q Was Herr Seibert your deputy also in your capacity as Office Chief A There was no general deputy for office chief III but the four group Q Would you please inform the Tribunal which these four groups were. A III-A Law and Administration, Party and State; III-B Ethnic groups theatre and radio; III-D Economics starting with Agriculture, Trade, Q What was Seibert's last task before Russia was attacked?
A At the time he was my deputy in the economic group in the SD. Q When was Herr Seibert ordered to join Einsatz Gruppe D? A He was ordered to join the Einsatz Gruppe D when it was set up. Q I believe the word "ordered" should be translated as "drafted". He was drafted to join the SD and not ordered to join the SD.
When was Herr Seibert drafted to the Einsatz Gruppe D? A When the Einsatz Gruppe was formed.
Q Can you tell me the date? A June 1941. Q Did Herr Seibert volunteer to work for Einsatz Gruppe D? A No, at that time Seibert was in the Army and without his knowledge Q What tasks within Einsatz Gruppe D was Herr Seibert supposed to deal with?
A He was intended for the reporting section. Q And what was his title? A Leiter III, or Chief III. Q Will you please describe in detail the tasks of Leiter III within A He had the task to work on the news reports on the same subjects it.
For example, asfact which I have seen myself, to look into the NKWD had to be determined and similar things.
Apart from that he had to deal with all military tasks under me.
He continued in his connection with the Army; he inspected the Tartar companies villages; as protection against the partisans, he saw that they got Q Witness, in your reply you mentioned the word "Lebensbereiche", life's sphere.
A I hope you understand me because we talked about it all day yesterday.
Q Who determined the drafting of Herr Seibert to Einsatz Gruppe D and his tasks?
A At the suggestion of office I, the Chief of the Security Police and Q And who determined the tasks of Herr Seibert within the Einsatz Gruppe D? A I fixed the tasks of Seibert but he was assigned to the official Q Could you determine his position?
A No. that was fixed from Berlin. Q Could you change the position of Herr Seibert as Chief of Department III?
A In the long run, no. Q What was the reason that Seibert was drafted as Chief of Office III? A The reason was the previous knowledge he had gained on SD work, on economic group.
Apart from that, as I had meetings of all group other branches.
He was the most suitable one of my group leaders to Q In your staff was there an expert on executive questions? A When the Einsatz Gruppe was formed such an expert had been given to me.
After a considerable short time I asked for him to be relieved because he was not fully employed by me.
The Einsatz Gruppe itself had no executive tasks.
For that reason we did not heed to have an Q What title did this expert on executive questions have? A He was Chief of Office IV.
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?