AI did not quite understand the question.
QAll right. I will go back to our same example. Heydrich has ordered that the entire area at present occupied by the units of Einsatz gruppe D shall be freed or cleaned of Jews.
General Ohlendorf and Seibert are both away from headquarters.
We will state even this order comes in over the radio marked "Urgent". Would you sit down and inform Berlin that no one was in staff headquarters but you, or would you, as you say, go to the 11th Army, and if I understood your answer correctly, you would appeal to the commanding general of the 11th Army, but the commanding general of the 11th Army sends you word through his adjutant or his officer that this is a police or Security Police matter which he cannot concern himself with.
I am asking you, would you then dis seminate by the quickest possible means this order to the various kom mandos, the various commanders of the Einsatz and Sonderkommandos?
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, I object against this question which in a hypothetical question, and it is such a hypothetical question which in practice could not have been practiced at all.
The hypothetical questions which have come up, up to now, I have not objected to because I could at least imagine that such a case might arise, but this case is quite impossible, because the order which is supposed to have been handed on in practice is the Fuehrer Order itself with instructions to an entirely from one day to another.
This is so entirely impossible, and entirely impossible supposition, that I consider this hypothetical question as impossible and not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Dr. Koessl, you are indicating that it is im possible, but you weren't with the Einsatzgruppe D. You are arguing factually.
You are not arguing legally or logically now. It is up to the witness whether such a situation is impossible.
How do you know whether it is impossible or not?
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, the order is the same as the Fuehrer Order which was to be sent on, according to the assumption of the Prosecutor, and it took several years to carry out the Fuehrer Order and even then it had not been carried out completely.
I, therefore, think it is quite logical.
THE PRESIDENT:But, Dr. Koessl, the witness stated that in any given situation with his chief absent that he would contact the commanding general of the 11th Army.
Now, the witness has stated that. Mr. Walton went one step further and said, which is not impossible, "Suppose the commanding general indicated that he was disconcerned about this matter, it did not fall within the purview of his activities."
What is impossible about that?
If the commanding general says, "This is not my field; this is a Security Police measure," what is impossible about that?
DR. KOESSL:The order based on this hypothetical question is the Fuehrer Order itself, namely, all Jews are to be executed immediately, that is, they are to be executed in that territory.
It only differs from the Fuehrer Order by the word " immediately" and the word " immediately" makes the Fuehrer Order logically impossible.
In practice, therefore, the entire question, the entire hypothetical question is an unimaginable case.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, it is not unimaginable. You say that the only change is that the word "immediately" is added.
Well, that is a very important change.
A program may be outlined for a period of time, and then there can be a supplemental order that that program should be accelerated or should be achieved at once, and furthermore, Dr. Koessl, the important thing here is that the witness himself has volunteered that he would sub mit such a situation to the commanding general so that now we want to know what would happen in the event the commanding general said, "This is not my problem; it is the Einsatzgruppe's problem."
So, let us hear the witness, what he will say.
DR. KOESSL:Yes.
THE WITNESS:May I answer to this now, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
AIf in this assumed situation the commander in chief of the Army would have said that he was not competent to deal with this, but I can not imaging this because he was responsible for that territory, but if he had done this, this entire matter would have been handed back to Berlin by me.
I could not have decided at all.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Suppose when you handed it back to Berlin you got the order, addressed to you, to pass on to the commanders of the various subunits of Einsatzgruppe D, would you have done so?
AIf I had received orders from Berlin to hand on this order?
QYes, would you have done so?
AThen this communication would automatically have gone to the kom mando chiefs and I would not have had to forward it.
It would have been addressed to these kommandos immediately.
Q.Now you have an order. There is no point in them sending another order to the various kommandos when your radio station was closer to the kommandos than Berlin.
So an officer on the staff of Heydrich radios you personally, "Pass the order on to the five kommandos, of the subunits."
Would you do so?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, here again I would like to point out that it was technically impossible to do so in such a case.
In such a case one radio massage would have been sent to everybody.
That is, all the persons who are to receive this massage were there at the same time because they are being addressed at the same time over the radio.
In this case every kommando chief receives this order himself for his own territory.
It is unthinkable for me that a situation should arise where I Should have been asked even to hand on such an order.
Q.You haven't answered my question yet. I am not talking about the feet that it never happened.
I ask you the simple question if an officer on Heydrich's staff, in view of the fact that General Ohlendorf and Seibert were away, radioed you to pass on Heydrich's order to the commanders of the subunits of Einsatzgruppe D, would you have done so?
Now, you can answer that yes or no. You have given your explanation.
A.Mr. Prosecutor, If all other possibilities which I have mentioned would not have been given, and I would only have had to decide to carry out this order or not, then, of course, I would have had to carry it out, and I would have carried it out.
Q.Thank you very much. Now, when General Ohlendorf was every on official business or leave and Seibert was in the headquarters and orders came from Berlin or from the Army which affected a whole group, and that came to your desk and you opened it and saw what it was, to whom would you give it?
A.You now talk about the order, if I had received that, the order we just discussed?
Q.Not particularly any order. Suppose that you get an order from Heydrich which says that all men of Einsatzgruppe D, officers and men, will be paid henceforward on the 28th of the month.
General Ohlendorf is away from his headquarters.
This is a matter which affects the whole Einsatzgruppe from the general on down.
Nobody is in headquarters staff but you and Seibert, and, of course, enlisted men.
To whom would you give this information?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, in that case I would have made a difference, or decided this order had to be handed on immediately, that is, provided that it had to be handed on immediately.
Then Ulrich, the administrative chief, would have received it but the clerk would have done this who received the incoming mail, handed it out and gave information to those who required it.
I would not have been needed for this.
Q.Suppose this request came from Berlin to the effect that the Einsatzgruppe D should report on the number of people killed for the last ten days of the month, they have lost the report in Berlin.
To whom would you have handed this matter?
A.May I repeat the question in order to make sure that I understood it correctly?
Berlin gives me an order to inform them how many persons had been killed during the last ten days in the territory of the Einsatzgruppe, is that right?
Q.That is right. Now, you are in your office and you open the mail and that request is in front of you.
I want to know to whom you would give that letter for action on that request?
A.I would not have been able to hand it on to anyone because it was addressed to the Einsatzgruppe.
Probably I would have submitted it to the chief after he returned.
Q.You mean to say that if that order had come down the last of March or during the month of April and General Ohlandorf was to be away for six weeks you would take no action on a matter of that kind until he returns?
A.Of course I would have done something. If Herr Ohlendorf had been on an official trip, then this incoming mail would have been handed on to the next one who at that time, at the start of the Einsatzgruppe, deputized for Herr Ohlendorf, in this case Herr Seibert.
Q.That is what I want to know. Now, did General Ohlendorf ever issue any written orders to any of the kommandos?
A.I cannot remember any definite order but already yesterday I said that I know the order, that Herr Ohlendorf gave instructions about the manner of carrying out executions.
Surely there were other instructions, only I don't know whether I could call them orders.
Q.All right. Did he ever issue any written instructions or orders to a particular kommando leader?
A.I cannot say that any more now, Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot remember any one case.
Q.Well, it is possible, isn't it?
A.I cannot exclude that possibility.
Q.Now, you had the responsibility to see that these orders were dispatched to the person they would be addressed to out at the group staff headquarters?
A.For the fact that they were sent off or that they had been written, technically I think I can assume responsibility with a calm conscience because that was my work.
That was the task of the office as I had been given it.
Q.Would you keep a copy in the file of this order?
A.Of course.
Q.Now, if the general was away and Seibert was in the head quarters, can you remember whether or not he ever issued any written orders, or instructions to a kommando leader?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, If Herr Ohlendorf was absent and Herr Seibert was present with the staff of the Einsatzgruppe then nothing changed in the usual habits while Seibert continued to do that work he always did.
Q.Then he had -
A.And in that capacity he also conducted correspondence with the various kommandos.
Q.Can you recall any subjects which he treated in his orders during the time when General Ohlendorf was absent?
A.I cannot remember any definite case, Mr. prosecutor, but I know the reports which were made out by Herr Seibert.
Q.I am not talking about the reports now. I am talking about communications with the kommandos.
I am not talking about his reports either to the Army or to Berlin.
I am talking about his separate communi cations with the komnmando fuehrers.
Do you recall any subjects which he treated in his instructions or orders to the kommando leaders?
A.Here I cannot remember any definite case at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor.
I really don't know what I could tell you here.
Q.You have answered the question I asked you. Do you remember if Seibert in this instance over gave orders for a kommando to change its location or its base of operations?
A.I do not remember any such order nor do I remember that during the time concerned kommandos changed their base of operations.
In any case at the moment I cannot think of that.
Q.Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by this acting commander which concerned the Jewish question at all?
A.May I ask to have the question again, please? I did not quite understand it.
Q.Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by Herr Seibert which concerned the Jewish question?
A.Such orders I do not know of.
Q.Did any kommando leader over call at group headquarters when the general was away and Seibert was there?
A.That certainly occurred, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q.With whom did they discuss official business?
A.The kommando chief? With whom?
Q.General Ohlendorf is away and Seibert is there. I asked you with whom did they discuss official business.
A.Mr. Prosecutor, I still don't quite know what you are aiming at.
I think you are trying to ask with whom the kommando chief discussed the matters when Herr Ohlendorf was not there.
Q.That is right.
A.These kommando chiefs in such case discussed the affairs with Herr Seibert because he was the senior officer for the staff.
Q.When both the General and Seibert was present in staff headquarters, could the kommando leader or the representative he sent there request to see the general?
A.The kommando chief, of course, could ask me to report him to the chief of the Einsatzgruppe.
Q.Who made the decision that the matter upon which he came was important enough to be discussed with the general?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know any case where there might have been cause that a visitor who wanted to see Herr Ohlendorf should not be led to him.
He certainly came to him and then discussed his affairs with him.
Q.If such a matter did not need the general's decision, if he didn't particularly want to see the general, he wanted to see anybody who could give him his answer, did he discuss this matter with you as the adjutant?
A.If it was part of my task he could have talked to me. For example, if he wanted to have a term, he discussed it with me and no other officers had to discuss it with him because this was my job, but any other subjects he certainly could not have discussed with me because I was not authorized to do this.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, just a moment, please. We didn't quite get that word, Miss Juelich, if he wanted to have a "term". I don't understand a "term".
DR. HOFFMANN:That means the English word -- it is the German word "termin"
INTERPRETER JUELICH:I am told it is "appointment, " not "term."
I said "term." I meant to say "appointment".
DR. HOFFMANN:It is the German "termin" "appointment".
MR. WALTON:An "appointment", Sir, an "appointment" with General Ohlendorf at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT:I see. Thank you.
(By Mr. Walton) I have been informed that one duty of an adjutant, certainly those adjutants which sit in the anti-room of the RSHA officials in Berlin -- one of their main tasks were to keep away from a busy superior un wanted or frivolous visitors.
Now, you were such an adjutant in Berlin for General Ohlendorf for about two years, until, at least, you married the second time.
Wouldn't some of your duties, at least in Berlin include the fact that you inquired the visitors business before you informed your chief?
A.Of course, Mr. Prosecutor. The person who asked for such an appointment I asked why he wanted to talk to Herr Ohlendorf and what business he wanted to discuss with him.
I had to tell Herr Ohlendorf this.
Q.Now, did you perform the same service for General Ohlendorf when you were sitting outside his office in the Einsatzgruppe staff?
A.You mean in my former work?
Q.I thought your previous answer referred to the time when you sat in his anti-room in Berlin.
Now my next question, did you inquire when a visitor came to Group Staff Headquarters to see General Ohlendorf, did you inquire when he wanted to see him and what the nature of his business was so you could inform General Ohlendorf that there was a man outside who wanted to see him about such and such a subject?
A.Of course, Mr. Prosecutor, I did that.
Q.Now, after you talked to this man, and you found out that even though he originally requested to see the General you knew that General Ohlendorf was rather a busy man that this matter did not need the General's decision, to whom would this visitor be referred by you?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, in no case could I have decided, or overlooked whether the visit was so important or so unimportant that I could have stopped the visitor from seeing H err Ohlendorf. I think I never had that right and I think I never used any such authority.
Q.Well, let's take one other example. Here is a man that arrives hot foot with what he considers a very important matter concerning the morale of the Russian population. Now you a re sitting there and he says I want to tell this to someone who can handle it. I think I can improve the morale of the opoulation. You know that, according, at least, to Seibert's testimony here, he took care of those matters as Chief of Department III. You know that General Ohlendorf is extremely busy, Wouldn't you have the right to say, "Look, maybe that's not a matter which you need to worry the General with. Seibert's taking care of this in these headquarters. Suppose I make an appointment with him for you?' Could you have told him that?
A.No, Mr. Prosecutor. I would have done something else.
DR.GAWLIK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS NAUMAN AND SEIBERT): Your Honor, I object, Your Honor, I object to this question. I consider this question irrelevant, because I think the subject of this trial is not to get reports on morale. Making reports on morale among the opoulation, I cannot consider that a punishable act and therefore it does not matter what would have been done in such a case.
THE PRESIDENT:Did you hear the witness* reply? Did you hear the witness' reply?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes, I heard it.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, did it hurt your case any?
DR. GAWLIK:I only heard the first few words, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:That's because you were doing a very rapid race.
DR. GAWLIK:What I wanted to say was I believe that in that manner that contact is to be made with the prosecution with the subject of Jewish executions. If the prosecutor refers the question to the subject which is the subject of this trial, then I have no objections, but I do not see why investigations about the morale of the Russian population has anything to do with this at all.
That is why it is irrelevant to whom the visitors would have been sent in such a case.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, haven't many of the defendants testified that they were concerned about submitting reports of the morale of the population?
Haven't several of the defendants and hasn't your own defendant testified to that -- your own client?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:All right, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Dr. Gawlik, if you reflect on just what happened here, won't you conclude that Mr. Walton was really helping you in this particular case, not that I think he wants to help you generally?
Wasn't he sort of confirming what you have been insisting right along, that your client was interested only in drawing up reports of the morale in the population?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Mr. Walton in this instance was really helping you, wasn't he?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes, that's why I consider this question irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:That's right. You should consider it very good.
DR. GAWLIK:That is not the point, Your Honor, in the trial it depends on whether the question refers to something important or something irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Do you regard the obtaining of information on the morale of the population of a certain area in which a certain Einsatzkommando is operating important?
Do you regard that important?
DR. GAWLIK:For the work of the Einsatzgruppe, yes, but from a legal point of view no, because this is not a criminal act.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you want to exclude then everything that your client said about that?
DR. GAWLIK:No, not at all, Your Honor, not at all.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, then, that is one of your defenses, isn't it?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, and Mr. Walton was talking about that very thing, about the getting of reports on the morale of the population.
DR. GAWLIK:That is just why this is irrelevant. It has already been clarified.
I do not see the purpose of the question.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you object to its being corroborated and helping your client a little bit?
DR. GAWLIK:In this case during the questioning of this witness, it is irrelevant.
I consider this question in this particular case concerning this witness irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:Was it irrelevant when your client spoke about it?
DR. GAWLIK:Not in this case, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Then, why is it irrelevant now? It is still the same client.
DR. GAWLIK:I said, Your Honor, this is accumulative proof claimed by my client.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, then do we understand you, Dr. Gawlik, that you don't want another word said in this trial which my help your client a little bit more ?
DR. GAWLIK:I do not start from the assumption that questions by the prosecution are put in order to help my client.
THE PRESIDENT:No, but if accidentally he helps you, you don't have any quarrel with Mr. Walton, do you, about that?
Dr. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal holds the opinion that the answering of this question will help my client, then I withdraw my objection.
MR. WALTON:In order that I might have Dr. Gawlik feel a little better, I'll repeat my first general question, since we have given an example, and see if he can answer the general question I first put to him.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) If the kommando leader or a visitor came to Gruppen Staff Headquarters and stated his business and you knew that someone beside General Ohlendorf could help him or take care of the matter for him, my question is, would you disturb the General any way or would you take it upon yourself to refer him to the man who could help him certainly more quickly than the General could?
perhaps Dr. Gawlik won't object to that form of the question.
THE PRESIDENT:I think upon reconsideration now, he didn't object to the former question.
MR. WALTON:All right, Sir.
A.If a visitor had come, Mr. Walton, in every case I would have informed Herr Ohlendorf who was there what he wanted to discuss and then Herr Ohlendorf could have told me, "I have not time. Take the man to Herr Seibert, to Herr Ulrich," or to any other man. That would have depended on what the man wanted to discuss, but in every case I would have asked Herr Ohlendorf first. I would have told him about this man, even in the danger of being thrown out by Herr Ohlendorf myself. He wouldn't have done that at all, but I would not have assumed the authority and not let him see him on my own authority.
Q.Suppose General Ohlendorf arrived at his headquarters early that morning and he said, "Schubert, you are like St. Peter, standing outside the gates of heaven keeping them safe against the world. I am very busy this morning. I don't want to be disturbed. I have a lot of important things to do." Just about the time General Ohlendorf gets seated at his desk and deep in work, here comes a visitor. He wants to see General Ohlendorf. You question him about the nature of his business and you find out it is not quite as important as he thought it was and furthermore other people could handle the matter beside General Ohlendorf. Would you still go in, in spite of what General Ohelndorf said and disturb him and ask him if he wants to see this visitor or would you refer him to the one he wants to see?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, if I received these definite instructions to stop seeing visitors from seeing Herr Ohlendorf, I would have taken the man to Herr Seibert and said "This man really wants to see the boss, but the Chief has said he does not want to be disturbed and he is busy, would you please deal with the man." That would be the next best thing to do.
QNow, in your direct testimony yesterday, you stated that there was an unfortunate choice of language by Mr. Wartenberg used in your reference to Mr. Seibert and that you meant to say that Mr. Seibert was Chief of Department III and that he was deputy for the staff.
Now, that is correct, is it not?
AI did not hear I am sorry. -- I think it is all right now.
INTERPRETER:Would you repeat the question, please?
Q (By Mr. Walton) Yes, in your direct testimony yesterday, I believe you stated that there was an unfortunate choice of language which Mr. Wartenberg put in your affidavit; that what you meant to say was that Mr. Seibert was deputy for the Group Staff and not just Deputy of General Ohlendorf.
Did you make that statement yesterday, or words to that effect?
AYes. Mr. Prosecutors I said that Herr Seibert was the Deputy of Herr Ohlondorf in the Group Staff.
QYes, all right, now, I ask you do you recallsigning any affidavits while you were at Oberoesel?
AYes.
QAnd do you recall signing an affidavit to the effect that you listed the personnel and the duties of members of Einsatzgruppe D down through the kommando level?
AI don't remember any details, just now, but I did discuss it.
I was asked about it; What were the functions of the various officers?
That is 18 months ago. Now, I don't remember the details.
QIf you saw your signature though you would recognize it, if it appeared on such an affidavit, wouldn't you?
AOf course, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. WALTON:Page, will you hand this to him?
(By Mr. Walton)
QNow, look at the signature on that document and tell me whose it is.
AThat is my signature, Mr. Prosecutor.
QAnd what date is given on that document?
AProbably the 7th of December is meant, but it might mean 1 December 1947.
QDecember 1945? You were at Oberoesel at that time?
AYes.
QNow, what is that document, Witness?
AMay I look at it first?
QCertainly. Certainly.
AIt is the organization of Einsatzgruppe D, as it says in the heading.
QAnd that is an affidavit on that subject by yourself?
AYes, it is made out as an affidavit.
QWhat title did you give the Defendant Seibert? What's on that affidavit as Seibert's title?
AIt says here as title of Herr Seibert, "Permanent Deputy."
Q "Permanent Deputy"?
AYes.
QSo 18 months apart you call Herr Seibert "the permanent deputy of General Ohlendorf" and yesterday you said that you didn't mean to say that, but you meant to say a deputy in the staff.
Now that is twice that you have called him "the permanent deputy."
Why did you change from your affidavit yesterday?
AMr. Prosecutor, I did not think of this affidavit and this wording "permanent deputy" which I had used before.
I didn't think of it at the moment, but I would like to add here that at the time I meant nothing and I could not have mant anything but what I said yesterday, because this wording, "permanent deputy" in my opinion can only refer to what I said yesterday, that Herr Seibert was the permanent deputy of Herr Ohlendorf in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe.
QThe way you have got it written up there it means "permanent Deputy," for all questions. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for the staff. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for economic questions. You just said the all-inclusive term,"personal deputy". Why didn't you make that addition to that paper?
AMr. Prosecutor, because at the time I did not know that possibly this statement might be misunderstood. If I had known that and if I had had the opportunity to explain it in more detail, I could not have explained it any differently at the time than I could have done yesterday here.
MR. WALTON:Page, will you return the copy?
May it please the Court, at the present time this document is being prepared for introduction into evidence. In view of the fact that there was no force here that purpose during the holidays, I am forced to be a little late. I trust that I shall offer this into evidence before the close of the cross-examination and certainly before the close of the day. I would like to reserve the right to introduce it formally into evidence at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you have a copy that you can hand to Dr. Koessl so that he can be informed of its contents?
MR. WALTON:I am sorry, Sir. That will come down with the others. I have only the copy which is my own. I have a copy, but not that I can serve on him.
THE PRESIDENT:Why not let him look at it even now.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Can you remember any orders given by Seibert that resulted in the execution of a person or persons?
AMr. Prosecutor, I do not know of any such orders.
QCould he have given such orders unknown to you?
AIt is difficult for me to say what Herr Seibert could have done without my knowledge.
QThe possibility exists, though, doesn't it?
THE PRESIDENT:I don't think that's a fair question. He says he doesn't know. He can't say what Seibert could have done. Seibert could have done anything and he could have done nothing.
MR. WALTON:I withdraw the question, Your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Was it known ahead of time in Group Headquarters that an execution was scheduled for a future time?
AI don't quite understand that question. I don't quite get the sense. May I have it again, please?
QWas it over known in the Staff Headquarters that two days later or a day later an execution was scheduled to take place at a certain time and on a certain location?
AWhether it was known in the Einsatzgruppe? May I remind you of the example I gave you yesterday? But on the whole, the Einsatzgruppe only heard about executions after they had been carried out and they heard this from the kommando; in this particular case which I mentioned yesterday there were special circumstances and therefore it had been known before.
QNow, here's the question that I should like you to answer: Was such information of general knowledge to the staff or was this information restricted to only certain ones of the staff?
AAre you now talking in general or are you referring to this one case I mentioned.
QEither one. What I had in mind was when advance information about an execution came into Staff Headquarters, I would like to know whether such information was known to everyone in the staff or only to the particular persons in the staff.
AMr. Prosecutor, this question I cannot answer. I never heard what might have been known. I don't know whether everyone in the staff heard about.
QWell, I'll amend the question. Was such information known by all the officers in the staff, the SS officers, or was it known only to General Ohlendorf and yourself?
AIt is very difficult for me to answer this question, because, except for the example in Simferopol, which I mentioned myself yesterday, I do not know any definite case where the Einsatzgruppe was informed beforehand of an execution. I really cannot say if such a case had occurred who, apart from Herr Ohlendorf, would have heard of it. Unforunately, I am not able to do this.
QI think you have answered the question. You have in effect said that as a general thing you only know of executions after they happened. However, if anyone would have known of their scheduled time the likelihood is that if General Ohlendorf knew and certainly a very few other people, possibly Ohlendorf himself alone, is that what you mean to say?
AMr. Prosecutor, theoretically the possibility exists that others apart from Herr Ohlendorf heard about it. For example, it is imaginable that in this case Herr Ohlendorf informed one of the officers on the staff to inspect, but it is merely an assumption, a theoretical assumption. I don't know any definite case except the case I described yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, do you think this might be a suitable time at which to have a recess?
MR. WALTON:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. LUMMERT:Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. Your Honor, I ask the defendant Blume be excused from the session this afternoon and tomorrow morning so that he can prepare his documents.
THE PRESIDENT:In accordance with the request of counsel, the defendant Blume will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon and tomorrow morning.
BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Schubert, when General Ohlendorf ordered you to make the inspection of the execution which you saw in the neighborhood of Simferopol you did not think it was an unusual occasion to receive such an order from him, did you?
AWell, I may correct this first of all. Herr Ohlendorf did not give me the order to carry out inspections of executions as it was translated but he gave me one specific order of one inspection and that I could have thought it funny I don't understand that at all.
MR. WALTON:The translation came through "funny".
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I think that is used in the sense of strange.
MR. WALTON:Well, my question to him was that when he received this order from General Ohlendorf he didn't think it was a particularly unusual occurrence and I didn't quite understand his answer. If the Tribunal is satisfied
THE PRESIDENT:No, you may put the question again. BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Schubert, did you think that General Ohlendorf's order to you about this execution was an unusual one?
AIt was very strange for me, yes.
QDid it occur to you why you were selected to watch this execution?
AThat wasn't very difficult for me, Mr. Prosecutor. There wasn't any one else there at that time. All the other people were occupied in carrying out the execution and Herr Ohlendorf had no other choice but to give the order to me.
QThen if no one else was there at the group headquarters you sometimes were the personal representative of General Ohlendorf, weren't you?
AMr. Prosecutor, I would like to draw a clear distinction here between the purely legalistic term deputy and the fact that anyone whom Herr Ohlendorf sent anywhere is sort of a delegate or representative. One can call it a deputy but it is not the same.