QDid Seibert ever inspect an execution to you knowledge?
ADuring my time certainly not.
QDid Siebert ever discuss the subject of executions with you?
ACertainly I talked with Herr Seibert about executions in general. One could not avoid doing this, but not about any particular execution. I don't think so. Perhaps in connection with the Fuehrer order in general.
QDo you recall what was said, whether Seibert expressed himself in any way about executions?
AWhat are you referring to, Mr. Prosecutor. I said I talked to him in a general way.
QCertainly. But, I asked you next, do you recall what was said in any of these conversations? Do you recall if Mr. Seibert expressed himself that he was for executions or against executions, if he liked them or didn't like them? Did he ever make any remark about his own feeling in the matter?
AI understand you now, Mr. Prosecutor. That is the subject of any discussion possible at all and I believe not only in as far as Seibert personally is concerned but concerning everyone. I can assure you here that there was not one man who agreed to these measures and agreed to this order. But whenever these matters were discussed everybody was seriously concerned. To be sure, we were very worried about these matters and yet we were helpless and that is perhaps, to put it quite briefly, what we talked about during such discussions.
QBut you never heard Herr Seibert or any one else say that any one had the intention of not carrying out the Fuehrer order, did you?
ASuch statements I did not hear, no.
QNow - -
AIf I may add here I understand the question to mean that someone might have refused to carry out this order. I just said I understood the question to mean, whether I heard that Herr Seibert or any one else ever made statements to the effect that they would not carry out this order
QNow in Seibert's affidavit, which is in Document Book III-D, page 34 and in your document book, Mr. Schubert, on page 60, document NO-2859, Prosecution Exhibit 158, in paragraph 2 of Mr. Seibert's affi davit he states that you prepared reports from time to time.
In your comments yesterday you made some reference to this but I have foregotten what you said.
Will you repeat for my benefit what type of reports you made, how often you made them, where you sent them, and whether or not they were submitted to your chief or to the deputy chief of the staff before you sent them off?
AI testified that I never prepared the reports written by Mr. Seibert under figure 2 Of this affidavit, but that from time to time I prepared documents to be used as basis for the reports which concerned changes in personnel and location within the group.
How often I made such compilations, I cannot say.
Certainly it only occurred very rarely because conditions did not change very often during my time of service as far as garrisons and personnel are concerned.
QDid it ever revolve on you to write a report, an operational situation report, under the direction of either General Ohlendorf or Mr. Seibert?
Did you ever have that task of all?
AA situation report?
QWhat I mean by that, Mr. Schubert, is, did you ever have to take separate reports of Kommandos and compile them into a written re port in view of the fact that Mr. Seibert was away on leave or some unusual reason why Mr. Seibert couldn't make this out, did you ever have to substitute for him in drawing up or compiling these reports?
AAt no time, Mr. Prosecutor.
QThese reports that you did make out did you submit them to the group chief before sending them on?
Having him correct them or change them?
Did you submit it to the group chief?
AMr. Prosecutor, May I say first these were not reports of my own, but these were quite formal parts of a report written at the beginning of a report and I really don't know in detail whether these matters I submitted to the chief or Herr Seibert before hand.
I rather think that these documents made out by me were used by the clerk exactly as they were and that the compiled report was then signed.
QNow did you join the Hitler Youth voluntarily.
AOf course, Mr. Prosecutor.
QYou did not object to your transfer to the Party when you became of age to join did you?
AWhen being transferred to the Party, being 19 years of age at the time, I did not object to it. It never occurred to me.
QNow, did you ask for or did you seek employment in the SD for the first time. That's when you first went after you lef the lawyer's office. Did you apply for this employment or was this position offered to you?
AIt was offered to me. I reported there. I was approved and I was promised the position and I did not object to it and on that occasion I joined the SD.
QBut you went to the SD office, to make application and after the interview which proved mutually satisfactory you were given work in the SD, but you yourself went there, isn't that true.
AMr. Prosecutor when joining the SD I did it on my own initiative.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now take its afternoon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON:With permission of the Tribunal I will conclude this examination.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. WALTON:
Q.Mr. Schubert, did you over make any attempt to get released from the party?
A.No, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q.Did you ever seek to be transferred from Amt III, which is the SD, to some other amt in the RSHA?
A.I could not have made such an attempt.
Q.You could have made such an attempt prior to the outbreak of the war, couldn't you?
A.Before the war and until 1943 I was a member of Office I. I had no cause for my part, to apply for a transfer to another office of the Reich Security Main Office.
Q.Did you ever object to being transferred from office I to Office II*
A.I raised no objection and could not have raised such.
Q.Now, you were a member of the SS, were you not?
A.I was a member of the special SS formation SD.
Q.Now, you knew when you became a member of the SD you would also become a member of the SS, didn't you?
A.At the time when I joined I did not, Mr. Prosecutor, not yet.
It would have been imaginable that I could have remained a member of the Hitler Youth.
The membership in the SS formation SD was not an unconditional consequence of the membership in the SD.
Q.It didn't occur to you to object when they informed you that you were a member of the SD formation of the SS, did it?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, it never occurred to me to raise an objection against this when I was transferred from the Hitler Youth to the SS formation SD.
Q.Now, according to your service record -- May it please the court, I would like to give that citation again in case it is not before you. Document Book III-D, Page 99 of the English text, 146 of the German text, Document 3244, Prosecution's Exhibit 172. I am now about to make specific reference to page 102 in the document book, which is page 149 of the German text. It is the last page in the document book. Witness, will you indicate please, to me when you have found that page 149 of the German text?
A.I have got it, Mr. Prosecutor. It is the notice about my membership in the Hitler Youth.
Q.Well, maybe it is on a different page in your book, but I am specifically interested in the last column which says SS schools. Now, according to the information that is in my book you attended SS schools from 15 October, '36, and 26 October '38. Does that appear in your copy?
A.No, Mr. Prosecutor, this must be a mistake in the copy in your document book, because these are the dates which refer to my active service in the Army. In the original document it can certainly not be contained. I cannot imagine that it could be.
Q.Then this evidently is an error in copying, but these are the service schools or Wehrmacht schools which you attended, is that correct, and the dates, are they correct ?
A.The dates are correct, but those were no schools of the Army, but that is the Army unit with whom I served actively as a soldier.
Q.Look on page 150 of your Document Book. Now, on this page there are some dates given.
Is that a Wehrmacht school or an SS school?
A.Mr. Walton, it is neither an Army school nor an SS school, but it says here under the column "Reichs Heer" -- that is the Reich Army; and there it gives the date 15 October 1936 until the 29th of October 1938;and after that it says the -- it gives the troop unit in abbreviated from with which I served -- that is, the Armored Signal Battalion 39.
This is very clearly, simply an Army unit.
Q.I wanted to get that clear there for the benefit --- My document book and your document book are not in agreement on that point.
From my book it can be assumed that during those dates you attended some SS school, but your explanation has cleared it up.
You have testified at some length in your direct examination concernin your interrogations and particularly about matters which you allege you were not allowed to change.
When did you inform your counsel about these allegations which you made yesterday concerning changes in your affidavit?
A.I can not remember the date, Mr. Prosecutor, but at the latest it was before Mr. Wartenberg was examined here in the witness stand.
Q.Between the time you received your copy of the indictment and the time when Mr. Wartenberg was examined.
you are sure of that?
A.Yes. Yes, it must have been between those dates.
Q.And did you tell your counsel that the corrections which were made were dependent on the permission of Mr. Wartenberg?
A.I certainly told that to my attorney.
Q.And did you also tell your counsel that you intended to make certain corrections which were not approved by Mr. Wartenberg and were therefore not made?
A.Yes, I told him that, too.
Q.Well, you were present when it was determined by the Tribunal that Mr. Wartenberg would be called as a witness, were you not?
A.Yes, I was present.
Q.Did you confer with your counsel as to what questions your count should put to this witness in your behalf?
A.Yes, I discussed this with my attorney and I merely regretted very much that the announcement of this witness was given at a very late date so that we had only little occasion to discuss this, and this was especially true for me because I had extensive material to discuss with my attorney about this examination.
Q.Well, why didn't you insist that your counsel bring out matters of this correction fully for Mr. Wartenberg?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, I believe that my attorney skid Mr. Wartenberg quite Specifically Whether a discussion about this took place, between me and Mr. Wartenberg about those changes which I wanted to make.
Mr. Wartenberg Was asked about this.
Q.One question that -
A.I don't think it was only one question. Certainly there word two topics and perhaps I may quote them.
Q.Well, you were present when Mr. Wartenberg was cross examined by your counsel, Were you not?
A.Yes.
Q.Well, why didn't you insist to your counsel that he go further into those matters and go further into the facts about which you testified at great length yesterday?
A.Mr . Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that here I am represented by an official attorney whom I can not force to do this or that.
This is exclusively a matter of confidence -- a confidential matter.
I have no Way of influencing my attorney into asking certain questions.
Q.Mr. Witness, it is your case, not your attorney's case. The responsibility for your defense rests on you.
However, we will leave that.
Isn't it a fact that these topics about these corrections were dis cussed most fully with you when you were preparing your direct testimony?
THE PRESIDENT:I would like to interrupt here to say from the Bench that there is nothing in the examination conducted by Dr. Koessl which would suggest in the slightest that he did not ably, fully and comprehensively represent his client according to the best traditions of the profession.
MR. WALTON:May I continue, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, you may.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q.Didn't you discuss these topics most fully with your counsel when you were preparing your direct testimony?
A.I believe I told my attorney everything that I had to say about it.
Q.Were you satisfied with your attorney's direct examination of Mr. Wartenberg -- cross examination of Mr. Wartenberg when he was on the stand?
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Mr. Walton, I don't think that that is a question which the witness should be called upon to reply to.
He has confidence in his attorney, and his attorney presented his case.
Now, I think you can ask him any question in connection with the affidavit and what he stated here, but with regard to the relationship between client and attorney, I believe that a certain amount of deference should be shown.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, the only thing that puzzles the Prosecution in this -- and the Prosecution thoroughly agrees with the statement just made from the Bench -- but we are still puzzled as to why certain extraneous matters came out yesterday concerning these interrogations which were never asked -- put to Mr. Wartenberg when he was on the stand and they only came out when they know that he can't be recalled, when he is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
Those are the matters which I want to probe into.
INTERPRETER LEA:Will you please repeat that. Just the last portion.
MR. WALTON:When the matters concerning these interrogations were brought out for the first time and were not sifted from Mr. Wartenberg when he was on the stand, it is extremely puzzling to the Prosecution that they should come out at this opportunity when Mr. Wartenberg is now beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
And I desire to probe into them to see whether or not they are second thoughts of the defendant, so to speak, appearing after the opportunity of the cross examination of Mr. wartenberg has passed.
That is my only intent behind this series of questions.
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, I want to just give an explanation to this.
I asked Mr. Wartenberg about everything. I knew about these interrogations.
Rather, what I knew about the interrogation I did ask Mr. Wartenberg here, and as to what was discussed here beyond that yesterday were only matters which the witness was asked.
But we would have never asked these questions in such a crude form.
I was of the opinion at that time that it was completel sufficient in order to indicate everything which is necessary and I asked Mr. Wartenberg the question whether he had threatened the witness or not.
I do not know any point which I did not discuss.
MR.Walton: The point which I am not satisfied about and which impressed me yesterday was the exchange between this witness who was at that time an interrogatee concerning the changes in his affidavit.
I read last night -- I don't have it before me now -- the questions which Dr. Koessl asked the witness Warternberg.
They were germane, they were pertinent, but I saw nothing in there, sir, concerning the refusal of the Prosecution' agent for this witness to make changes in his affidavit.
And that is what I want to get to the bottom of.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, I know that you are disposed to be entirely fair about this, and we would like to submit this observation, that Dr. Koessl Proceeded with the material that he had at hand, and it must be admitted that Mr. Wartenberg was brought into court without notice of a great length of time, so that defense counsel may not have had an opportunity to delve into every little angle of questioning which could be put to Mr. Wartenberg.
At any rate, this is something which the Prosecution may argue at the proper time.
We doubt that much can be elicited from the witness in interrogating him about matters which have to do with the relatio ship between client and counsel.
Now, he has given the explanation that the wasn't much time allowed for a conference with his attorney on all features of the questioning.
Dr. Koessl did question at some length, and the record shows that.
I don't think that much can be gained by probing into "Why wasn't this question put?"
and "Why wasn't that question put?"
MR. WALTON:Sir, the Prosecution is only interested in knowning tha Such an important feature as the ability to make changes and the fact that he testified at great length yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT:He gave an explanation yesterday. The probative value of that explanation of course is to be evaluated eventually, but that is the explanation that he made, and even if the question had been put to Mr. Wartenberg it would still remain to the defendant to explain why he didn't make those changes in the affidavit.
Well, it is suggested by Judge Spade:
Of course, you have the right to inquire into it, and you have inquired into it; in your very cross examination you go into that.
If there is any other question you wish to put, the Tribunal will permit it, but we do not look with favor on any question which seems to cast a reflection on this relationship between attorney and client.
MR. WALTON:I appreciate the fact, your Honor, and since it is such thin ground, I wish to be entirely ethical in the matter.
I leave the evaluation of the testimony as against the actual affidavit so far as its probative value to the court, where it belongs.
Now, if your Honor please, I wish at this time to follow a state ment which I made this morning concerning the introduction of the signed affidavit of the defendant and present witness, Heinz Schubert.
I be lieve the record will show that later on during the day I was to Intro duce this affidavit.
Diligent Inquiry has resulted in the fact that this is the only signed copy available.
A check with the document room shows that.
Therefore, the Prosecution will have to reprocess this doc ument.
However, I now move that the German copy be introduced and that an exhibit number be reserved for this document and that when the court has the English copy that can be followed by the court, that counsel re serve its objection to such time.
I will serve notice on all interested counsel that the document is in the proper form for introduction, but I would, since it is the only copy available, put it in the archives of the court with its proper exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, well then you may ask that an exhibit num ber be assigned to it, or perhaps you already know the present exhibit number, or Mr. Hab can tell you.
SECRETARY (MR. Nab): 193.
THE PRESIDENT:Has Mr. Nab furnished the number?
SECRETARY (Mr. Nab): 193.
MR. WALTON:Your Honors, at this time I offer, subject to ob jection by the defense, Document No. 5111 as Prosecution's Exhibit 193, with the reservation which the court has so kindly allowed me to have.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, the Exhibit number will be assigned but the exhibit is actually act before the Tribunal until the necessary transla tions are made and copies are furnished to all the parties concerned.
MR. WALTON:At this time, your Honor, the Prosecution has no fur ther questions,except I should like very much to thank the witness for his cooperation with the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, Dr. Koessel, do you have any redirect Examination.
WITNESS HEINZ SCHUBERT:May I say something, your Honor, before Mr. Koessel starts?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, by all means.
WITNESS HEINZ SCHUBERT:First of all, I would like to defend my attorney as far as the point which was discussed before is concerned.
My attorney actually did ask Mr. Wartenberg in the cress examination whether in the interrogation transcript of Mr. Wartenberg there were remarks in it to the effect that a discussion took place about this.
"The tran scription shows that I wanted to make corrections.
" I would like to print out merely that Mr. Walton objected to Mr. Wartenberg should have to answer this question and it was said that the defendant Schubert can clarity any etails which happened in the interrogation later.
But this possibility did not occur until yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT:I want to say, Witness, that your apprenticeship in a lawyer's office has developed to be a great assistance to you in your trial.
DR.KOESSL: your Honor, my colleague, Dr. Aschenauer, has asked me to put two questions which have come up in this cross examination, and I would like to ask these for Dr. Aschenauer with the permission of the court.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY DR. KOESSL
Q.Witness, concerning the question of the prosecutor whether Braune and Nosske's successor received directives outside of these given by Ohlendorf; I would like to ask you, do you know specifically that Braune and Nosske and Nosske's successor received instructions from Ohlendorf?
A.No, I do not Know this specifically at all.
Q.Furthermore, do you know the contents of the discussion between two officers and Ohlendorf and Nosske? Do you know it specifically?
A.No.
DR. KOESSL:I personally have only a few questions.
Q.First of all, was Ohlendorf, On the day on which you were in Simferopel, or, rather, on the day when you witnessed the execution in Simferopel, was Ohlendorf himself in Simferopel on that day?
A.Yes.
Q.What did Ohlendorf do on that day?
A.I was not with Herr Ohlendorf at that time. I can not say. I merely heard that Herr Ohlendorf too inspected this execution on that day.
DR. KOESSL:Thank you, your honor, I have no further questions.
DR. GAWLIK:Gawlik for Seibert. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.Witness, I submit to you once more exhibit 193 , Document no. 5111.
WITNESS:Which book please, Dr. Gawlik?
Q.Please read out what it says under Roman numeral VIII, the first word.
A. "Einsatzgroup Staff."
Q.But what does it say about the co-defendant Seibert?
A. "Permanent representative."
Q.To what did that statement "permanent representative" refer?
A.To the "Einsatz Group Staff," because that is where it appears.
MR. WALTON:I want to object to that question and the answer by the defendant on the grounds that the document itself is the highest and best evidence, and that anything that he should say in answer to that question would be his opinion, when it is up to the Tribunal itself to evaluate the probative value of the document.
We do not have a copy of that, your Honor.
That is the Document No. 5111, which I just spoke About.
DR. GAWLIK:Your Honor, I have this to say. In general the doc ument is the best piece of evidence, but not when an affidavit is given.
Then the witness is the best proof, because only the witness can say what he meant to express and what he actually wanted to say.
MR. WALTON:Perhaps the translation was wrong, but that wasn't the question which came over the first time--the one I objected to.
THE PRESIDENT:Let us have the question again, Dr. Gawlik, please.
MR. WALTON:The Prosecution is perfectly aware that Dr. Gawlik can ask this witness what he meant when he wrote it, or what was in his mind when he wrote it, what he intended to say, but in my humble opin ion, sirs, is that he can net ask him, "what does that document mean now?"
or "What does one gather from thatdocument?" or "what does it say?"
The *---* The witness can make a statement in Which he says, "I ride on a black horse."
Then he could say later on, "I really meant I ride on a write horse."
Then it is up to the listener to de termine whether it was a black or a white horse.
You get in to the realm of what is probable and what is logical.
Would a man say he rode on a black horse when he meant a white horse?
But every person is en titled to explain what he said and what he did.
The reasonableness of the explanation always being in the hands and in the mind of the per son who has to adjuicate the declaration, so that Dr. Gawlik is al lowed to ask that question.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, as I pointed out, we have no object ion to his asking what he meant when he wrote it, which follows your very well put example, but Dr. Gawlik asked him, "What did the docu ment say?"
That is what I object to --That form.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, let's have the question again.
DR. GAWLIK:I merely wanted to say the following: your Eonor It is the same question which the prosecutor has asked.
Therefore, I also ask that the question of the Prosecutor be stricken from the record, because the Prosecutor submitted the document to the witness and had him read from it, "a permanent representative." Then that is also admissible.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, whatever Mr. Walton was permitted to do, you are permitted to do, so no one is hurt. So put the question, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) What did you mean to express by the statement, "Seibert, Permanent Representative."
AI mean to express by this phrasing, what I actually expressed was what was the actual case. Seibert was the Permanent Representative in the Group Staff of Einsatgruppe D.
QI how far was Seibert not the permanent representative?
AHe was not the permanent representative beyond the sphere of the Einsatzgruppe Staff.
QWas Seibert the permanent representative within the Group?
ANo.
QDoes this phrasing come from you? Did you dictate that yourself?
AI typed it up myself without anyone telling me what to write. It is a completely voluntary statement.
QIn your cross-examination you have testified that Seibert had passed on letters to the kommando leaders when Ohlendorf was absent, is that correct?
Did I understand you correctly?
AI don't know whether I said passed on " or whether I said that Herr Seibert, during Ohlendorf absence, dispatched letters to the various kommandos.
QDo you know what kind of letters these were, what contents they had?
ANo, I don't know any more today.
QDid these letters refer to any kind of execution measures, especially to the execution of Jews, Gypsies, Communist functionaries?
AI know of no such letters.
QYou have further stated in your cross_examination that in Ohlendorf's absence the kommando leaders discussed matters with Herr Seibert. Did I understand you correctly?
AI think so, yes.
QDo you know what kind of matters these were which the kommando leaders discussed with Seibert?
ANo, I wasn't present.
QDid Seibert have any power of command towards the kommando leader?
AAs far as I know, he had no power of command.
QYou also stated in your cross-examination that the execution in Simferopol was the only one which had been previously known in the Group Staff. Did I understand you correctly?
ANo, not quite. I cannot say, of course, anything about the time before I got there, but during my own time there I don't remember any second case.
QWas Seibert then with the Group Staff?
ANo, he was not there at that time.
QWhere was Seibert at the time?
AHe was in Berlin on furlough.
DR. GAWLIK:Thank you. I have no further question.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWitness, we've allowed counsel frequently to ask an irrelevant question so the Tribunal is going to avail itself of that privilege and ask an entirely irrelevant question:
Were your forebearers related to Franz Peter Schubert?
AYou mean the composer, Schubert?
QNot directly, but there is one branch which can be traced to that line, yes.
QI presume you are quite proud of the fact that you can trace in some way a connection back to that great figure in musical history.
AYour Honor, I am certainly proud of the fact that I have a relationship to a great German, yes.
QWas he a German or an Austrian?
AHe was a German.
QWell, as I say, this is entirely irrelevant, but your name just naturally aroused that curiosity.
Witness, going back to this affidavit which has caused a great deal of discussion, we wonder how the name Seibert ever got into this affidavit, unless you used it yourself in your discussion with Wartenberg, referring to Paragraph 3.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, will you give the document number, please.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, the document number is 3055 Q (By the president) Did you mention the name to Wartenberg?
AYour Honor, I am not quite certain and I said that yesterday too whether in the interiorrogation of the 18th of February, which lead to this affidavit whether I mentioned the name of Seibert. It is even possible that is used this phrasing, "Ohlendorf or Seibert" at the moment, but that I corrected myself later on after I thought about the contents of the interrogation quite thoroughly and at that time it occured to me quite suddenly again that Herr Seibert was not there at that time.
QCan you still tell us, but very briefly just what were your duties as an Adjutant?
AWitness: With the Einsatzgruppe, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, yes.
AI said yesterday already that as Adjutant my duties were not very extensive. As chief of the orderly room I had much more to do and the designation of Adjutant I only listed in order not to be suspected of omitting one of my jobs; I only had to make the appointments, to receive the visitors, and occasionally to furnish maps for the Commanding General for his trips, to mark down the route, and to make out accounts of trips and I think that those were all my duties as an Adjutant. Of course, I fullfilled a few private requests of Herr Ohlendorf, but I would like to repeat once again what I said yesterday. Herr Ohlendorf did not like any kind of servants around him. Thus I was not his valet, but I did do a few personal things for him and then I was also given the direction of the orderly room.
QVery well. Coming back to the affidavit, Document No. 3055, and calling attention to paragraph 4, we will ask, were the persons who were to be taken out of the gypsy quater informed that they were to be resettled? Is that what they were told?
AI do not know for certain what these people were told, but I think I must answer this question in the affirmative in this case, because that was customary, generally.
QYes, if they were going to be resettled then that would mean that the entire family in each instance would be resettled, wouldn't it?
AYes, Your Honor.
QYes. Then that would mean that the women and children would go along also, wouldn't it?
AYes, Your Honor, as far as they were available, yes.
QThen, were women and children actually taken to the execution Place?
AI said today, Your Honor, that personally saw no women and no children at the execution site, but at the place where they were gathered there were women and children.
QAnd some were loaded aboard trucks?
AYes, Your Honor.
QIt just happaened then when you got to the execution site that there were no women and children there actually being executed or being prepared for execution
AAt that moment there was none.
QYes. Now, Witness, you have indicated, have you, all the corrections which you desire to make in this affidavit? have you?
AYes, Your Honor. I think I have said all about them I wanted to say.
QNow we will call your attention again to that paragraph 4. I will read, " I went to the gypsy quarter of Simferopol and Supervised"-
and we understand your correction of that word -- "the loading of the persons who were to be shot into a truck. I took care that the loading was completed as quickly as possible and that there were no disturbances and unrest by the native population."
Now, I call your attention to the phrase, "took care."
AYour Honor, I think I said yesterday that in place of this phrasing "I took care" it should say, "I convinced myself of the fact, because actually there was nothing for me to take care of.
QYou were present, at least, at one loading, weren't you?
AYes.
QAnd did you direct them loading and see that it was done in a proper manner?
ANo, Your Honor, I did not have that order. Two offices were Present for that purpose who did these things.
QNow, the phrase in the German is, -- I know I won't pronounce it correctly, "Icj sorgte dafuer," yes, now that translated into English is, "I took care," which very clearly indicates that you were concerned about seeing that it was done properly. It was more than merely watching, but you were careful to see that it was done properly. "I took care". How can you now limit it to merely watching.